You can only fight when you’re standing up

Once again, I missed the debate last night. I was otherwise occupied learning the Rumba and how to shake my hips ‘appropriately’ (gasp!). However, due to overwhelming amount of comments about last night (i.e. one person) and an overwhelming desire to avoid Italian homework, I just watched it on YouTube.

First thoughts: It was actually a debate! (Well, at least the first part, when the candidates were standing behind 25th century robots.) The candidates, however, did manage to rise above the whole question and answer thing. They got nit-picky and defensive and almost belligerent about their policy positions. Now, let’s face it, when it actually comes to policy, none of us really know what the hell they’re talking about. Who are we to decide what rates, ceilings, restrictions and houses are best for people? All of our excitement is completely signaled by changes in tone, volume and inflection of voice (something Hillary has surprisingly recently been able to adopt).

As far as Hillary goes, this is not the same woman who cried for NH voters three days before the primary. This a slimy, mud-slinging candidate who wants to act like she’s still the underdog. On the whole, I thought she was articulate and firm and I was impressed. You have to admit her policies are strong. However, she benefitted from being on her own news network. Blitzer (who was, by the way, a decent moderator) let her define things like Health Care and then forced Barack and Edwards to respond. She also has this nasty habit of talking in the collective “we.” Who does this “we” refer to? The Democratic Party? The assumption that she’s going to be president and we are all her people? Our her campaign double, Bill? All possibilities are equally annoying.

Edwards did a good job of playing the roll of the Little White Man. I personally feel that we are not looking at the same candidate as 2004. Sure, maybe he believes the same things. But I saw no fear in him in the debate. I saw only patience mixed with the desire to be allowed to speak. I don’t feel his comments on policies were very clearly presented and he’s dropped the comradarie with Obama. However, he clearly demonstrated that he has nothing to lose, and he shows that by demonstrating that he has no problem letting Barack and Hillary taking the spot-light by eating at each other’s throats. Will he pull a Mike Rounds and beat out the two front-runners?

Obama really does not do as well at debates then he does at rallies or fundraisers. (Watch his speech from Monday at MLK’s church. It was Obama at his finest.) He doesn’t show that much warmth. His tranquility and assurance that he’s doing the right thing are frequently interpreted as arrogance. He also can’t really throw globs of mud that well. His sense of humor is much more sardonic than jolly (man after my own heart). However, he can defend himself and has a way of making his accuser look like an idiot. Notice how Hillary only really attacked him once (albeit for an extended pariod) at the beginning and then didn’t try again.

I think two things were important about this debate. First of all, the race is no longer about experience. When you have three strong candidates all vigorously defending their own and attacking each other’s policy, there is no room to argue about experience. That’s refreshing. (I want to point out, however, Hillary’s comments about her healthcare plan. She mentions that she has a plan that will mirror Congress’ program. She explains how, because it is based on a program in existence, it is a proven plan and it is one that will work. I thought we were talking about change though. I thought we were talking about bringing in new ideas and fixing the problems created by Bush. If that’s the case, then any new program brought in by Barack has just as much validity if it has yet to be proven. Double standards, Hillary. Double standards.) Secondly, the Democratic Party has come along way just since the campaign started. Last January, all we could talk about was the war. In September even, all we could talk about was the war. However, at last night’s debate, the majority of the time was spent on the economy (over an hour, I believe). By the time Iraq came up, everyone, including the audience had tuned out (I tried on some clothes I just got in the mail). The words ‘troops,’ ‘surge,’ and ‘combat’ mean little to us anymore. Are we jaded or are we actually making progress towards fixing real problems?

So who won the debate? Rolling Stone favors Clinton. Others lean more towards Obama. Most are reluctant to say anything Edwards because he’s otherwise not a winner. Honestly, though, I don’t know. Hillary was on fire. Edwards proved that his actions do not reflect the fact that he has yet to come in even a close third. This is probably one of Obama’s better performances, though it was overshadowed by the fact that everyone had a good performance.  I think it’s DailyKos who put it best. “Let’s face it….we have 3 damn good candidates.” Man, I love the Democratic Party.

PS: As for this Joe guy who was half-moderating, I think he’s Ben Stein in disguise. Seriously. Turn on YouTube. Open up another Firefox Tab and do something else while you listen. You’ll swear it’s Ben Stein. Further proof that even everyone’s favorite monotone conservative can’t resist the Dems this time around.

- Em

PPS: Shout out to Dave Chapelle in the audience.

PPPS: I just got an email from Richardson. He’s not endorsing anyone.

PPPPS: This is one long fucking post.

Tagged as: Campaign 2008, Politics & News