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.