Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Debate Recap: Well, That Was Anticlimactic

Usually, it’s the process questions that produce sparks at debates. Networks rely on questions about flag pins, VP picks, and radical hippie friends, because they reveal differences in character rather than policy. So in a primary like this one, where there aren’t many discernible policy differences (besides social security payroll taxes, obviously), process questions are the choice du jour if you want some made-for-TV fireworks.

The problem is, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton went for the bait. Unsurprisingly, both candidates said the other could beat John McCain. Both said the Democratic Party would unite around the nominee. Both delivered stump-speech pitches to hypothetical superdelegates at the end of the debate.

Even when things had the potential to get dicey, they simmered down quickly. Obama explained away his “bitter” remarks, and Clinton said she merely called his comments elitist—not Obama himself. Clinton started to get huffy puffy about Rev. Wright, but Obama reiterated the same defense that helped him wriggle out of the ordeal in the first place. On Clinton’s Bosnia misspeak, Obama was somnambulant while he hoped Clinton tripped herself up trying to explain the gaffe away.

But after the first hour, ABC seemed to run out of process questions and had to turn to (sigh) policy. It wasn’t until 9:04 p.m. that a question was asked about the economy—the issue that half of all Pennsylvanians care about most (PDF). Once we finally got around to hashing out the issues, we lingered on an obscure stipulation involving old people, tax ceilings, and a bunch of stuff the American people—and, to be honest, your humble blogger—doesn’t fully understand. Iraq was barely touched, and when it was, neither moderator pushed Obama on Samantha Power’s comments that he wouldn’t actually pull out troops if the generals told him not to. Fringe(ish) issues like gun control and affirmative action were raised instead of the heartier (and, frankly, more pressing) issues mentioned above. The climate crisis once again took a back seat, even though a question was asked on rising gas prices. Last time we checked, they’re sort of intertwined.

ABC should have realized its mistake before Charlie and George sat down in front of those wooden lecterns. As they reminded us, it’s been five weeks since the last primaries, six since the last debate. Since then, all we’ve heard are process stories—Rev. Wright, Bosnia, and small-town embitterment. Those issues were hashed out beyond the debate floor, and it was time to turn the attention back to policy. Debate after debate, the candidates have shown they’re more comfortable debating policy than process. The moderators should have followed suit. Sure, policy questions don't lead to fireworks—but at least you don't get duds like tonight.

Decoding the Debate

Take a deep breath—all of the Democratic debates are over; 20 up, 20 down, and assuming there aren't any more debates going forward, that's the last time we'll see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the same room for a while. Strangely, that’s both a relief and a disappointment. Outside of actual primaries, no other event offered more potential for narrative-changing storylines. But debates also invited us media folk to inject too much punditry into the news cycle about moments the general public doesn’t actually care about.

Important distinctions were voiced at Tuesday’s debate, but not all of them were immediately familiar. With all of the arguing over NAFTA, leaked photographs, and media bias, who has the time to follow the endorsements from the Nation of Islam? Here’s a summary and some recommended reading on a few topics that are likely to carry the post-debate news agenda:

Louis Farrakhan: Earlier this week, the leader of the Nation of Islam all but endorsed Obama. But it’s an endorsement no candidate wanted—Farrakhan has insulted Judaism and crafted CIA conspiracy theories in the past. The endorsement is especially messy for Obama, who has long struggled to convince the Jewish community that he’s a supporter of Israel. That’s not to mention the complications it could bring by furthering rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has long said he does not approve of Farrkhan’s comments and reiterated that he did not solicit his endorsement at the debate. Also of note: Obama’s church leader, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, once said Farrakhan “epitomized greatness.” This gets worse for Obama with every extra second of airtime. He can’t denounce—or reject—Farrakhan enough. Recommended reading: Belief Net, PBS, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Dimitry Medvedev: The 42-year-old Russian deputy prime minister will almost surely become the country’s president this weekend, but it may not mean much. Vladimir Putin is stepping down from the presidency but assuming the role of prime minister, and will probably have the same amount of power as he did when he was president. There are some hints that Medvedev could be friendlier to democracy than Putin, but it’s still unclear how their power-sharing dynamic will operate. Clinton was asked to name Russia’s soon-to-be premier at the debate, and managed a garbled version of Medvedev that sounded like she had taken one too many shots of former-Soviet vodka with John McCain. But we doubt Obama could have done much better—he looked to her as the question was asked, suggesting he wanted her to take the lead. As attention oscillates between Russia and China in foreign policy circles, both candidates’ lack of knowledge was unimpressive, to say the least. Fun fact: Medvedev loves Black Sabbath. Maybe he’ll invite Ozzy to the Kremlin. Recommended reading: Economist, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Slate.

