The Audacity of Debate
I have no idea what got into the CNN moderators last night, but they seemed determined to hold a respectable, substantive debate. And it turns out that when you give Obama and Clinton good questions, they give good answers. I felt the questions they asked that were critical of the candidates were entirely appropriate, and included more as a way of getting them to elaborate on a position, than to catch them in some gotcha sound bite.
Clinton proved that she is her own best surrogate by far. I would much rather listen to her advocate her own candidacy than listen to her husband, Mark Penn, James Carville or Robert Johnson. On the issue of health care — which for once got the attention it deserved — she was able to convince me that she might be the best vessel for change.
On Iraq, Obama repeatedly highlighted his initial opposition to the war, and demonstrated how that will put him in a better position to defeat the Republicans. I’ve never before seen him do this so effectively, on what should be one of the defining issues of his campaign. He also mentioned McCain by name a number of times, proving that this hope and new politics he talks about doesn’t preclude calling Republicans on their crap.
If Clinton didn’t have the corporate-friendly, war-friendly record she did, if she had surrounded herself with more ethical and visionary advisors, if she had reigned in the racist insinuations from her campaign, and I could judge her solely on what she said in last night’s debate, I still wouldn’t vote for her. But I would be damn excited that for the first time in my lifetime the Democrats had two great choices for president who looked very likely to be competitive in November.
And if I had to bet on Obama becoming a transformational president or becoming a disappointment once in office, I would bet against him. But the notion that he could be a great president, and that Clinton could be a powerful ally in a filibuster-proof senate; that is an exhilarating proposition.
1 comment February 1st, 2008