Thoughts on Debate 19

I guess this is debate 19, not 20. Oh Well. Twenty will be next weak in Cleveland.

Act One: The Passion of Senator Clinton
Hillary did an excellent job in the first part, (before the first commercial). The first part exemplified her knowledge on and passion for policy, as well as her desire to be a fighter and continue partisanship.

Obama, while providing good answers, did not provide inspiring answers. He displayed his knowledge but seemed flat.

The difference between the candidates: style. Their plans are very similar, with only small differences that most people do not care about. But, what matters is how it will be done and what type of presidential style you desire: partisanship or consensus.

Act Two: The Problems for Senator Clinton
The second part of the debate focused on the criticism they had of each other: style v. substance, words v. actions, partisanship v. consensus. Did Obama plagiarize... etc. Senator Clinton mentioned Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, who could not name a legislative achievement.

Senator Obama did very well, much better than Senator Clinton. Obams mentioned that the attacks against him occurred during the "silly season of politics" when we needed to stand above the small differences to get people involved. Senator Obama attacked Senator Clinton on her "Get Real Remarks" that she used today (over ten times) in one speech. His remarks (from Politico):

"The implication has been that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," he says, as Clinton laughs, and he cites the voters who support him and the editorial boards — including, he says, all the major ones in Texas — that have endorsed him.

"The thinking is that somehow they're being duped, ... and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things," he says. "I think they perceive the reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly."

At one point, when she attempted to achieve a zinger on Obama about plagiarism, saying "It's not change you can believe in, it's change you can xerox," the audience slightly booed her, the first time this occurred for either candidate.

Two important things to take away: First, at one point, Hillary agreed on the substance of Obama. All of her recent criticisms are now off the table... If she uses these arguments again, this will be a problem for her credibility. With her criticisms no longer available and her attacks not working, how will she gain an advantage?

Second, many commentators, some of this site, state the Obama is not a fighter. Again, its the style. He has been fighting Senator Clinton quite well since the second part of the debate. Yet, most of the time when he attacks, it is subtle. Reread his South Carolina speech for an argument against Senator Clinton and the Clinton style.

I originally titled Act II: The Demise of Senator Clinton. As her attacks failed, her grin concealed considerable pain. At this point, I thought that she knew she would not be able to gain on Senator Obama enough to reach a decided win in Texas to claim over 65% of the delegates she needs to catch up. The advantage she gained in the ACT I part disappeared in the second because her arguments are no longer usable. Of course, she does better on Health Care but this advantage falls when they discuss Iraq. While there is another debate in Cleveland next Thursday, I do not think she can go negative again. Hence, the demise. It is certainly premature though and that is why I changed the title.

This quote by Senator Obama summarizes their campaigns: partisanship v. consensus:

"We can have great plans but if we do not change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen and four years from now we will be debating, once again, how we will bring universal health care to Washington."