Money, money, money: Both candidates got snagged by fiscal transparency during the debate. First, Tim Russert checked in on Obama's original pledge that he'd take public funds if his opponent did. John McCain has suggested he might take public financing, which has forced Obama to show his hand—and it's a different one than it used to be. Obama wouldn't say whether he was willing to commit to public funds at the debate, saying he'd sit down with McCain and hash out something fair to both of them. Russert also returned to another favorite subject—Clinton family transparency. After Hillary Clinton admitted she loaned herself $5 million, there were calls for her to make her and Bill's tax returns public, so voters could see where the money came from. Hillary said she'll do it—just not any time soon. Both candidates wriggled out of Russert's questions, but not before both issues' profiles were raised another notch. Recommended reading: New York Times, Trailhead, Telegraph.

19 and Counting

Hard to believe, but it’s been three weeks since we huddled around the TV to watch Barack, Hillary, and Wolf chitchat on a garishly blue and red stage. This is the 19^th debate, so if you’re having trouble motivating yourself to watch, it’s understandable. (Especially considering Lost starts smack-dab in the middle of it for the second debate in a row. Trailhead has confirmed that Obama is not a member of the Oceanic 6. But I digress …) But just think, you’ve come this far. You might as well finish ‘em off.

1. Early voting has begun—Underreported story line alert! Texas has already started to vote, and turnout is huge—10 times huger than 2004 in some parts. Considering people are already voting and polls suggests it’s anybody’s state, this debate has more significance than most. At other forums, the voters almost always had at least a few days to think about their impressions before they cast their votes. Now, Texans can run out to the polls first thing in the morning to cast their ballot. (Early voting ends Feb. 29.) The stakes aren’t just high, they’re pressing.
2. Obama’s the frontrunner—now what? The knock against Obama at these debates has always been that he stays above the fray and is unwilling to mix it up. Now that he’s the man in charge, isn’t that what he’s supposed to do? If Hillary gets nasty and Obama responds in kind, then he’s an ungracious leader. But if he’s too cocky and doesn’t engage, the pundits will say he couldn’t stop the Hillary uprising when he had the chance. Ah, politics.
3. Do issues even matter anymore? After this many debates, there doesn’t seem to be much more ground to cover, issues-wise. And the candidates themselves have largely abandoned issues to talk about who would be the best leader of the country, who would be ready on Day 1, and who would be stronger against John McCain. Tonight, expect issues to be window-dressing on the more contentious—and dare we say substantive—differences between the two Democrats.
4. Latino love—Considering her other demographic stalwarts are fleeing, Clinton needs Hispanic voters now more than ever. Obama, meanwhile, has powered his way up the polls without broad-based Latino support. If Hillary overcourts Latinos, Obama could fill the void for white voters. If Obama, meanwhile, doesn’t pander to Latinos, any inroads he’s made in the community could evaporate. Look for more of the same, here.
5. Will Hillary be a meanie? Now that she’s finally at a debate with Obama, will she remind him (and the millions watching) that he didn’t want to debate her elsewhere? If so, can Obama respond without flubbing his retort? Clinton may also use this as her launching pad for further attacks against Obama’s record. Thus far, we don’t know what her tone will be over the next two weeks—tonight we’ll find out.

Live from Hollywood: The Duo Debates

Hello and welcome to a live-blog of the Democratic throwdown. If you aren't watching Lost, you'll be treated to a live-blog of the debate from inside the Kodak Theater. First impressions as the photo pool takes some pictures:

• The CNN set looks much comelier in person than it does on TV. They've also got some pretty fancy translucent-topped desks.
• Wolf Blitzer is personable off-camera. He incorporated Kazhakstan into one of his jokes to warm up a crowd.
  
