Post-Debate Analysis

Thursday evening, AARP and Iowa Public Television cosponsored a Democratic presidential debate focusing on health care and economic security. There were no major position switches, although a few candidates used the event as an opportunity to unveil new policy proposals (I got press releases about proposals affecting retirees and/or health care from both Edwards and Richardson today).

The stakes tonight were relatively low, given the small audience, and candidates looked far less rehearsed. In many ways, it was the most interesting, informative debate yet. Two candidates came off the best:

Sen. Joe Biden is the AARP. Tonight’s debate was the context he needed to demonstrate to America what makes him a good campaigner. His style and the informal nature of the debate made him come across as the candidate on stage who deserved the most respect, and also as the candidate with the strongest opinions. He reverted to 1988’s Joe Biden, because many AARP members remember the Senator from back then, and they liked him.

Sen. John Edwards wanted retirees to know he was telling the truth. He answered questions directly, but he emphasized the need for restoring trust in the presidency. His closing statement focused almost exclusively on his trustworthiness. This is a message that could play quite well to the audience, and he was the only candidate to play it up the way that he did.

One candidate did not fare as well: Gov. Bill RIchardson continued his “one point plan” strategy, whereby his plans are merely his goals. He has improved in these debates to the point that his laundry lists of goals (one might call them “This is what I would do’s”) have become specific-sounding enough to make him look like a policy wonk. But under the moderator’s appropriate scrutiny on her “How will you pay for it?” questions, the cognitive dissonance between Richardson’s proposed “balanced budget amendment” and his claims that the government should spend the money it’s spending in Iraq on health care shone through.

Richardson successfully inserted himself into almost every topic of discussion (something Edwards may not have done enough of in the second half), but each time, he just listed more “this is what I would do’s.” One wondered whether he knew that he wasn’t actually engaging in a policy debate with the others on stage.

Senators Dodd and Clinton both turned in good performances. Dodd’s closing statement smartly zeroed in on the interest retirees might have in their children’s and grandchildren’s future. He talked about the Family and Medical Leave Act as much as he possibly could, which also played well with the crowd.

Clinton deflected Edwards’s criticism that her campaign released a health care plan much later than Edwards did by using a line that was self-deprecating on face but was really a dig at everyone else: “It was pretty lonely,” she said, when she advocated for universal health care over a decade ago. This is the strategy her campaign will continue to use in light of their perception that a female candidate has to be self-deprecating at all times or she will come off as ’shrill.’

Conventional wisdom (because David Yepsen already blogged it) is that Sen. Barack Obama was the big loser of the night, because he didn’t show up. But conventional wisdom is wrong. Had Obama been at the forum, there would have been a first tier candidate with a health care plan different from all the others on the stage, and the whole thing would have devolved into a ‘mandatory coverage’ versus ‘non-mandatory coverage’ debate. Without Obama there, Edwards just tried to go after Clinton.

In general, the Obama campaign’s choice to skip non-sanctioned debates is smart because of the campaign they are trying to run. The non-sanctioned debates are often sponsored by interest groups who are looking for specific, “red meat” policy proposals, and the Illinois Senator is not the kind of candidate who dishes those out.

At least so far, the Obama campaign’s policy proposals have been less than ideal in the eyes of the Democratic base (think: tax cuts, residual forces, cap and trade, and non-mandatory health care). Obama is a strong candidate when his speeches can remain fairly academic, and when he can explain his policy proposals and the reasons for them fully. In a duel of soundbites, Obama seldom outperforms expectations.

None of the candidates at the debate came away looking bad. But if Obama had shown up, the dynamic would have been completely different.