Washington Post: With Strong Debate, Clinton Quiets Talk of a Slide

Spotlight Moves to Whether Rivals Can Slow Her Momentum Toward Nomination

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; A05

LAS VEGAS, Nov. 16 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.

"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."

Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."

Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.

The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.

"She gave a commanding performance," said Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director. "I think this was the most important debate since the first one, and it was important for her to be dominating, and she was."

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, disputed the high marks given to Clinton. "I think the questions and the narratives that surrounded the candidates going into this debate are mostly present going out of this debate," he said. "I think you could see this in a number of answers. I don't think she made any progress on providing clear or consistent answers to a number of questions she was asked last night."

Advisers to Edwards (N.C.) discounted reviews of their candidate's performance and said he continues to be a force, especially because of his strength in Iowa.

"Now more than ever it is clear that voters have a real choice in this election between John Edwards's bold vision of real change and Senator Clinton's flagging defense of the status quo and a broken system," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for Edwards.

Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who is neutral in the race, said she thinks the debate had two effects: to heighten the importance of a December debate in Iowa and to give a sense of a race that is narrowing to a contest between Clinton and Obama.

"Edwards seems to defy gravity" in Iowa, she said. "He's always had a group of people there who just really like him, but this debate kind of set out the fault lines between the front-runners for those Iowa debates, which are [always] incredibly important but even more so now."

Garin described the race as a contest between old and new, with Obama finally making his case as effectively as Clinton has been making hers.

"Obama has gotten much better and much sharper in framing that choice for voters over the course of the last four weeks," he said. "There's a lot more clarity and sharpness in the way he is defining the choice between new and old for voters and saying why it matters in a way that qualifies him more to be president."

But Clinton has been equally adept, he said, at leveraging her two principal strengths: her experience and the perception of Democratic voters that she cares about them and about policies that would make their lives better.

Obama showed again Thursday that debates are not his best forum. He excelled on stage at last Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa but endured several difficult moments Thursday night, particularly on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

After hammering Clinton for two weeks about her lack of clarity on that topic, he had trouble providing a yes-or-no answer Thursday, finally saying that he favored them. Clinton's war room erupted in cheers over his misstep, one campaign official said.

Edwards has chosen to wage a more classic outsider campaign, focused strictly on Clinton. In Iowa he remains a threat, but there is a question of whether he will be able to keep pace in the final weeks given the huge financial disadvantage he may face against both Clinton and Obama.

After two lively debates, Clinton's vulnerabilities are more clearly evident and Obama and Edwards have shown they are ready to maintain pressure on her. But both need to stop Clinton in Iowa to change the trajectory of the Democratic race.

"I think there are two candidates for whom the race comes down to a one-day sale," Garin said. "Iowa is not a make-or-break event for Senator Clinton, but it probably is for the other two."

Clinton was not flawless Thursday. Her answer on trade issues left questions her opponents will attempt to exploit -- Edwards's campaign jumped quickly on this Friday morning -- and she still has not made clear exactly what she thinks about payroll taxes and Social Security. Obama, Edwards and some of Clinton's other rivals are likely to try to focus continued attention on character questions such as whether she is candid or calculated, honest or evasive -- areas that polls show could be genuine vulnerabilities.

But in general, Thursday's debate was far better for Clinton than for her rivals. After Philadelphia the question was how she would respond. That's the question now facing Obama and Edwards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601879_pf.html