Non-live Debate Blogging, Part 2

Anyone else watch the debate between Clinton and Obama? I'm not sure how many more Democratic debates there will be, but you can watch them online at the sponsoring network's web site if you don't have cable.

Both of them had very strong performances in what was a pleasantly civil debate. The moderators asked some good questions, a few of which should have been asked 10 debates ago, but late is better than never.

The only slight downside is that Wolf Blitzer would occasionally egg on Obama and Clinton to attack each other. "Senator Clinton, that sounds like a swipe at you from Senator Obama. Care to respond?" I think his salary is based in part how much the candidates fight on stage. The O.C. did well at brushing off Blitzer's rhetorical equivalents of "Fight, fight, fight!"

It's very possible that before Clinton laughs, the command center director in her head saying: "We got a joke from the moderator. Processing. Okay. Optimal response calculated. Prepare laughter. Open mouth, smile--not too much. Perfect. Engage laughter units!"

It doesn't matter because even if it's somewhat calculated, it still goes leaps and bounds into making her more likable. She was as warm and as easy going as she can be, and her biggest gain from the night was easing some of the enmity her abrasive campaign style generated in the past few weeks.

Obama isn't as good of a debater as Clinton, so it was an accomplishment that he did as well as she did in this debate. Obama is a cerebral guy, and unfortunately has trouble articulating his intellectual and political philosophy in easy-to-understand snippets. That's his fault though. Most of what I know about the way he thinks is from articles about him or extended interviews with him, not from what he says at debates, which unfairly or not is the primary exposure most Americans will have to him before voting.

That's why many people think he's vague or unsubstantive. His arguments for his candidacy and way of thinking aren't as sharp as they could be, to the point where sometimes I felt I could argue his case better than he could.

But he crystallized some of the ideas behind his candidacy and delivered them in a way that would connect with more voters in this debate.

There were several examples of this, the best perhaps when he was criticizing both Clinton and McCain: "I don't want to just end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us here in the first place.”

The nerd in me also applauded when he finally mentioned in a debate his idea to broadcast his health care plan negotiations on C-SPAN. Clinton scoffed, although she is probably right to do so as I don't know he will get Congress and the insurance industry to agree to have their meetings open to the public. It's a nice thought though, and I'm glad he suggested it in such a public forum.

His answer on the type of people he wants in his cabinet cheered me, because it goes to the heart of how he thinks: "...people with independence, who are willing to say no to me so, so that, you know, no more yes-men or women in the White House. Because I'm not going to be right on every single issue."

The ability to realize you can be wrong is one of the hallmarks of a skeptical thinker. Is that a critical trait for a good President? Probably not if the President is intellectually strong in other ways, as Clinton is, but being open to the possibility of being incorrect does take a certain lack of ego, which is a little surprising to find in someone who aspires to be the most powerful person in America.

In short, it was an odd debate where both candidates came out looking a little better than when they came in.

On a related note, the last question to them was, "Would they consider a Clinton\Obama or a Obama\Clinton ticket?" The audience cheered wildly. Most commentators poo-pooh the idea, citing the animosity the two candidates have against each other as a deal-breaker.

I agree that it won't happen, but not because of personal dislike. Enemies can turn to friends instantly in politics, especially when it's personally advantageous to both parties. I'm sure Ted Kennedy and President Bush dislike each other, but they had no problem working with each other on No Child Left Behind. John Edwards ran against John Kerry in 2004 and ended up being his VP candidate.

The reason I can't see it happening is that they're worldviews are very different from each other. Clinton believes in top-down government. Obama bottom-up. While by the end they will be able to overcome the bad blood between the two, they still aren't going to click as people because they don't have enough in common with how they view the world. I don't see either of them willing to put up with that sort of personal awkwardness for 4-8 years.