I clicked off the debate last night thinking two things: 1) Because of her aggressiveness, Kamala Harris will be declared the winner, which is fair enough (aggression is rewarded), and 2) Joe Biden did what he needed to do, which was to avoid any embarrassing missteps or famously Bidenesque gaffes, and simply keep his head down, which is what frontrunners do. In other words, the debate played out as expected, with an underdog going low, while the top dog went high.
But in scanning the debate coverage this morning, I discovered that not only is Harris being coronated, Biden is being brutalized. Politico's founder John Harris is representative of this rather familiar romp in "insightful" political journalism, called "beat the crap out of the leader":
"What the hell was up with Biden Thursday night?… Since when does a famously garrulous politician voluntarily hit the brakes on his own words?"
Has Mr. Harris never attended a pre-debate briefing, in which the frontrunner is implored to take no risks, for fear of overstepping and blowing his or her lead?
"At his best, [Biden] gave spirited and plausible answers even while stumbling over a word here or there," writes Mr. Harris, who couldn't resist following "spirited" with "stumbling." But "at his worst, the frontrunner seemed to shrink on the crowded stage, coming off as tired in his manner, soggy in words and argument in ways that sometimes unintentionally reinforced the criticism. He offered some cringe-worthy moments that his obviously emboldened competitors will surely use as metaphors for dotage."
I'm a bit unclear on what Mr. Harris thought Biden should do. Physically attack Mayor Pete? Ask Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang what in hell they were doing there? Strap a muzzle on Kirsten Gillibrand? (Actually, for that he likely would have received the moderators' and fellow debaters' applause. I know I would have cheered.)
But back to Ms. Harris. She lit into Biden, just as everyone knew she would. "I do not believe you are a racist," she kindly told Barack Obama's vice president. This was akin to LBJ's tactic: "I will not call my opponent a pig-fucker." Then she followed with, "It’s personal and it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country." I'm not even sure what "it was actually hurtful to hear you talk about [these senators]" means. Harris was mawkishly incapable of hearing Biden discuss having to work with unpleasant people, which Harris herself has done with contemporary Republicans? Her assault was cheap, unwarranted, and strikingly opportunistic. But for that she was awarded the crown — although who didn't know that was coming.
The journalistic consensus as to last night's winner and loser reminds me of the assessments subsequent to Obama's first debate with Mitt Romney. Hair was fire all across the Beltway: What was Obama doing? — Why didn't he lace into the governor? — Why was the president so apathetic? To read the debate reviews, one would have thought the race was over; hello President Romney.
Yet that event, as was Biden's last night (assuming you agree that his performance was subpar), meant nothing in the long run. It was merely another instance of political journalism mistaking two hours for a year.