Final Face-Off: Clinton, Obama Spar in Ohio
Why is Vodkapundit's Stephen Green calling Tuesday's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the "Chinese Food Debate"? "An hour later, I remember there being a lot of stuff on the table, but all I feel is empty inside."
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
During the lead-up to Saturday’s debate in Texas, all the pundits agreed that Hillary Clinton needed to come out swinging. But she played nice instead. So the big question before the Ohio debate was: Which Hillary Clinton would we see? Conciliatory Clinton or Pillory Hillary? Now, as any honestly greedy person will tell you, the answer to most either/or questions is… Both!
And that’s what we got in tonight’s debate — both Hillary Clintons.
Clinton was at great pains to make sure we knew where she and Barack Obama agreed. On NAFTA, on the need to get out of Iraq, on the necessity for universal health care… Clinton always made sure we understood exactly where she was in sync with the ever-more-popular junior senator from Illinois.
Clinton was also at great pains to make sure we knew where she disagreed with Obama. More often than not, their disagreements were over the minutia of policy details. Ann Althouse called the debate “an annoying combination of wonky and angry.” She got that right.
The debate opened with 16 minutes of discussion over whose mandatory health care plan was the most mandatory, and whose was slightly less intrusive. That part of the debate went on so long, in fact, that moderator Brian Williams even joked about it near the end. And what did we learn? That Clinton cares very deeply whether or not anyone, anywhere, might somehow be able to escape the clutches of HillaryCare. We also learned that Obama cares only very slightly less.
On NAFTA the candidates are agreed: Free trade sucks. Although Obama was quick enough to provide a little shout-out to American workers’ productivity, a smart move in blue-collar Ohio. In fact, that line could be seen as poaching on yet another of Clinton’s core constituencies. It could be seen that way because that’s exactly what Obama was doing. Neither candidate would be cornered into threatening to cut off NAFTA inside of six months, but both promised to “reexamine” or “renegotiate” the treaty. The fact that the original agreement took years, not months, to negotiate was left unmentioned. That NAFTA then took a determined President Clinton and a lot of willing Republican Senators to get ratified was left unmentioned, too.
The two candidates also disagreed on… well, mostly they disagreed on who would make the best president. Tonight’s telling detail was the Man Who Wasn’t There. Both candidates agreed that George Bush was terrible, awful, etc. But the name left virtually unmentioned was John McCain. One of these two potential nominees will almost certainly be squaring off against McCain next fall. Was their failure to frame themselves against him a sign of confidence or weakness?
If I had to summarize the debate with some clever sounding phrase, I’d call it the “Chinese Food Debate.” An hour later, I remember there being a lot of stuff on the table, but all I feel is empty inside.
My favorite Clinton-leaning blog, TalkLeft, summarized the debate like so:
NBC stinks. Tim Russert stinks. Brian Williams stinks. Keith Olbermann stinks. Chris Matthews stinks. Who won the debate? No one. Who lost? Everyone.
So who really won? My gut tells me that nobody won — which counts as a win for Obama. If you really want to know who won, don’t look at tomorrow’s poll numbers. Instead, wait until the weekend. If by then, Clinton is still sinking in Ohio, then chalk up one very big win for Obama. If Hillary holds steady, then score it as a minor win — again, for Obama. Clinton had too much to do tonight, and too little time to do it in. And with too little sympathy, I think, in middle America for her efforts.
Clinton was at great pains to separate herself from her husband’s trade legacy. She was at great pains to separate herself from her Iraq War vote. She was at great pains to draw distinctions between herself and Obama. Mostly what came across was, Hillary Clinton was in great pain.
Twin losses in Texas and Ohio next week might just put her out of her misery — but don’t count on it. The Clinton we saw tonight might not have fought well, but she certainly showed that, at long last, she’s willing to fight.
Stephen Green blogs at Vodkapundit.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
9 Comments
mixxedup:Obama did look “Presidential” though. I thought he did well to push back against her attack stance. But, the debate was a downer.
I am not sure she should be “fighting” with Obama. I think she needs to fight with herself and her crappy campaign people. Some soul searching may be in order. I hate the bipolar persona she was displaying.
Feb 26, 2008 - 9:58 pm mw:If she loses either one it is over. She should take Ohio. So it’s all about Texas. If she takes Texas and Ohio, she’ll take Pennsylvania. If she finishes with all three, the super delegates will give her the nomination regardless of the pledged delegate count. The price for the nomination, will be to make Obama VP. With that ticket Dems win in a landslide, because either can chew up and spit out McCain on TV. Think Kennedy vs. Nixon.
Great drunkblog tonight.
Feb 26, 2008 - 10:52 pm Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):In order for the debate to be deemed a Chinese food debate … there would first have to be some food … any food.
No entitlements discussion (where was Social Security and Medi-Care?), no real immigration discussion, no discussion on the fact that there are six Supreme Court justices past the age of 68.
Did anyone notice Barack Obama’s answer on how he would handle a hypothetical, but plausible situation where Russia’s Vladimir Putin builds up his armies and decides to station them in Serbia … “As president, what would you do?”, queried Tim Russert.
“Well, first, I would contact the international community, many of whom have recognized Kosovo … “
When do the citizens of the United States get to hear a debate, and vote for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?! I do not know about the rest of you all here, who read Pajamas Media, but we, at MAXINE, are tired of watching discussions between politicians & potential leaders who believe they are doing the best job they can at running for Student Body President.
On this issue alone (Russia’s build-up), the sound of “President John McCain” is beginning to have a nice ring to it!
Feb 27, 2008 - 7:10 am Bacchus:Who won? Hillary’s negatives.
Feb 27, 2008 - 7:34 am Paul B:“But the name left virtually unmentioned was John McCain. One of these two potential nominees will almost certainly be squaring off against McCain next fall. Was their failure to frame themselves against him a sign of confidence or weakness?”
I don’t have a transcript in front of me, but I know Obama mentioned McCain during the Iraq portion of the debate and I believe Hillary mentioned him at some point as well. I remember thinking in the case of Obama how smart it was of him to go after McCain, it made him look like the nominee and Hillary’s attacks seem small.
Feb 27, 2008 - 7:41 am Marc:Coming from a conservative’s perspective, I’d say Obama was better… at not answering the question. HRC was unlikable. Was she looking at the camera, or the audience? I am still in awe of how 90 minutes flew by without me knowing more about the true thoughts of these candidates. As for Obama or HRC “tearing McCain up”, I’d say your drunkblog has clouded your judgment. You are not a senator for as long as McCain has been without having strong debating skills. Time will tell.
Feb 27, 2008 - 9:11 am Fred Dickey:Every commentator overlooks the fact that Hillary came across as a haridan, a common scold. But I don’t think the viewers did.
Feb 27, 2008 - 10:45 am Fred Dickey:Pardon me: “harridan.” But I wiil take the opportunity to add harpy.
Feb 27, 2008 - 12:48 pm Fat Jolly Penguin:It wasn’t a debate — it was a polite little press conference in which Hillary proved to us all yet again just how shrill she can be, and Obama proved just how dangerous his “insubstantial” socialist rhetoric really is. Debating over whose healthcare plan is more mandatory? How did politics come to this?
The Chinese food analogy is a good one, but I’d like to add one thing to it. In addition to us eating the astoundingly insubstantial fare, Obama and Hillary weren’t so much debating as throwing the food at each other. Maybe that’s why they put so much on the table to begin with.
Feb 28, 2008 - 12:28 pm