The Debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Like so many things in life, last week's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada can be assessed in terms of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good:

Without a doubt, Nevada's introduction to the national political landscape was highly successful.  The debate garnered the highest viewership of any pre-nomination presidential debate.  UNLV and the city of Las Vegas proved to be excellent hosts to the candidates and their campaigns, as well as the throngs of national and international media outlets that descended on the valley for the week.  And the enthusiasm surrounding the debate and its ancillary events should provide the state Democratic Party with the energy and resources to effectively execute its caucus plan next January.  All of this, in turn, puts further pressure on state Republicans to counter the momentum that the state's Democratic apparatus continues to gather.

Although some may have been dissatisfied with the lack of Nevada specific questions and responses, the debate did provide voters with the opportunity to evaluate the candidates in terms of differences in style, background, and vision for the future.  For those who have already chosen their candidate, the debate in all likelihood served to solidify those preferences.

From my perspective, the performance of Joe Biden was clearly the best of the night.  Biden demonstrated the depth of his knowledge of both domestic and foreign policy issues that comes from his thirty-four plus years in the United State Senate; he sought to cut through the media divide by connecting the campaign to the needs, fears, and concerns of the non-political class who might have been tuning in; and Biden was clearly comfortable in his own skin, something that noticeably distinguished him from many of his opponents on the stage.  Too bad for Biden, the media and pundits have already written him off as an also ran.

Of course, the winner of the debate was the front-runner Hillary Clinton.  By not falling into any of the traps that CNN attempted to set for her (see below) and by quickly slicing through the holes in her two main opponents' rhetoric, Clinton regained the mojo (as more than one media outlet put it) that she was presumed to have lost in the prior debate.  Thus, assuming that she goes on to secure the nomination, Hillary should always have a soft spot for the Silver State

 
The Bad: 

At the same time, Clinton's mistake-proof performance and her campaign's strong presence at the post debate Clark County Jefferson-Jackson dinner may work against the state's January caucuses.  By capturing nearly all key Democratic endorsements and continuing to maintain her twenty plus point lead in the state (not to mention her over flowing campaign coffers), it may quickly dawn on many of her opponents (and potential caucus goers) that Nevada is no longer competitive.  Thus, we may see the other Democrats in the field follow the lead of John Edwards and Bill Richardson and transfer more of their resources from Nevada to other more competitive early states. 

The most off-putting element of the entire debate, however, was the transparent need of CNN to push its predetermined narrative of Edwards and Barack Obama versus Hillary at every turn.  Indeed, the first indicator of what laid in store could be found in the network's pre-debate full page national newspaper advertisement warning that "they've warmed up...tonight the gloves come off."  Certainly, Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown, and John Roberts did everything they could to make sure the candidates stayed within this narrative no matter what.

The end result was a series of predictable questions about campaign tactics and past attacks that illuminated absolutely nothing, numerous set-ups that were clearly designed to get Edwards and Obama to attack Clinton, and a string of yes or no gotcha questions that presumed that fixing such multi-faceted problems as immigration or social security could be accomplished by yes or no responses.  Fortunately for the viewers, except for at the out-set, the candidates chose not to take CNN's bait and instead, largely focused on substance.

 
The Ugly:

CNN also was guilty of engineering the most talked about moment in the debate:  the diamonds versus pearls question asked by Maria Parra-Sandoval, a UNLV political science student, which closed the debate.  The ugliness of the reaction to the question was amazing if not predictable. 

Immediately, Maria was criticized for asking such a stupid and sexist question that reflected poorly on UNLV.  I thought that she could have done better (disclosure:  I have taught her in two classes and was one of the faculty members who recommended her as a debate question asker) given that she is one of the brightest and most capable students in our program until she sent out an email on Friday explaining that the question was essentially orchestrated by CNN producers (CNN rejected her issue based questions and chose the now notorious question because it might be light and fun). 

After that, the media conspirators began to run amok.  Was this an attempt by CNN to provide Hillary Clinton with an opportunity to show her human side?  Why weren't the other candidates allowed to answer?  Is it because CNN knows that she is going to win the nomination and the network wants to give her every advantage going into the general election?  After all, CNN is the most trusted name in news (by liberals).  Oh, and hadn't she interned for Senator Harry Reid?  He must have had something to do with this!  And what is this about her family coming to the United States from Mexico?  No wonder the Democratic candidates run like the wind from the immigration issue....