Amy Klobuchar got another shot at making a mark on a national audience Tuesday. As Patrick Condon writes in today's Star Tribune, the Minnesota senator entered the second Democratic debate "needing more than ever to make the kind of big impression that would help build momentum for her candidacy." So how did she do? Here's a sampling of what people across the political spectrum are saying about her performance:
The Washington Post said Klobuchar "stood out" by "[positioning] herself as a moderate" and emphasizing her electability in areas Trump won:
"The Minnesota senator leans on her Midwestern values and ability to win over voters in Trump districts and collaborate with Republicans in Congress. She has positioned herself as a moderate by questioning the viability and practicality of Medicare-for-all, free college and other policies advocated by more liberal candidates. On Tuesday, she cast herself as the candidate willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association."
Those comments on gun control also caught the attention of some advocates and observers on Twitter:
Some pundits and talking heads thought she made the case that she'd make a strong general election candidate against President Trump:
But The Washington Post's Ed Rogers ranked her performance "no better than fourth" among the rivals on stage.
"She was consistently in the weeds. She doesn’t do anything very well, but she doesn’t stumble. That said, she never made a clear point. She needed to say something big, but she did not. She is so boring that she is credible. But she is also so boring that she does not have any adhesiveness. She has no emotional appeal. Klobuchar’s rehearsed spiel on gun control was effective, but she talked like a senator, not a president. The window for her to establish herself is closing."
CNN's Chris Cillizza also put Klobuchar in the "losers" category:
"Ask yourself this: If you watched, what do you remember about the Minnesota senator's debate performance? Maybe it's her emphasis in her opening statement on her unblemished record of victory in campaigns? Maybe? That's a problem for Klobuchar, who seems to be treading water in search of a moment or a surge. She didn't get one tonight. And candidly, she didn't really come close."
"Mr. Delaney and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota got roughly the same amount of speaking time, but it felt as though Mr. Delaney got more — perhaps because he was given multiple opportunities to spar directly with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.
'I will say Delaney has succeded in becoming a player in this debate. Unlike Amy, at least so far …' — Mike Murphy, Republican strategist."
The National Review’s Jim Geraghty deemed Klobuchar’s debate style “boring, predictable and forgettable.”
“Tonight was another night where you could easily forget Amy Klobuchar was on stage. Back when Klobuchar’s campaign was in the nascent stage, people wondered how “Minnesota nice” would play on a national debate stage. We can now declare it boring, predictable, and forgettable.”
And the Minnesota Democrat failed to merit a mention in the Wall Street Journal’s recap of top moments from the first debate.
The Baltimore Sun took note of her defense of the city in response to Trump's tweets:
"After four days of President Donald Trump attacking Baltimore, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was the only presidential candidate to defend Maryland’s largest city by name during Tuesday night’s Democratic debate on CNN."
But her answer that not all voters who backed Donald Trump in 2016 are racist sparked some backlash on Twitter:
As for how Klobuchar's performance played in early voting states? A number of Iowans watching the debate had kind things to say to Iowa Starting Line:
“I believe [Warren, Klobuchar and Bullock] respond with the most realistic policy-based ideas, they are sincere, they can point to how they will and can make changes to corrupt political influence in our current government.”
“Warren is coming off as determined and a fighter. But Amy Klobuchar also comes off as determined and honest. I am leaning toward thinking that the next president needs to be a woman.”
“She seems ready to keep a poised manner with quick and insightful commentary. It makes me curious to see how she’d do in a debate against Trump, and I am leaning toward thinking she might be able to play off of him the best because of her collectedness and intelligent rhetoric.”
“She is pulling hard tonight and doing a great job at stating her policy ideas and her experience.”
Nationally, however, online data points suggest she trailed rivals when it came to piquing interest from the masses.
What do you think about Klobuchar's debate showing? Did she move the needle or miss an opportunity? Share your views in the comment section below.