Like yesterday's GOP debate, the Democratic debate was pretty tight and focused on generating discussion of real issues for voters in the Iowa caucus (save for the last few throwaway questions). Register editor Carolyn Washburn kept the discussion strictly to policy and priorities, and each candidate was asked to answer nearly every question, unlike other debates where there's been a tendency to limit each to just a few candidates. Despite this, there were some major gaps in discussion topics, most notably, not a single question on foreign policy, and nothing on Iran or the NIE. The only time subjects like torture or Guantanamo came up were when the candidates mentioned them as part of their response to the question on what they'd address in their first year. Also, nothing on immigration or abortion, both of which came up in yesterday's debate.
It was also by far the most civil debate in recent weeks, lacking many direct attacks on opponents. And with little interaction between the candidates, there wasn't a whole lot of excitement. Many expected this to be Hillary Clinton's chance to slow Obama's surge there, but both seemed to bring an equally toned-down, reserved posturing today. At the same time, it also didn't seem to do much to help Obama in the surge department.
There didn't seem to be any clear winners or losers here -- all seemed to have their game faces on, concentrating on making their own message as clear as possible. Perhaps it's just getting too late for any major shake-ups in Iowa via debates; it's all about the legs and the message on the ground there now.
--Kate Sheppard
