February 27, 2008
The Cleveland debate
Clinton and Obama both did well. I wouldn’t say there was a clear winner, or that anything in the debate was likely to change anybody’s mind–despite good probing questions from Russert and Williams. Hillary came across as the more forceful and dominating of the two, as usual, and Obama the more flexible and reflective. They engaged with no issues of substance that have not already been flogged to death, as far as I could see.
I did think Obama was a little tepid in his denunciation of Farrakhan (and he ignored the part of the question that dealt with his own pastor’s praise of the man; I would have liked to hear him say something about that). But then I think Hillary neutralised her own slight advantage by making a bit too much of it, in a way that seemed forced. Overall, both mainly just underlined their previous messages. Her line: she is a fighter and he is not. His line: she is a fighter apt to lose, and there is a better way to get things done. (Both cite health reform to prove their points.)
They were both more bitterly opposed to NAFTA than ever. Now they are threatening to tear up the agreement altogether unless it is renegotiated in ways that suit the US. I wonder what Mexico and Canada think about that. So much for the new spirit of multilateralism that will help repair the country’s standing in the world. The prospects for liberal trade look bleaker by the week.
The polls seem to be moving Obama’s way in Texas and Ohio. I can’t see this debate changing that, but who knows?
The difference in their responses to the question about Russia was interesting. Hillary did a good, thorough, somewhat academic denounciation of Putin that no candidate, from Huckabee on the right to Obama on the left, could possibly disagree with.
Obama, however, went immediately to what most voters would have seen as the main point, namely Bush’s unbelievably stupid comment that he had “looked into Putin’s eyes and seen his soul”, and his administration’s subsequent neglect of Russia and its vanishing democracy. (Of course, Bush could have been right, as he would have seen the soul of a fellow “decider” who is doing so much to destroy democracy in his own country, be it Russia or the US).
This kind of astuteness in getting down to the real issues has been typical of so many of Obama’s comments in the debates (and, yes, in his speeches) that those who attempt to dismiss him as simply a master of “empty rhetoric” (to use Gideon Rachman’s singularly inappropriate phrase) are seriously undersestimating the man.
However, Obama did not do a particulary good job of answering the question about Louis Farrakhan, a totally irrelevant question with racist overtones that should never have been asked, as nothing that Farrakhan says has anything to do with the issues in this election.
Certainly, many people will disagree with Obama’s views on trade and many other issues. But trying to dismiss Obama as some sort of an eloquent windbag (an adjective which would have described Ronald Reagan much better) merely because one disagrees with his liberal views will not work, any more than the vicious attempts to smear him as lacking patriotism or having the slightest connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism will work. Unlike Kerry and the Swift Boaters, Obama will not take these vile attacks lying down and, will, we can be quite sure, give back as good as or better than he gets.
As for Hillary, no one can dispute her intelligence, her passion and her knowledge of the issues. Obama was merely stating the obvious when he said that she would be a far better president than McCain. But, if, somehow, she were still able to wrest the nomination away from Obama, we would never have the opportunity to find out what kind of president she would be anyway, because we would be too busy watching McCain’s inauguration. Why hasn’t Hillary withdrawn yet?
Posted by: algasema | February 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm | Report this commentContinuing my unenviable streak, I misspelled “underestimating the man”. Since I was also commenting about Bush, maybe I was influenced by his spelling, “misunderestimating”.
Posted by: algasema | February 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Report this commentHillary hasn’t withdrawn because the US has a long standing system of democracy where people are allowed to compete in elections. Mindlessly cheering for a candidate does not require his opponent to drop out of the race.
One can certainly dismiss Sen Obama as contradictory windbag of rather questionable eloquence. The same guy who voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere” is telling us he wants to change politics in Washington DC? The same guy can say “I think there is an individual right to bear arms” and support the DC Gun Ban. The same guy who claims to be post-partisan, yet has one of the most partisan voting records in the Senate (when he gets around to voting).
Saying one thing and doing another in a grandiose style is pretty much the definition of windbag, apt enough here.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | February 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentOne may disagree with JPB’s conclusions, but he is raising legitimate issues. One can only hope that the campaign will be about the candidates’ voting records, about which all three of the people left in the race (I am not counting Huckabee, unless the miracle he is waiting for occurs) will have some explaining to do - Hillary and McCain even more than Obama, because of their greater “experience”.
Will we actually see that kind of discussion during the general election campaign? Or will it consist of nothing more than endless, mindless, repetition of Obama’s middle name, followed by mispronounciation of his last name, snyde references to his “missing” right wing symbol flag pin, smears against his wife’s patriotism, and, underneath, constant appeals to anti-black and anti-Latino racism (the latter sometimes also known as the “immigration issue”)?
Or, if Hillary’s machine, millionaire consultants and her “superdelegates” manage to help her override the obvious will of the clear majority of Democratic voters to give her the nomination, will her campaign be able to overcome the vicious campaign of smears and lies against the Clintons that characterized their time in the White House, which are so familiar that they do not need to be repeated here, and which will, without question, be resurrected in all their gory detail?
Posted by: algasema | February 28th, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentMy apologies to JBP for scrambling his initials.
Posted by: algasema | February 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm | Report this comment