Tonight's debate was dense and poorly moderated. As always, there is the question of experience vs. rhetoric. Then they nitpick over details of health care agendas, either one of which would be a 1,000% improvement over the nothing we currently have and neither of which is likely to get passed as originally outlined.
There are number of things to discuss: Contradictions such as Clinton selling us on her experience, but asking us to vote on what she would do in the future, not what she's done in the past. The setup question about Obama's "yes" check mark on a form, where Russert doesn't read the entire question the check mark referred to (which had a qualifier about an agreement with the Republican candidate to protect against 527's being used.) And many others. The one that always gets in my craw is the mocking of Obama's style. As though it's a ridiculous flourish that represents a mamby-pamby personality. That "all talk" guy has gotten a lot of difficult legislation passed, but we'll keep calling him an empty suit, because style has no substance. Obama's answer to the Farakhan question and Clinton's goading of him afterward, epitomize exactly why style is really something, though, and why people are supporting him.
When asked if he accepts an endorsement from Louis Farakhan, Obama made it clear that he has and always will denounce Farakhan's anti-semitic divisiveness. He was pushed by Russert to "reject" Farakhan. He responded that he can't prevent the man from saying whatever he wants, but he can repeatedly denounce his rhetoric. He wasn't accepting any kind of support from Farakhan. Farakhan hadn't offered anything for him to reject, but he would continue to denounce.
That bothered Clinton. Who touted her own story of rejecting an endorsement from someone when she ran for the Senate. She stated that it wasn't enough to denounce. Obama capitulated and said that he would reject and denounce.
Besides the fact that she lacks command of the English language (denounce means to condemn and is a much stronger reproval than reject. And you reject something being offered. An endorsement isn't an offer), Hillary used this as another moment to define herself as the fighter. She clearly thinks this is her most compelling attribute.
Only, it's exactly what Obama's campaign - and all the people voting for him - are rejecting. Here's the difference between Obama's response to Farakhan and Clinton's: Obama is saying, ""I disagree with you completely on this or that. Now, let's keep talking." Clinton is saying, ""I disagree with you completely on this or that, therefore I render you persona non grata."
It's the difference between fighting and resolving. We've had enough of the cowboy/fighter approach. We're looking for someone who can keep people connected to their humanity so that they're motivated to find ways to co-exist more peacefully. This comes up in her claims that you can't meet with leaders you don't like. It explains why she handpicked who would work on health care, closed the doors and then had to "fight" everyone to get her proposal into Congress (and, ultimately lost.)
As a parent, I know how important it is to let my child know when I don't approve of her behaviors while still letting her know that I embrace her as a person. Any other approach would attack her self-esteem and likely lead her to reject me vehemently in adolescence. It's a natural self-defense mechanism. Why should she care about my opinion if I've rejected her wholesale? It's really no different when you trying to problem solve with adults. It's only children who turn their backs on people and create cliques to ostracize others and see everything in stark contrasts of absolutes.
One of the things that I see in the tidal wave of support for Barack Obama is the possibility that our childish nation is ready to get past it's Lord of the Flies stage and grow up a little bit. We're ready to try a new way of working with people. And it's all about style. The candidates don't really have very different agendas. But you can picture how differently they will each approach those agendas and decide which style you think has a greater chance of success.