Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Not-So-Great Debate

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted February 1, 2008.


Clinton won by not losing and Obama lost by not winning.
Rory O'Connor

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Rory O'Connor

Is the Tyranny of Right-Wing Radio Coming to an End?
The notion that the days of right-wing dominance of the airwaves may well be numbered is rapidly becoming a reality.
Jun 20, 2008

Talk Radio's Last Stand?
Talk radio "shock jocks" are fretting publicly about the supposed return of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine.
Jun 11, 2008

Laura Ingraham: Right-Wing Radio's High Priestess of Hate
Shock radio host Ingraham is a master of sounding funny and appealing while dishing out the same hate speech as Sean Hannity.
Jun 7, 2008

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Hillary won by not losing. That's the bottom line takeaway from last night's low-risk/low-reward Democratic Party love-in ... I mean, conversation ... uh, CNN debate between Hillary-Billary and Obama-Wan Kenobi. It was, in the pundits' words (accurate for a change!) very "calm, civil, cordial, and sedate," a non-confrontational confrontation wherein the previously sharp edges were all softened, and most of the differences blurred.

There was little fire and certainly no fireworks, as the overall tone of harmony and unity on deliberate display led one to suspect that Party elders and officials from both campaigns clearly must have agreed in advance that the time had finally come to stop standing in a circle and shooting and instead turn their fire on George Bush and his presumptive heirs -- where it really belonged in the first place!

Obama's remark that he was "friends with Hillary before this campaign, and I will be friends with Hillary after it" epitomized the evening. Where there differences were addressed, they were highly predictable, focus-grouped and campaign-tried-and-true. Hillary ran out her experience trope: remember, she's the one who will be "Ready from Day One." Obama politely countered with his judgment mantra, nicely phrased as "Right from Day One" to underscore his anti-war street cred.

Both aimed various sallies at the crucial California constituency of Latinos -- with Obama repeatedly trumpeting his endorsement by Ted Kennedy and questioning Hillary on her since-corrected political misstep of supporting the ill-fated Eliot Spitzer driving- licenses-for-the-undocumented plan. She was for it before she was against it, soto speak ...

When the two candidates had finally finished their restrained, wonkish interchange, CNN trotted out the "chief strategists" on both sides to reiterate their candidate's major points once again in a thankfully truncated fashion. David Axelrod naturally and effectively hammered Hillary on her indefensible Iraq position; a less-composed and effective Mark Penn relied on clichés to tell us:

      1. Hillary will be ready on Day One (again!)

      2. Universal health care is important

      3. So is "comprehensive immigration reform"

      4. And the economy

      5. And--oh yeah - Iraq...

Penn in fact came off as incredibly lame on the subject of Iraq, thereby compounding his candidate's problems with the issue. (Note to Hillary's people: Why do you send out this overweight, sweating and hardly mediagenic guy to "spin" the press and the public? He's terrible at it!)

What's it all mean? Clearly the Democratic faithful will be happy with either of the Last Candidates Standing as their standard-bearer in November. (Of course by now, most of them are so sick of Republican rule they would welcome a corpse as a candidate if convinced it would win.) But overall, this was Hillary's debate -- and now it's her race -- to lose, and at the very least, last night was a tie. Obama remains the neophyte challenger who needs to make up ground - and not much ground shifted.

So Hillary won by not losing -- and Obama lost by not winning. Simply appearing presidential--he certainly has grown into at least looking the part -- wasn't, and isn't, enough to put him over the top. In order to continue his momentum and vault into the lead, he needed to show that there are large differences between him and Hillary on crucial issues - and other than on Iraq, he failed to do so.

So yes, Barack "won" on Iraq -- but in light of the plummeting economy, the issue seems to be fading in relative importance to both the candidates and the voters. Meanwhile, Hillary obviously "won" on health care, by clearly positioning herself as the one candidate with a plan to ensure truly universal coverage. She generally "won" on substance as well; he triumphed again on style -- and many argue that voters base their choices more on personality than actual politics.

Who will win on Super-Duper Tuesday? Will the Amazing Race continue to go beyond? Might we eventually see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton "Dream Ticket?"

Stay tuned, as they used to say back in the day!

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, election08

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Trashing your future allies
Posted by: jimstinson on Feb 1, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The trouble with primaries is that today's opponent may be tomorrow's candidate -- or alternately, an important potential supporter; so it's hardly surprising that mainstream contenders don't announce irreconcilable differences. People vote their reactions to other people, so I watched the debate long enough to discern Obama's and Clinton's visual styles, then listened to audio only to evaluate their vocal effect. On the combined evidence, my subjective impression as a professional media maven was that Obama's media persona was better (though I am a fan of neither -- still waiting at the Altar for Al). The moral: don't focus exclusively on substance; for better or worse, the electorate doesn't vote that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best mainstream debate ever
Posted by: PeaceLove on Feb 2, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer obviously couldn't rise past his prejudices. I went into it disliking Hillary and finding Obama underwhelming. But I emerged with a new respect for both, and a new optimism about America's future. Neither of them is a Kucinich, but both are intelligent, articulate, and reasonably liberal. Sure, Hillary won't take responsibility for her war authorization vote, and she's way too cozy with corporate interests, but I believe deep down she really wants to do what's right for the country. And Obama was fast on his feet, charming, and a pretty good intellectual match for the much more experienced Clinton.

Obama was even courageous enough to refuse to scapegoat illegal immigrants and to support drivers licenses for them while acknowledging -- and perhaps educating the American public in the process -- that both sides in the debate had legitimacy.

All in all, this was indeed the most substantive debate I've ever seen. They both had the chance to make their cases without interruption and they both made it clear that the issues are more complex and nuanced than the MSM makes them out to be. Ignore the author; there's hope for us yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]