Obama v. McCain: the last (thank God) debate

Winner: Bob Scheiffer. Not only a good questioner, he actually got the candidates to engage in what, mostly, sounded like an actual debate.

Winner: Barack Obama. Given the fundamentals, Obama's challenge throughout these debates was much like Reagan's in 1980, to make people in whose interest it would be to vote for him comfortable enough to do so. I.e. to look and act presidential.

Mission accomplished!

Loser: McCain (what did you think I was going to say?). Faced with Mission Impossible: to revitalize his campaign without going negative (which has only hurt him with independents), McCain has shown he's no Tom Cruise, or even Peter Graves.

And he forgot that it's the message that's supposed to self-destruct.

Obama v. McCain Part II

I'm a terrible judge of how these things are viewed through non-partisan eyes.

I thought Obama was his usual calm, certain self on economics.
On foreign policy I liked his "crush al qaeda" fire, Also I frankly think Obama's position towards going after them with or without Pakistan's help is very main street. McCain loses points every time he goes after Obama on this.

McCain was much better composed for this one than the first, though I wonder if the "that one" comment about Obama is going to be a sound bite that ends up biting McCain.

Those are my first thoughts, for an Obama rave from an experienced debater I suggest Andrew Sullivan.

McCain/Palin Ifillibuster

You may have heard that, in their continuing efforts to lower expectations for Sarah Palin's performance in tomorrow's debate, the new rightwing kerfuffle is about debate moderator Gwen Ifill's upcoming book on Obama.

This makes sense for GOPers because, with Palin's competence already at ground zero because of her incoherent* responses to Katie Couric's lob-ball questions, the only thing left is to work the ref.

Of course, the fact that Ifill's book deal was public knowledge before she was accepted by the McCain camp to moderate does make their last minute whining seem just a tad disingenuous.

But they claim they just didn't know about it.

And hey, I kinda believe them given that, like their candidate, they just don't hold with no book-larnin'.

*Random thought, Palin is incoherent, Wasilla is the meth capital of Alaska, co-incidence? Hmmmm.

Republicans vie to choose 2008 presidential loser

A confession, I didn't watch the Republican debate last night.

I tried to, but I just couldn't, clicking off half way through Giuliani's first remark. I don't recall either the question or his answer, but I knew that moment that the next 90 minutes was going to be hell.

So, unlike all those rightwing parents out there who seem unable to do so, I clicked off the objectionable programming, opting instead for watching Anthony Bourdain snark his way through Malaysia (though truth be told, Mr. Bourdain was uncharacteristically unsnarky for this particular episode).

Now I realize that it's terribly intellectually dishonest of me not to give the opposition a chance to explain their positions on the myriad challenges facing our nation: how they would extricate us from the mess in Mesopotamia, how they would address our failing health care system, how they'd address the burgeoning potential disaster of global warming.

It turns out I needn't have bothered.

Apparently what I really missed was a 90-minute paean to Ronald Reagan, the last Republican anyone really liked.

From the Carpetbagger Report:

After any debate, the first and most natural question is “who won?” Last night, the winner was obvious: Ronald Reagan.

Look, I know Reagan is the only president of the 20th century that Republicans really like. And I know that the debate was being held at the Reagan Library in California. But over the course of 90 minutes, the candidates specifically referenced the 40th president 20 times. If you count more oblique references (Gilmore thanked “the president in whose name this library is named”), the number climbs to 25. If you include references to Reagan by debate moderator Chris Matthews, well, we get pretty close to triple digits.

And who was the loser? By the same reasoning it was George W. Bush. The leader of today's GOP garnered exactly zero mentions by his aspiring successors. (Seriously, I opened the transcript and did a ctrl+f search. The only references to W were my moderators, though one candidate mentioned HW and another mentioned Jeb).

What this tells me is that the GOP presidential candidates have no clue as to how to deal with the current state of the Republican party as it stands under Bush's decidership.

During today's WashingtonPost.com online chat I put that very question to Chris Cillizza:

Pasadena, Calif.[that's me]: Love your coverage Chris, love these chats. Six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room: Playing up Reagan seemed the obvious thing to do, but do you think any of these people have any clue as to how to deal with the, um, legacy being bequeathed to them by George W?

Chris Cillizza: It's a VERY fine line that all of these candidates have to walk.

On the one hand, expressing support for President Bush's surge in Iraq makes sense because most conservative Republicans -- those most likely to vote in primaries and caucuses -- still support the policy.

On the other, none of these candidates wants to be seen as the Bush heir in the race if they wind up becoming the nominee.

The challenge for every Republican candidate is to offer enough praise for Bush that it doesn't turn off those voters still supportive of the president while offering enough criticism of his policies that people know that they would follow a different course in the White House.

A VERY tough proposition.

Indeed.

