Holy somnolence! That was the 19th debate that Hillary couldn't live without in Wisconsin? The (nearly) last, great laxative of an offensive against the unstoppable forces of Obama's Big Mo?
More stirring would have been the 3000th rehash of the New York Times' unremitting wickedness on any other cable news network. But no, I remained an observant foot soldier in Hillary's attempted Resurrection Revolution, only, of course, to witness the absence of any real fireworks.
I was indeed fired up and ready to go, as, it would seem, were the headline writers at the Times -- before the main event. Their above-the-fold, seemingly anticipatory preview of the actual coverage was, "Debate Takes on Contentious Air for Democrats," while the Washington Post waited to actually watch the boresome thing, and then more properly headlined it: "Clinton and Obama Remain Civil at Debate."
The latter caption was far more descriptive, and, although they buried the lede, the Times' reporters had to agree. They launched their coverage by writing that the debate "veered from collegial to clenched and combative" -- so keep reading -- but ultimately conceded that "for much of the debate, the two candidates agreed over and over again."
And that they did. In fact, by the top of the second hour my eyes had grown heavy and my brain numb, both having been victimized by repeated stump points and "I agree with Hillary/Barack." Eventually came a few expected digs and jabs from the New York senator, but they were tired, tedious and, simply, too expected.
Again, the repetitiveness of it all was captured in the coverage: "Mrs. Clinton ... alternated between high notes early in the debate -- smiling and nodding at Mr. Obama, pitching her economic plans for the umpteenth time -- and pointed criticisms that she has been making somewhat fruitlessly for weeks now, like portraying Mr. Obama as all talk and little action."
When words like "the umpteenth time" and "fruitlessly" begin creeping into the coverage of your talking-point zingers, you know your campaign has hit the permanent skids. Time to pee on the fire, which has all but gone out, anyway.
That's not to say there weren't moments of verbal contortion that at once pained and amused. Having seen her Latino numbers in freefall, Mrs. Clinton decided to defend that community's interests while also protecting her white, somewhat nativist working-class flank. And it was quite a trick. For instance, "she noted that she opposed making English the official national language, but also said it should remain a 'common unifying' language for all Americans." Ah-hah. I see. (Huh?)
Even better, however, was this: "Mrs. Clinton defended her support for building a physical barrier along the border with Mexico ... but at the same time she called for a review of the project, which, she said, had become 'absurd' under the Bush administration."
Linking absurdity with the Bush administration is sure to bring thunderous applause, of course, which it did; but only if the audience doesn't pause over the I-was-for-it-before-I-was-against-it contradictory essence of the linkage, which it didn't.
Nor did the pro-Clinton audience members -- who intrusively cheered, hooted and hollered with what you might call more than a trace of desperate raucousness -- seem to catch or disapprove of another Bush-litism coming from Hillary.
Speaking of potential presidential confabs with our foes in general, of Raúl Castro, specifically, Hillary said she "would not meet with him until there was evidence that change is happening." The same would go for Iran, Syria, North Korea, you name it. In short, world tensions and conflicts shall remain hopelessly stalemated and stagnant until others come around to our way of thinking. Once we all agree -- magically? -- then we'll talk.
So if you live in Ohio or Texas and dream of a four- or eight-year extension of Bushian "diplomacy," then does the Democratic Party ever have a candidate for you.
But what was the big picture emerging from the debate?
It sure wasn't Hope for Hillary, because mathematically there isn't any. That appetizing scenario for Clinton boosters is already a cooked goose. True, her vertiginous advisers have revised their spin and are now saying she "must win the Texas and Ohio primaries by at least 10 percentage points if she has any hope of catching up with Mr. Obama in the delegate count," but their shaving of the actual point spread by roughly two-thirds is as laughably cynical as pretty much everything else they've come up with lately.
No, the big picture wrap-up -- not so much from last night's rather meek debate, but in general from Hillary's attack-dog forays elsewhere on the stump -- is merely that everything negative that now comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth will soon be coming out of John McCain's. One can hear it now: "Even my opponent's Democratic opponent said of him during the primaries...." You can fill in the blank, if you like, but you don't need to, because Hillary is doing it for you -- and for John and the GOP.
Her parting words last night were, "You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine." And you know, Hillary, I'm sure that's what Mr. McCain is thinking as well. Just keep throwing those grenades -- because they'll retain their explosive value down the road.
I don't think we have anything to worry about. It doesn't MATTER how many times Hillary attacks Obama - it won't help McCain one bit.
Another writer mentioned that McCain would point to his years of experience in a debate with Obama and that would be the race in a nutshell. Sorry, not going to happen.
McCain has voted pro-war and pro-torture. He's given Democrats EVERYTHING they need to destroy him easily this coming election. The only question being: will Barack win in the most lopsided presidential election ever?
My money says without a doubt. It boils down to this - Bush's approval rating is at 19% - the RECORD low for any president. McCain supports Bush's policies. When Barack starts talking about ending the Iraq War and fixing the economy - that will be the endgame for McCain and the beginning of eight years in the oval office for Barack.
Everyone seems so scared of the Republican attack dogs, but look around at what is happening - the public is NO LONGER BUYING IT. Enough with the paranoia Chicken Little!
Posted by: Paul | February 22, 2008 at 09:20 AM
We have plenty to worry about. Will enough of the White majority pull the lever for a black man? It's a worry!
