BORING! Democratic Debate Is Nothing New

by Anita S. Lane

I was wrong. Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t try to scratch and claw her way to a debate victory Thursday night. Someone in her camp must have advised her that such a strategy would certainly backfire.

In fact, I thought the debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama was rather civil—once again. It wasn’t quite the love fest the first one-on-one debate was, but it was civil.

Unlike my husband, I’m really not into the sort of fights that take place in the boxing ring. I was a political science major, so I get much more excited about political contests. And while I don’t believe there were any fatal punches, there was some sparring, one hit below the belt, one would-be knockout and no clear winner.

Sparring
I’d have to say the most sparring occurred when the two candidate went back and forth…and back and forth…trying to distinguish their health care plans. They really had to dance around the ring on this one because their plans are essentially the same. Whether you call the differences philosophical (like Obama) or substantive (like Clinton), the difference is this— Clinton’s health care plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that everyone purchase health care (similar to how everyone who works pays into social security).

Obama’s plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that every child is covered but does not require every adult to purchase health care. We get it, Senators. It’s the same thing you’ve been saying on the campaign trail for the last two months. Now I honestly believe there are some very serious practical and logistical challenges to either plan—but that’s a topic for discussion all its own.

One Hit Below the Belt
The very civil fight between the two contenders was going somewhat smoothly until the question about whether or not the campaign was going negative. Obama responded to the charge by Clinton that he had plagiarized a speech and referred to it as the beginning of “silly season” in politics.

The irony is that in responding to the question—instead of taking the high road—Hillary totally hits below the belt and offers what is an amazingly cheap, fifth-grade like attack. Obama stated that his friend and national campaign co-chair, Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick recommended that he use the phrase in his speeches to help make the argument that words are important.

In response, Hillary said, “I think that if your candidacy is going be about words, then they should be your own words. Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.” Ooh! Gotcha back! Now, top that Barry! Yes folks, this round goes to Barack. This is definitely the “silly season” in politics.The Would-Be

Knock Out
The best punch of the evening came in the final round. In fact it was the last question and Clinton got the final word. And what a powerful “final word” it was.
“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about,” Clinton said with conviction and empathy.

Clinton went on to say, “The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country, [and] I resolved, at a very young age, that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessing that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.” Clinton's remarks garnered a standing ovation.

It truly seemed as though Hillary had recaptured her “New Hampshire Voice.” But guess what, folks, that wasn’t her voice—at least not a key component of the statement—it was John Edward’s voice. Edwards used the line “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine…I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same about the American people…” on many occasions at the close of his speeches. Didn’t Hillary just pounce on Obama for borrowing phrases without crediting the source? Is this hypocrisy? The You Tube display certainly makes that case. Check it out for yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo&feature=related)

So, while it’s true that I was overcome by Clinton’s endearing words and show of emotion, it turns out they weren’t fully hers. There goes the knockout. As one individual commented on You Tube, “That’s not a closing you can count on, that’s a closing you can Xerox.”

No Clear Winner
I believe Clinton’s closing comments could have been a knockout—if they hadn’t been borrowed. Thus, I don’t believe there was a clear winner of the night’s debate. If you listen to the political commentators on radio and TV, many seem to think that Obama won. I disagree. Yes, he was much more comfortable than in past debates. His rebuttals to Clinton were clear and decisive, and he made his policy positions clear—albeit not very detailed.

The reality is that Clinton is still a much better debater. Maybe it’s because she has more experience. Maybe it’s because of her working command of the intricacies of the various national policy issues. Honestly, I think she came across as having a better command of the issues—or at least how to communicate the details. She is extremely comfortable in the debate setting. Many made issue of the fact that when Clinton spoke Barack looked directly at her but when he talked, Clinton seemed to look past him. Maybe it means something. Maybe it doesn’t.
Nonetheless, those of us who have been following the campaigns know that Thursday’s debate offered nothing new. It did however, offer a little sparring, one hit below the belt, and one would-be knockout, but no clear winner.