• Ryan Seacrest is nowhere in sight. Nor is Oscar.
  

The GOP Rests

Just because we didn’t live-blog doesn’t mean we didn’t watch the debate. For what it’s worth, we’re adding our belated thoughts to the cacophony of instant reaction. The executive summary: Nobody screwed up, only Romney helped himself.

John McCain: When did John McCain become slightly senile? His prolonged spat with Mitt Romney about Mitt’s non-support of an Iraq timetable made McCain look like a desperate slanderer. Considering he’s the undisputed frontrunner, McCain’s whole strategy was nuts. As my Trailhead colleague Mr. Beam pointed out, he's the senile grandfather you let prattle on because its too sad to tell him to shut up. Another McCain highlight of the night was watching him go out of his way to send some love to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Word leaked that Ahnold is endorsing Johnny Mac tomorrow, so there was no chance McCain was going to disagree with him on fuel-efficiency federalism. If Anderson Cooper had some stones, he would have asked McCain whether the Governator was going to endorse him. 

Mitt Romney: Mitt was sharper than a Mormon steeple tonight. He offered something for all three Reagan-coalition constituencies. The social conservatives got a gay-marriage ban shout-out (an issue that has disappeared from this cycle). The national security conservatives saw Romney mount an effective rebuttal to McCain’s baseless withdrawal claims. In case fiscal conservatives didn’t already know it, Romney knows what’s up when it comes to the economy. When McCain attacked Romney’s record in Massachusetts, Romney yanked stats out of his brain that only an economic cyborg can remember. With Reagan’s Air Force One as your backdrop, pandering to the Reagan coalition is a good idea—no matter how tacky that plane looked.

Mike Huckabee: This was an ugly debate for the Huckster. What makes Huck such an effective debater is his ability to use his quips as a gateway into important policy points. Tonight Huck didn’t do that. His best Huckism was a long-winded stat about sitting in traffic that didn’t fully connect to his policy point: that fixing the nation’s infrastructure would stimulate the economy. Plus, he pulled it off better at a fundraiser earlier in the day. When Romney and McCain started bickering about Iraq timetables, Huckabee might as well have been wearing a cloak of invisibility. When he actually spoke, Huckabee complained about not getting a chance to speak—always a faux pas. 

Ron Paul: Poor Paul. Cooper gave Dr. No the silent treatment all night. At one point Cooper cut Paul off while he was trying to answer two questions in one. Cooper promised Paul would get another chance to speak “coming up in like two minutes or two questions.” To be fair, Cooper honored his word, but then cut him off again later in the evening. At one point Paul recoiled from being cut off, arched an eyebrow, and cocked his head a bit as he stopped himself from staring Cooper down. On a related note, I don’t remember the last time Paul was off-message at a debate. Sure, he’s been reduced to a sideshow (fairly or not), but at least it’s a consistent one.

Whisperers Anonymous

Did George Bush pass his bulge down to Mitt Romney? In 2004, Bush infamously had a giant, microphonelike bump on his back during a debate against John Kerry. Rumors were flying that Bush had a direct line to Karl Rove during the debate and that Rove was feeding him answers to the questions (even though Bush turned in a terrible performance). Last night, Bush’s Bulge begat a cousin: the Romney Whisper.

At last night’s debate, Tim Russert asked Romney if he would follow Reagan’s example on Social Security. Russert was careful not to tell Romney that Reagan raised taxes to help Social Security funds, so somebody else tried to tell Romney instead. After Russert finishes his question, a Lost-like whisper is heard that mutters, “Raise taxes.” Romney answered that he would not raise taxes, and then Russert giddily informed him that that’s not the case. 

We asked MSNBC why the whisper came through, and MSNBC’s spokesman responded via e-mail.

We heard the same thing you heard. There was obviously an open mike which picked up the whisper, but we have no way of knowing who did the whispering.

So, who is the whisperer? Three schools of thought reign in the blogosphere:

1. It was a Romney staffer trying to talk to Romney.
2. It was a producer trying to talk to Russert.
3. It was another candidate whispering the answer to himself or his neighbor.

But forget about what us bloggers think. Decide for yourself after watching the clip at Slate V. 

With Alex Joseph.

Debate: Does a Shaky Economy Help Paul?