Posted by: Elmer | February 22, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Hillary has been lauded recently by those who fell for the emotional manipulation in her comments regarding wounded American soldiers attempting to recuperate from being shredded by the Bush terror war against terror. Certainly they deserve a better fate than to be used for political advantage!
What does this say about Hillary? At the most base, she falls for that tired crap that war is glorious. War is anything but, as many American soldiers have publicly attested - Sherman, Sheridan, and Eisenhower just to name a few of the most prominent. For Hillary to resort in the final minutes of the recent debate to pull this out and wave it about screams that she shouldn't be given control of America's military power.
War should always be seen as the ugly, dirty last resort when all other means of dispute resolution fail - and George's terror war against terror doesn't qualify.
Posted by: Realist | February 22, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Hillary, concede already! One thing is hopefully certain and that's that Obama and his crack team have learnt from '00 and '04 and don't hold back on ol' Gramps. If he does it right, Obama could actually cause Gramps to really "lose it" during a debate. The old duffer has a temper and is not likely to take any guff from a young "colored" man with no experience. Ol' Gramps practically foams at the mouth any time he disagrees with anybody let alone a whip-smart, articulate political warrior like Obama. Get the "mall walker" to lose his cool once and the whole general election will be a done deal.
Posted by: Henry Doyle | February 22, 2008 at 09:45 AM
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Doyle. Throughout the debate one couldn't help but notice Obama's new mastery of the format, his cool, resolve, and ability to turn criticisms to his advantage. He'll blow McCain off the stage.
Posted by: Mike R | February 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Counting this morning's indictment of one of his campaign supporters, Rep. Rick Renzi, old John now has three political scandals he's juggling, and at least one of these stories has legs (take a guess). Besides, Obama has held up well against one of the best debaters of our time, so John is going to have his hands full if he is ever able to stop juggling in the future.
Posted by: Will B | February 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Is Vegas laying odds yet on whether or not McCain is going to die of old age before November?
Posted by: Not So Rich | February 22, 2008 at 11:50 AM
They were quite chummy toward the end there, no? Looked as if someone had come to terms with the way things are: "Our positions are so close, attacking each other makes us both look stupid."
For the fist time I had the thought, "Could he actually consider her as a running mate?"
I just watched the last 45 minutes and she looked relaxed. He was very smooth. They both scored points against Bush. My favorite line was how Obama framed the surge:
"But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
Brilliant.
Perhaps they'll take it to the wire doing as they should have been doing all along: Making Bush look like a pin cushion.
Then let us decide.
Posted by: Clemsy | February 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I agree about the brilliance of Obama's "tactical victory" line.
If Hillary had prefaced her remarks about the American wounded
by saying something like "this dreadful wrong headed and illegal war" it would not have sounded so exploitive. She can't do this and therefore forfits authenticity. I also thought that the standing ovation at the end was not so much for her but for both of them for being "civil". The Democrats feel and see victory against the totally discedited Bush neo con philosophies. The freedom from a regime that, in many people's
minds was never elected legally in either of the last two election.
A footnote: The clips of Bush in Africa attempting to perform various tribal dances while Fidel leaves office, the Serbs torch our embassy in Belgrade and John McCain'StraightTalk
Express gets derailed is to me another American " My Pet Goat" moment
Posted by: chris bearde | February 22, 2008 at 02:17 PM
They were quite chummy toward the end there, no? Looked as if someone had come to terms with the way things are: "Our positions are so close, attacking each other makes us both look stupid."
For the fist time I had the thought, "Could he actually consider her as a running mate?"
I just watched the last 45 minutes and she looked relaxed. He was very smooth. They both scored points against Bush. My favorite line was how Obama framed the surge:
"But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
Brilliant.
Perhaps they'll take it to the wire doing as they should have been doing all along: Making Bush look like a pin cushion.
Then let us decide.
Posted by: Clemsy | February 22, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I have absolutely no idea how my post got duped.
Posted by: Clemsy | February 22, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Look what I just Xeroxed:
linton Tonight: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about." [Democratic Debate, 2/21/07]
John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." [Democratic Debate, 12/13/07]
John Edwards: "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." [Edwards Speech, 1/30/08]
Posted by: One original thought left in the world | February 22, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Phil, I am DELIGHTED and it is my pleasure to point out the great news: that no less than head Bush-Cheney junta cheerleader RUSH PIMPBALL, himself, does _not_ share your analysis.
BradBlog caught Rush on-air whimpering that McCain might loose ALL 50 states in the '08 election!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/rush-limbaugh-were-try_b_88045.html
And that is before the lastest scandals swirling around McCain - his AZ co-Chair Congressman Renzi INDICTED for extortion and fraud
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/rick-renzi-indicted-mcca_n_87974.html
and the new "Did John make favors for gal-pal lobbyist?" have had a full news cycle.
I would be far more concerned about this worry
http://www.charlotte.com/nation/story/504851.html
especially since we have a new word in the English language since Bush & Cheney stole the presidency in Nov/Dec. 2000
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wellstoned
But set aside the dark thoughts for a moment, and savor the DELICIOUS POSSIBILITIES.... Rush COULD BE CORRECT about something (besides Repub's ability to loot, plunder, and steal elections) for once!
Posted by: Lj | February 22, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Hey Mr. Carpenter: Did you bid on Barack (Worship ME or else!) Obama's handkerchief from his awesome
nose blowing incident yet?
Posted by: Josephine Ortez | February 23, 2008 at 06:15 AM