I thought the debate was quite good last night. Senator Obama has become an excellent debater over the course of this primary, which shows that doing a bunch of them is a good thing for the people and for the candidates. He really shines in the one-on-one, appearing confident and knowledgeable, calm and collected. McCain isn't very good at debating and he isn't going to get any better at this point. He tends to blurt out canned lines and then flash that weird grimace he calls a smile at inappropriate times. Not his strong suit. The debates next fall are going to be really entertaining.
Steve Benen wonders why Clinton wanted to add debates to the schedule when it was assumed she wanted them in order to go for the jugular:
Indeed, she probably wouldn’t have a choice — it’s been a rough few weeks, her quiver is running noticeably low on arrows, and time for game-changing events is running out.
So, what happened last night in Austin? Well, I should note that I slept through the whole thing, but have read much of the transcript and lots of reports on what transpired. And if there’s a consensus, it seemed to be that nothing happened last night that changed the dynamics of the race in any significant way. Josh Marshall’s response seemed typical of most:
The level of specificity and detail in discussions of policy questions spoke well of both of them. Hillary had a strong closing. Obama has clearly improved as a debater and seemed to embody the frontrunner mantle. All of this points basically to a tie. And in the context of where this campaign is, a tie is a win for Obama because he’s winning. And Clinton needs to change the dynamic of the campaign.
Notwithstanding the inflamed partisans on both sides, I think the great majority of Democrats like both these candidates, genuinely like and admire both of them. You could feel that in the responses from the audience tonight. But that pleasant equilibrium is losing the race for her right now.
I have to admit, I find this rather surprising. By any reasonable measure, Clinton is losing. If she wasn’t going to use this debate to shake up the status quo, then what was the point of pushing the importance of debates so aggressively the past couple of weeks
The point was that she tends to do well in debates and you never know what might happen. Debates themselves can be game changers if someone makes a mistake. The reasons she didn't go for the jugular is that she knows it doesn't work for her and, contrary to popular myth, she won't do or say anything to win. I know that's shocking to those of you who are convinced that Clinton is a monster, but it's true. Her campaign has not been, by any historical standards, a negative or nasty one. She has stated repeatedly, and again last night, that the party would be unified and in light of the fact that she is losing, that remark takes on a different character -- she will not turn the Democratic party inside out just for the fun of it or greatly damage the front runner in some quixotic quest for power. (It's hard to believe that anyone but Ann Coulter would ever believe she would do such a thing, but there you have it.)
Her final comment was gracious and heartfelt; one senses the beginning of the end being accepted and absorbed.(And, of course, a Democrat is never more well-loved than when he or she is delivering a concession speech...) This is a person of maturity and depth and one of whom most Democrats in this country are actually quite proud.