Photo: Getty Images

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker take their briefing to the House today, but the spotlight is gone — the presidential candidates have had their say and are off to judge pumpkin contests and read to the elderly. Yesterday the big three were afforded a rare chance to demonstrate (and not just bloviate about) how they’d each make the best commander-in-chief. But apparently the candidates were saving overt political opportunism for the campaign trail. Their questioning was serious, thoughtful, and dignified. In a word: commander-in-chief-y.

• Ryan Grim and John Bresnahan write that Clinton didn’t attack Petraeus “with the same vigor” as when they met last September, but she did take a shot at McCain. McCain, for his part, focused on what he foresees as the disastrous results of pulling out too soon, while Obama pushed for lowering expectations and a phased withdrawal. [Politico]

• Elizabeth Holmes believes Obama offered the toughest questions of the three candidates; Clinton was more cautious; and McCain was conscious of not sounding like a cheerleader, asking a few pointed questions about security in Iraq. [WSJ]

• Craig Crawford says Clinton was “surprisingly subdued” as though intentionally avoiding the appearance of using the hearings for political gain, although she offered some salient points and harsh criticisms. [CQ Politics]

• Janet Hook notes the Democrats were more “low-key and respectful” than they had been in September’s hearing, perhaps owing the greatly altered political context. [LAT]

• Matthew Yglesias writes that although Obama’s strength is a formal speech as opposed to a committee-hearing setting, he did a good job of “underscoring the ultimately hollow nature of the strategy being pursued currently in Iraq.” [Atlantic]

• Max Bergmann observes that Obama was able to hit Petraeus and Crocker very hard while remaining cordial, concluding that we have no definition of success in Iraq. [Democracy Arsenal]

• Jay Carney was very impressed with Clinton, who “fulfilled her oversight role” without grandstanding, and “made some soberly effective points” while demonstrating a “command of the facts.” [Swampland/Time]

• Eve Fairbanks thinks Obama was a success, able to sharpen the focus of what other senators “had been orbiting around” without showing their frustration. [Stump/New Republic]

• Elisabeth Bumiller notes that the candidates’ tempered performances reflected “the political risks of appearing too easy or tough on General Petraeus.” All adopted a somber, respectful tone. Obama excused Petraeus and Crocker from blame for the results in Iraq, and Clinton never “raised her voice or showed the passion” she had in September. [Caucus/NYT]

• Marc Ambinder says for the most part the candidates stuck to their stump speeches, but in addition, Clinton focused on senatorial concerns — will a military agreement with the Maliki government be put to a vote in the Senate? — while Obama concentrated on an end-game in Iraq. [Atlantic] —Dan Amira

+Comments Leave a Comment
Iraq Hearing: Which Candidate Was the Most Like a Commander in Chief?
[null, {"document_url": "http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008/04/iraq_hearing_which_candidate_was_the_most_commander-in-chief-y.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=bottom", "unformatted_src": "http://nymag.com/daily/intel/08_hearings_lg.jpg", "src": "http://nymag.com/daily/intel/08_hearings_lg.jpg", "formatted_filename": "hearings lg", "alt_text": "Clinton"}, null]