Everybody seems to think that a faltering economy helps Mitt Romney because of Romney's Bain Capital past. Romney, reason says, made money himself, so he can make the country some money. That's all fine and good, but what about Ron Paul?

Paul, of course, has been trying to be the canary in economic coal mine for months now. When Brian Williams asked him whether the government has a role in stimulating the economy, Paul started his answer with solid conservative logic: Lower taxes, fix the dollar, and deregulate the hell out of everything. It sounded great until he started talking about those pesky foreign-policy views of his. Once Paul started saying the war in Iraq and the fight against terror are reasons for the potential recession, he lost the fiscal conservatives in the audience. While Paul doesn't need to hide his beliefs, he also doesn't need to include all of them in every one of his answers. If he keeps his anti-war, semi-isolationist foreign-policy views separate from his economic talk, his menu looks pretty good: an entree for fiscal conservatives and dessert for anti-war independents. But when he mixes them together, the dish starts to look unappetizing.

Recommended Reading

During tonight's cat fight, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rehashed a slew of issues from months past. No reason to be embarrassed if you had no idea what they were talking about; we're here to help. Here's a primer on tonight's hot discussion topics so you can sound smart at work tomorrow.

• Tony Rezko (a.k.a. the "slum lord"): Rezko was a Chicago landlord, political fundraiser, and Obama friend. Rezko was indicted on corruption charges and his trial is set to begin on Feb. 25. Obama has said Rezko raised at least $60,000 for him throughout his entire political career, more than $10,000 of which was given to his senate campaign fund. (Obama donated those monies to charity once Rezko was indicted.) Rezko's corruption charges has led some to call him a slumlord. 

• "Present" votes: Clinton and John Edwards both scolded Obama for his "present" votes in the Illinois state senate that allowed him to show up for a vote but not commit to an aye or nay. This was a minor problem for Obama before the Iowa caucuses, with both of his opponents saying it showed Obama lacked the courage to take a stand on tough issues. Some of Obama's present votes were on hot-button issues like abortion or sex-shops. Obama maintains that it's common practice in the Illinois senate. Recommended reading: New York Times, Chicago Tribune.

• Obama's "party of ideas" and Reagan comments: Before the Nevada caucuses, Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal's editorial board that he thought the Republican party was the "party of ideas" and that Reagan "changed the trajectory of America...in a way that Bill Clinton did not." Needless to say, that didn't sit well with other Democrats, and the comments have since been misquoted over and over again.   Recommended reading: Reno Gazette-Journal (video), Associated Press, New York Times.

• Bill Clinton talks too much: Today Good Morning America ran an exclusive interview when Obama told Bill Clinton to stuff it. Essentially, Obama said he's ready to engage both Clintons and that he found Bill's campaign behavior "troubling." At the debate tonight, Obama said sometimes he can't tell which Clinton he's running against. Recommended reading: ABC News, Clinton's official "Fact Hub."

• Health care: Obama's plan doesn't have a mandate for adults, Clinton and Edwards' do. Clinton and Edwards say that means Obama's plan isn't universal, because it would leave 15 million people without insurance. Obama disagrees. Around and around we go. Recommended reading: Paul Krugman, Slate, FactCheck.org.

For the Record [UPDATED]

Obama and Clinton are getting as testy as we've ever seen over Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan. For the record, here's what he said: "I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Clinton at first said that Obama claimed Republicans were the party of "good" ideas, Obama rebutted, and then Clinton realized she was wrong, causing her to say that's how it came across. Empirically, Obama is right, but perception-wise, Clinton is. And in politics, it's usually the perceptions that matter.

UPDATE Jan. 22, 8:07 a.m.: At the debate, Clinton did not assert Obama said the GOP was the party of "good ideas," although she has in the past.

Debating the Boring Stuff

Before the debate, I cobbled together a list of things to expect, all of which predicted that the candidates would be looking to draw contrasts three weeks before the caucus. Boy was I was wrong. The only fireworks were between Fred Thompson and the debate's moderator, Carolyn Washburn.

That's what happens when you suck immigration and terrorism from the agenda. Right off the top, Washburn declared that she would avoid those topics because Iowans wanted to hear about issues that hadn't been widely discussed. But in a state where 63 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers think immigration is very important and 66 percent say the same about Iraq—according to the latest Newsweek poll (PDF)—it seemed odd to prevent the Republicans from talking about what the people want to hear about. 

