- Hillary lacked a game-changing moment.
This late in the game, with Barack significantly ahead in pledged delegates and closing in the Texas and Ohio polls, Hillary needed something spectacular to happen. It didn't. If your assessment is that the debate was basically a tie, then that's a huge win strategically speaking for Obama.
Obama continually either batted down Clinton's charges or attacks (which were basically mild) and he often successfully turned the tables on her. I just don't see what the pundits are talking about when they claim that, on the points or merit, Clinton probably won. I heard that several times tonights from Anderson Cooper, Pat Buchanan, Donna Brazil, Rachel Maddow, etc. In any event, a smallish victory for her is actually a huge win for him.
- Obama looked like a Commander in Chief.
In asnwers to questions about his readiness to lead he came off as authoritative, forceful, and knowledgeable. He stepped up to a high hurdle here and crossed it. Hillary also comes off as commanding in this regard. But she had to make him seem weak. Instead he came off as strong. Particularly so when he turned the tables on her about her vote for the Iraq war authorizaton.
I feel that foriegn policy is a real plus for Obama. He made the case again that he offers a purer contrast to McCain. I mean Hillary actually said that she would challenge McCain for supporting the war...she actually said that. Why don't the news outlets cover that more???
- Hillary's planned negative attack fell disastrously flat.
The HRC campaign has tried and tried to make much of the whole plagiarism thing and it has just fallen flat and backfired every time. It's such a weak, namby-pamby charge (sorry for using hyper technical terms like "namb-pamby"). His defense was brilliant: smart, funny, and pointed at the same time, dismissing it as the "silly season in politics." The whole "change you can xerox" line fell flat and was actually booed. She looked petty and allowed Obama to take the high road. Isn't it clear that "change you can xerox" is not actually her line but something that Mark Penn or some other Clinton hack strategist came up with? Shouldn't she properly attribute a source on that?
I don't understand why, if Hillary really wants to go negative, she doesn't bring up the whole Rezko thing more.
- Hillary's BIG MOMENT was wierd.
The chattering class was totally obscessed with the way the debate ended and Hillary's ability to capture, mezmorize the audience...Hillary's ability to appear human.
I don't know, maybe it was just me, but I felt like that was an absolutely planned moment from her team. I felt that Hillary, by recounting the horrors of war for returning soldiers, was trying to make herself cry...and thus come off as more human and humane. It struck me as contrived. But it struck the pundits as genuine, authentic. And many pointed to that moment as the one that won her the debate.
But, even if it was an authentically genuine moment from her, how did it help her win the debate? What was she saying there that would move anyone to actually vote for her?
- Obama appeared wonky when he had to be.
The health care exchange was long. Too long I am sure for a general audience. I am not sure who scored more or better points there in the details. But my takeaway was that Obama knew and could master detail and minutia of policy with the best of them. I like wonky Obama and would like to see a little more of him on the campaign trail. I mean the guy has a law degree from Harvard and has taught Con Law at one of the most prestegious law schools in the country. I don't know why people think he is an empty suit.
******************
Hillary definately had her moments. She is a better than good debater. She may even have narrowly won on some technical score card sort of a way, though I would dissagree with that. However, on the larger tasks at hand in the debate Obama clearly won.
Comments are closed on this story.