Debate and Other News

I've just read through a bunch of the online commentary on the debate, after catching much of the MSNBC and CNN commentary. Want my review? Oddly, I thought some of the TV talkers had good points, while the online commentators and live bloggers missed or misunderstood a great deal--maybe you really can't watch and blog at the same time.

But I'm now confident that my impressions have no less validity, because I can drive a truck through some of their assertions, and some of the impressions of body language, etc., made me wonder whether we watched the same debate.

I started watching when the candidates were already seated, and Hillary looked pretty awful--there was a dull sadness in her eyes I hadn't seen before, and she seemed to be slumping. She's exhausted. Obama looked fine (apparently over his cold from the last debate), sat erect, clear-eyed. On Sunday Hillary more or less promised she would be on the attack, although she backed off yesterday, so nobody knew what she would be like tonight.

If you want the obligatory sports metaphor, Obama was playing jujitsu--he waited for her attack, parried smoothly and when the opportunity presented itself, knocked her back. Though Hillary rallied and acquitted herself well at various points, she also faltered (and with that get Barack a pillow comment, and the charge that he advocated bombing Pakistan, hurt herself.) She just didn't have the energy to sustain.

But beyond the sports metaphor which is of limited usefulness, I thought the biggest impression from the debate is giving us an idea of what Obama would be like as President. He was incisive, cool and had a sense of humor. He had a command of issues, didn't let Hillary get away with an inaccuracy, but gave her credit when he thought she was right. He not only looked and sounded presidential, he showed how he can work with others and bring them to his view, or allow them to modify his, by zeroing in on areas of agreement and difference (without being offended by difference, or getting inflated by agreement) and by coming back to principle. We saw an even temperament and an incisive intellect able to make fine distinctions while always guided by his core principles.

On debating points, he won on Iraq, won on Pakistan and terrorism, won on "denounce and reject," defended his health care plan from her attack than it isn't universal, and showed that she had a double standard on attacks of their plans: if she attacks his plan for not being universal, while he maintains it is universal, then she's right; if he attacks her plans for mandates, then he's attacking universal health care. He won on NAFTA mostly because she's running from her past support, which is on the record.

Yes, the commentators are all correct in that there was no "knockout" blow. I would have preferred that Obama mention the difference in the process he wants to fashion a universal health care bill openly. I would have liked more on economic issues and certainly the Climate Crisis (though they both touted the green economy.)

But even though there was nothing that obviously might change minds in Ohio, I do feel how voters might have experienced this debate: as a preview of what they might see on their televisions for the next four years. Do they want to watch and listen to Hillary, with her harsh, hectoring tone and mixed messages within statements, or Obama--a slower paced speaking style in this format, yet crisp and precise in his statements, whose arguments are clear and convincing, and short?

Hillary went specifically after women with her closing statement about the big difference a woman in the White House, and that might have worked with that constituency to some degree, but did it overcome other impressions? She positioned herself as a fighter, without giving a convincing argument why fighting Clinton-style is better or more effective than getting people to agree. The "I'll fight for you," may be her latest knockoff from John Edwards, but it was also Al Gore's refrain in 2000. Maybe times are different, but it didn't win Ohio then, and it may not win Ohio now. It depends on whether people want that, or feel they're heard it all before and they'd like to try something--and someone new.

The "other news" is that the Survey USA poll on Ohio shows that Hillary still has a lead, but it's diminished, though not by the huge percentage as in Texas (but Obama has just started campaigning in Ohio.) Hillary had a 17 point lead almost a week ago, now 9. But her internals are holding up pretty well, and early voting favors her pretty substantially. Still, it's by no means a lock--Obama could still win the state, is on track to gain as many or more delegates (according to Al G.'s analysis), and almost certainly will deny the dimensions of victory Hillary needs.

Also Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd became the first of the ex-candidates to endorse: he endorsed, not his next-door neighbor from New York, but Barack Obama. It immediately struck me that he ought to be on the short list for an Obama vice president, and that's the first name (besides John Edwards) that makes sense to me.

The Political Wire saw fit to headline Bill Richardson's statement that he might endorse "in a few days," but he said that before Wisconsin, so I'm not holding my breath. He did say that he's not sure his endorsement means that much, and he's right there, especially if he waits until after the Texas primary. He also offered the opinion that this race is not over "by a long shot," which might signal he's going for Hillary, or just that since he's been forever making up his mind, that he wants his endorsement to be at least a little relevant.