Obama, Debates, the Future of Politics



I've not commented much lately on the Democratic Race, in part because the GOP situation has been much more fun. You've got more candidates in the running ; you have a base that's not happy with its choices; you have Religious Conservatives unhappy; and you have a candidate leading the pack that's pretty much at odds with his party platform on social issues. So, I've commented more on that side than on the Democratic side.

I didn't watch the debate last night -- I watched a very unfortunate football game instead -- at least until CSI came on and then I was outvoted. From what I hear, Hillary made a nice comeback and that Obama stumbled a bit.

Here's my take on Obama and debates. They're not his strength. He likes to give detailed and expansive answers and kind of has wings clipped in debates. Hillary, on the other hand, is quick with the responses and retorts. Both are quick on their feet, but Hillary seems to do better at the rapid fire.

So, we see Obama fire up an arena when he gives a speech but fades in the debates. So, here's my take: I think people have decided for or against Hillary -- her ceiling has been reached. The question is, what about the others. A lot can change in the next few weeks -- especially if Obama and Edwards do well in Iowa and cut into Hillary's lead in New Hampshire.

Now, as to Obama's message. Ron Brownstein has an excellent piece today in the LA Times about Obama the uniter. It is a message that resonates with a lot of people who are tired of the partisan bickering that gets us nowhere. But it doesn't resonate with an angry base that wants to take back lost territory, for whom the GOP isn't just the opposition party, but the enemy.

So:

Could Obama, as he claims, unite the country more effectively than Hillary Clinton? Obama's great asset as a political peacemaker -- touted in Andrew Sullivan's impassioned essay in the December issue of the Atlantic -- is that he hasn't been scarred by decades of cultural and political conflict. Clinton's great strength is her scars: She has survived enough combat to have learned something about avoiding it, as she demonstrated by shrewdly designing her new
healthcare plan to court the small-business and insurance lobbies that sank her 1993 proposal.

With Clinton, there's another issue. On an intellectual level, she recognizes the value of coalition building, but her gut instinct is to respond to a punch with a punch. She could prove too much a warrior to forge a truce in Washington. Obama, a silky mediator more respected than feared, faces the opposite question: In an age of extreme partisanship, is he tough enough to make
peace?

In less than a year from now, we will elect a new President -- GW will be off to the Ranch; and Dick will enjoy life in his undisclosed location. They question is -- where will a very divided nation be? And is there a candidate strong enough to make some peace?

Comments

Popular Posts