The Republican party is still very much Bush's party: authoritarian, Christianist, interventionist, corporate. No Republican can win the nomination without appealing to the very groups and ideas that independents (and needless to say Democrats) find abhorrent. And as the chasm between the heart of the GOP and the rest of us grows wider it is becoming increasingly clear that it may be a well nigh impossible gap to bridge.

So while I'll always believe it's possible for Democratic leadership to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, none-the-less, barring an unforeseen major reformation of the GOP, the race for the Republican nomination seems increasingly more like a face-saving measure rather than a presidential campaign.

It's a race Republicans have to contest, regardless that a win seems far from remotely possible.

(By the way, while writing this I remembered why I changed the channel. Virtually the first words out of Rudy's mouth were about America having the greatest health care system in the world. Seriously. If this is an example of the grasp the moderate branch of the GOP has on reality...)

Democratic debate: South Carolina

I've been busy, busy, busy, with the day job, and that's a good thing. However it does mean I tend to watch major events at 11:00 PM on dvr than live. So it was with the first Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina.

(New York Times debate transcript)

I've purposely avoided much commentary on the debate as to leave my first impressions as unspun as possible, and I'll be interested to see how others viewed the affair.

So, off the cuff, and in no discernible order, my thoughts...

First, and foremost, damn these folks are good, and so vastly superior to chimpy that I am tempted to wish for Adam Sandler's fast-forward remote. January 2009 can't come to soon.

Hillary wasn't smarmy. In fact when discussing specific policy issues she came off as nothing less than extremely competent.

Best response: wearing Republican antipathy as a badge of honor. I don't know how that would play with independents, but given the level of contempt with which Democrats view the current corporate-Christianist iteration of the GOP, that thought should play well with the base. It played well with me. She's still not my first choice, but she certainly didn't hurt herself.

Obama struck me as a bit flat, but I have to wonder, given the accounts of his soaring oratory, whether my expectations were a bit high. From reading press accounts one expects to hear Martin Luther King channeling Abraham Lincoln whenever he opens his mouth.

On the other hand he also didn't strike me as light on specifics (his main criticism to date). I wonder if his tendency to re-frame specific issues within their wider context (a good thing to my mind) tends to muddy his reactions among some viewers and the press.

Edwards won points in my book for not taking an obvious cheap swipe at Hillary, though he was mightily tempted by host Brian Williams. One hopes he would would be a little more willing to do so when debating Republicans.

He also has made great use of his time since 2004 to study issues and develop specific ideas on where the US should be going and the steps needed to get us there. He clearly seems the most wholly formed of the candidates.

Richardson also seemed to have some quite specific views on how best to deal with the challenges America faces, and though a little workmanlike, I've always been fond of the step 1, step 2, step 3 format for laying out policy objectives. It's a little dull, but it's also very clear.

Perhaps he was a little limited by the rapid-fire nature of the debate format, but I think Richardson still needs to find a way to use these opportunities to highlight the strongest overall resume among the field. He did manage to refer to his executive experience, but I think he needs to elucidate why that's so important, especially now given all the recent revelations as to how our MBA president is currently mis-managing the government.

Biden clearly gave the best response of the night by responding to Williams' question about his legendary loquacity and penchant for gaffes and whether he could provide sufficient focus for the American people to trust him with the presidency, answered with a simple "yes".

In fact it occurred to me, as it did with Kerry 3 years ago, that Biden would greatly benefit if his staff could arrange for a 30 second clock whenever the senator opens his mouth. Certainly his responses tonight, short and to the point, and clearly demonstrating his years of experience, were all the more impressive for their unaccustomed brevity.

Chris Dodd also was very strong on policy, though I found myself in agreement with most of his policy stances, I have to wonder, to be blunt, whether the country is really interested in electing another old white male as president this time around. I know how superficial that sounds, but there you go.

In times past I might have supported him as an older, mentor-type veep for a younger, more charismatic, though more inexperienced president. I suspect the results of the Bush/Cheney model have, however, poisoned that idea for some time to come.

Mike Gravel seemed to be working on sewing up the crotchety old man vote, which is too bad because I agree with his further left of center stances more than I do the more moderate front-runners.

But this is politics and presentation matters and coming off as the kind of guy who yells a kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk only plays into the "angry left" meme so well developed by the GOPers.

Dennis Kucinich seems to be solidifying his place as the Ralph Nader of the Democratic party: the guy you know is right about the issues, but who you also know will never be elected in this country in a million years.

Not surprisingly, Mrs. CaliBlogger, who is rather further left than yours truly liked him the most from a policy perspective.

My final thought for the moment is that while it was great to get the opportunity to hear from folks I never get to hear from, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich, and Biden greatly benefits from that 30 second clock thing, none of them (except maybe Biden) gave me an excuse to support them over the top tier candidates. And while it is early still, I find myself looking forward to smaller forums where the candidates can more fully explore the challenges this country faces after years of Republican corruption.

Bottom line though, I am now more than ever confidant that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be worthy of my full support.

And that's a good feeling to have.