Instead we got a moribund discussion of economic policy. Granted, 64 percent of likely caucus-goers care about the economy, but today's discussion didn't go into details. Candidates talked about fixing the deficit, repairing American industries, and making President Bush's tax cuts permanent, but we didn't hear how they would do these things. In the past, Giuliani and Romney have had fun drawing minute distinctions between their tax plans, but this is no longer a Romniani race. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee is the big fish, yet nobody scuffed up his fair tax plan.

On climate change, McCain—who is the most visionary on green energy among the Republicans—was one of the first to respond, so the rest just aped his plan. Not exactly illuminating. 

The Republicans are most comfortable speaking about their platforms and drawing distinctions when they're talking about issues they can rally their base behind. That means national security, the war on terrorism, and securing the border. Without those issues on the table, we weren't left with much to get worked up about. Neither were the candidates.

Huckabeeism Highlights

Like inappropriate comments from your grandparents at Thanksgiving, you just know Mike Huckabee is going to bust out Hucakbeeisms at a debate. Some of our favorites from today's relatively mild discussion:

• On why preventative health care is best: "Kill the snake rather than treat the snake bites."
• Referring to government bureaucracy on how he plans to keep jobs in America: "I can't part the red sea, but I can part the red tape."
  
• On students' lack of motivation: "They don't drop out because they're dumb, they drop out because they're bored to death."
• On ensuring music and the arts are taught in schools: "Unleash weapons of mass instruction" in schools.
• On education: "Second to being the commander in chief is being the communicator in chief."

The Debate: Things to Look For

2 p.m. Des Moines Register debate. Johnston, Iowa. 22 days to the caucus. Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson.

Are you ready for some politics? Some Wednesday afternoon politics?

Things to look for:

• Mike Huckabee attacked from all sides: Immigration, AIDS, anti-Mormon comments, tax record, letting rapists go on parole.
• Mitt Romney on the attack, especially against Huckabee. If he's willing to run a negative ad, you can be sure he's willing to do a little mud wrestling at the debate.
• This is Fred Thompson's last chance to be relevant in this campaign. Desperate politicians are dangerous at last-chance debates. If it weren't Fred Thompson, we'd warn the other candidates to watch out. But, well, it's just Fred.
  
• Giuliani and McCain may pander for 3rd place, even if that means propping up Huckabee so Romney gets crippled.
• Proof that Alan Keyes exists.
  

Pander Bears

Last night’s long-awaited Univision debate was more peaceful than most, as the GOP candidates seemed careful not to alienate an already skeptical audience. Lines about reaching out to Hispanics drew the most applause. The only booing came when Rep. Ron Paul argued that “we create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world.”

Univision was originally forced to postpone the debate after only Sen. John McCain accepted the network’s invitation. The other campaigns cited scheduling conflicts. The top GOP candidates also avoided a minority-sponsored forum hosted by Tavis Smiley in September, sparking concern among party leaders that the candidates are hurting the party's reputation among blacks and Hispanics.

Whatever damage was done, the candidates did their best to repair it last night by soft-pedaling their hardline policies and emphasizing shared beliefs over rifts. Here's a quick roundup of peace offerings:

Rudy Giuliani: I approach the Hispanic community the same way I do all communities.
Mitt Romney: And so, Hispanics, along with other people in this country, want to see change.
Mike Huckabee: I think Hispanics want the same thing everybody wants.
Fred Thompson: Well, I think that we do share a lot in this country, whether we're Hispanic or whether we are not Hispanic.
Ron Paul: Hispanics, like everybody else, want change in our foreign policy.

Full transcript here.

Friendly Fire

After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet. 

The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.

NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers? 

This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.

I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.

Gravel Insults NPR

As the candidates were talking about China's stranglehold on trade, the conversation eventually landed in Mike Gravel's lap. Directing his comments at moderator Michele Norris, Gravel said, "I want to take you to task for your first rhetoric."

Norris snapped back, "I believe it was a question."

Good to have you back at the debates, Mike. 

