Debate Reaction Without A Single Boxing Metaphor

Tonight's Democratic debate was about as schzoid as is possible, and reflects the impossible situation of these candidates: none can fail to respond to attacks, yet they cannot appear mean, defensive or negative; to regain advantage, candidates feel it necessary to attack candidates doing better, but again they can lose more than they gain by appearing mean, dishonest, embittered or unfair.

The first part of the debate featured attacks and counterattacks, either fresh or reinterated from the campaign trail. Most of these were between Hillary (the official representative of Billary) and Obama, but Edwards chimed in, most often attacking Obama. Much of the second half, when they were all seated, was as conciliatory as the standing half was confrontational. Weird, but I'm sure CNN is pleased: good TV, by their dubious standards.

John Edwards had a good debate, at least in talking about the issues and his positions. He did himself no favors piling on in what he should know is the spurious issue of Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, and I thought Obama explained how that works there pretty well--it's a way to signal support for a bill but dissatisfaction with one of its provisions, special if not unique to that legislature. When Hillary raised this, Obama countered her very well, since she made the mistake of mentioning that he voted "present" on a bill which he had in fact sponsored. If these folks are actually grownups, they'll stop using what they know is bullshit just because it sounds good.

Hillary had good moments articulating her positions, as did Obama. But when Hillary was attacking, she went too far--she was hissed by the crowd. We all have our immediate post-debate opinions and it will take a few days (or even until after the primary) for the Conventional Wisdom on this debate to be sorted out, but I have a feeling that these attacks are going to rebound on Hillary. Obama probably did himself good in South Carolina at least by defending himself well. He may also have blunted the Clintons double-teaming by calling out the ex-Prez, and saying pointedly that he wasn't always sure which Clinton he's running against.

If the Clintons have been successful in making this a black/white race, then Obama won't gain much by winning South Carolina, as he is expected to do because of the presumed majority African American participation in the primary. But on any account, if he loses it would be very bad for his prospects.

If all the chatter coming out of South Carolina is about race, and unless the Clintons do or say something that really screws them during the pre-TT week, there won't be time for any emphasis on Hillary to develop. The backlash against her, if there is one, may not be obvious in the South Carolina voting. And contrary to the New Hampshire primary, voters in those other states are likely to be influenced by polls, which mostly show Hillary ahead.

Some people online who are more directly aware of visual imagery said that Obama looked presidential. There were times he looked and sounded like the only grown up in the room. He did look uncomfortable in the middle of those attacks, but I'm not sure that hurts him. His balancing act was to defend himself without losing his emphasis on vision, and he kept making a point that seemed lost on commentators but I don't think will be lost on voters: that being honest in a campaign is important, because it shows you will govern honestly.

I've been known to give people too much credit for the ability to see through spurious and scurrilous attacks, and maybe I'm being naive about it now. But unless you are prepared to believe that Obama would fail to commit himself on a bill he sponsored to protect children against violence, you have to see Hillary's attack as beneath contempt. And if you do believe it, I don't think I'm the one who is naive.