Am Too! Are Not!

In last Sunday's New York Times, novelist Dave Eggers wrote a revealing column about young peoples' impressions of the current election campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20eggers.html . What caught my eye was the idea expressed by one young woman who said that young people reflexively reject the politics of acrimony because..."it reminds us of watching our parents at their worst."

After last night's Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, I know what she means.

Barack and Hillary conducted a total cringefest for an hour and a half, turning me into an anxious 9 year old, and turning John Edwards into the sane next door neighbor you run to when things get a little crazy in your house.

Fortunately, I took some notes with my right hand, while I was peeking through the fingers of my left, so I can give you some impressions of the debate.

Barack
I saw a candidate trying on a new pair of shoes--that were maybe a half size too small. He employed a strategy that alternated between admirable assertiveness and reckless accusations-and the latter opened him up to some pretty harsh attacks. Most of them were fair, especially criticism of his Illinois and US Senate voting record. The good news for Obama supporters is that he withstood it without whining. The bad news is that Hillary punctured his cloak of credibility--making him parse the justification for certain votes. He certainly had one of the top lines in the debate in response to Hillary's overused rejoinder about Bill that "I'm here. He's not". Barack stated with appropriate disgust, "Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." He was also typically strong reiterating his core strength as a candidate: his ability to "expand the scope of the electorate" and "redraw the political map...to create a working majority". Overall, I'd give his performance a B. He dished it out, he took it, he hammered home his theme of "unity now". But he did allow Hillary (with the help of John Edwards) to mitigate his advantage on the credibility issue. And he is not, by his own admission, a Great Debater. Denzel in the house?

Hillary
A routinely strong showing, but there was a difference: she sounded much more authentic, even when she was shrill and accusatory. This wasn't "Miss Congeniality 2" and she didn't apologize for that. She parried Obama's accusations of her husband's aggressiveness on the trail and issues of her credibility. She was, as usual, strong on issue talk. Negatively, she was not artful in leveling veiled charges against her opponents. And when she tried to wax philosophic about Dr. King it started to sound like "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah". What really struck me, though, was the coded admission of preparing for a general election. She stated that in a general race, the Republican nominee (all three thought that it would be McCain) would inevitably make the election about "national security". She felt that she was best "positioned" to take on that issue. In other words, that's why she voted for Iraq, that's why she voted for more funds for the war and that's why she voted to designate the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization. Glad that's cleared up. I give her an A-.

John
The question of the night is: why can't John Edwards get any traction?!! He makes sense, he is absolutely fair, he is the most issue-oriented of all the candidates, he has solid proposals that the others emulate, he calls out opponents only when it is appropriate and he seems to embody everything Dems say they want in a candidate. And no one votes for him! I don't get it. I mean, I'm not a supporter but why isn't any one else? (I guess that's the problem right there). But, really. It's one of those great campaign psych101 mysteries. I thought his best moment came on foreign policy when he stated that "everyday, young people around the world are straddling a fence"; on one side there's America and what we stand for and on the other Al Qaeda and what they stand for. He exhorted us to have a foreign policy that makes America a light for those young people. He is so right. That is the fight we are in. An A-.

Random Observations
Tonight I saw why Senators rarely win the Presidency. Their numerous votes can be distorted to paint an unflattering picture that can only be defended by arcane legislative-speak. This is what happened to Barack last night. And it's happened to both Hillary and Edwards in other debates (Hillary-" I voted for it, but I'm glad it didn't pass"). Obama was forced to explain to a lay audience how the political machinery of legislative bodies work. Impossible. Any one who has spent time in political organizations understands that consensus building, legislative legerdemain, compromise, and back scratching are the tools that get things done politically. But it's like sausage--even if it tastes good, you don't want to see how it's made. The second major observation is the striking contrast with Republican debates. These Dems really talk about poverty, education and helping the least among us (yes, I know, they were in South Carolina speaking to a constituency that is very familiar with those issues). But when you listen to Repubs, that stuff never comes up. It's like a badge of dishonor to talk about helping the poor, unless it's through tax cuts. Maybe once again, John Edwards is right: maybe there are two Americas. We'll see.

So tell me how you saw the debate. Who scored, who buckled, and who is best positioned for Saturday's primary.