The Kerr Legacy

This American Debate

Another Democratic debate is taking place in Iowa right now, but this one is camera-free. National Public Radio is broadcasting the debate, moderated by Michele Norris, Steve Inskeep, and Robert Siegel. 

Politicos expected the debate to be relatively low-key, thanks to the predominantly liberal NPR audience, but the candidates are already making distinctions. NPR was wise to make Iran one of the three debate topics, given yesterday's release of the National Intelligence Estimate.

Clinton's Revolutionary Guard vote sank into the background after the media got caught up with horse-race politics, but the NIE has pushed it into the spotlight once again. As Clinton notes, the vote wasn't about what Iran was doing inside its own borders, but rather how it helped Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist forces in Iraq. But no matter how much justification she gives, the candidates can always use a variation of John Edwards' counter: "Among the Democratic candidates there's only one who voted for the resolution; and that's exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."

Earlier, Clinton said critique of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment has gone "too far."

Listen to the debate here.
 

If a Debate Happens and Nobody Watches…

Tomorrow night the Democrats are having a debate in Iowa. Who knew? See, you probably can’t watch it, even if you wanted to, since the event is airing on HD Net, the Mark Cuban-owned channel that broadcasts only to HD-ready sets. Seven million people get HD Net as part of their cable packages.

The forum itself, a caucus-season tradition called the Iowa Black and Brown Forum, sounds pretty engaging. It asks candidates to focus on issues that matter to African-American and Latino communities. It will be simulcast in Iowa for almost everybody who subscribes to MediaCom cable—about 450,000 people.

Of the 7.5 million who could watch, only a few hundred thousand, at most, will. The CNN/YouTube debate that took place earlier this week pulled in 4.4 million people—the most ever for any primary debate. CNN is in nearly a hundred million households.

But these days, a debate’s reach hardly matters. As long as someone can get the eight candidates together and turn on a camera, you can be sure that anything newsworthy will finds its way to YouTube. And from there, into the political press. And from there, to the talk radio shows. Just think back to how Hillary’s cackle infiltrated the mainstream press a few months ago. That first happened on the Sunday talk shows, which the average American doesn’t tune in to.

And really, who wants to hang out with Dennis Kucinich on a Saturday night, anyway? Mike Gravel on the other hand…

Debate By Numbers

Using transcripts from CNN and the New York Times debate analyzer, I crunched some stats from last night's GOP debate.

• 3: Number of times Hillary Clinton was mentioned
• 4: Number of times Bill Clinton was mentioned
• 2: Number of times Mitt Romney mentioned health care
• 0: Number of times any other candidate mentioned health care
• 5: Number of times Rudy Giuliani said "Islamic"
• 3: Number of times any other candidate said "Islamic," "Islam," or "Muslim"
  
• 4: Number of times Duncan Hunter addressed Anderson Cooper as "Cooper." No other candidate followed suit.
• 2: Number of times the candidates mentioned President Bush
• 26: Number of times, according to CNN's transcript, the audience laughed
• 5: Number of times the audience laughed after watching a question from a YouTube user
  
• 7: Number of times the audience laughed after a Fred Thompson joke
• 4: Number of times the audience laughed after a Mike Huckabee joke
• 0: Number of times the audience laughed after Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter said something

Also, a breakdown of which candidates speak the fastest. Mitt Romney's mouth was a-flappin', while Fred Thompson, unsurprisingly, was the slowest talker.

If you'd like, feel free to compare the words-per-second statistics to the Democrats'.

The Huckabee Debate

The Republican presidential debates are starting to look like Lost, in which each character gets his own episode. First there was the Thompson debate, with all eyes on Fred. Then came the Hillary debate, in which her name was invoked more than 40 times.

So you'd think, given the recent emergence of Mike Huckabee as a front-runner in Iowa and Ron Paul as a major fund-raiser, that those two candidates might dominate tonight's discussion. But if that’s the case, CNN’s podium lineup (exclusive!) doesn’t reflect it:

Tancredo
Huckabee
Romney
Giuliani
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Hunter

Shouldn't Huckabee, the guy statistically tied for first in Iowa, get a better position than McCain, the guy polling third in New Hampshire and invisible in Iowa? Maybe it would just be too sad a statement to take McCain out of the Middle Four.