I'm with HRC: Time for a "Reality Break"

Review of Yet Another Debate

I saw Obama's win in Iowa from (damn near freezing) South Florida--it warmed the heart, especially the speech afterward. The massive turnout of young people shocked us all; even me, believer as I am in Barack's message but forever doubtful as to whether events will permit it to develop into realization.

The results were dramatic and the networks were nowhere near being able to explain them. They had alluded to the dynamics of second-choice movement extensively in the previews, but in the actual occurrence, they had no inclination to even hazard guesses about what was/had been going on, let alone factual information about caucus-goer movements (a few coordinated movements of a couple of thousand one way or another would've been important in the final results) or any hints of negotiations around such movements.

Coverage apart, though, something happened in the speech afterward, and the entire Main Stream Media was suddenly and collectively charmed. Obama brought together his skills as a storyteller, a preacher, and a political organizer; beyond the stylistic beauty and the smooth oratory, he had a theme, a synthesis of the moment, that killed.

Even right-wingers raved (and, to some extent, continue to rave). Bill Bennett, of all people, had it right: Obama's persistent refusal to play the race card was symbolic, and substantial proof in itself, of his ability to bring off his new politics: a regime based on a consensus of all "well-intentioned anti-Bushites" (my coinage).

Gloria Bolger called him "post-partisan"; hers a better coinage, and one that escaped my humble past efforts totally: I don't feel enough distance to label anything that happens today "post-". It's all "post-", and it's all "pre-", and of the two, I'm more interested in the "pre-". The notion is right, though I'd say the word is slightly inaccurate: Obama's appeal aims at the desire to get past a certain set of unresolved partisan intrigues; it's not promising an end to all partisan struggle.

The debate tonight was a matter entirely different. Edwards wasted no time in lining himself up as part of Obama's movement for change, "and we finished first and second in Iowa". It was a phony line, really--his win over Clinton for second was millimeters wide and served no purpose except for such an argument--but it set the tone: "Everybody's Jumpin' Everybody Else's Train", I think the '80's song (The Cure) was named which expressed this concept so well.

Obama was put off by the posturing and play-acting: Hillary, "whose feelings were hurt" when she wasn't voted Most Likable; Edwards with his new-found buddy (and I would say Obama will definitely need him if he is to win, and, by the way, John, feel like running for VP again?) ; Richardson and Hillary trotting out "experience" (which they have more of, in a quantitative sense, but not qualitatively superior in any real measure). He kept his cool for the most part, didn't commit major errors, acknowledged his leadership position (which, funnily enough, Hillary didn't challenge).

I don't think Obama enjoyed it, though, and he would be well advised to avoid further debates with his Democratic rivals. His policies don't stand out (none of them do), and it isn't one of his better formats. His analysis is too dry (in contrast to Edwards', whose presentation is spectacular though less successful strategically) and abstruse.

Probably the worst aspect for Obama is that he demonstrated the same quality that everyone criticized Her Royal Colossus for before she got rocked in Iowa: no, not the one of the vague answers, but of playing to the general Electorate before the nomination is won. This may help him tactically in New Hampshire (and the race is, once again, so close that tactics will be vital), but will hurt him in the longer slog to the Unofficial National Primary.

He sticks, even if it pains him, to the strategy, which pivoted on a dime that night in Iowa City: Must Win New Hampshire! He's going for the independents and crossover Republicans, who in New Hampshire are free to vote for him. This will not be the case in South Carolina--the Democratic and Republican primaries are a week apart--so Obama will need to win that one on the strength of the case he can make to wavering fellow African-Americans for Hillary that he's proved he can get the white vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. So he was willing to absorb some arrows tonight.

A word for our Governor Bill Richardson, who was fighting to keep his seat on the podium tonight. It was not his sharpest performance, in terms of accuracy, but he had the zinger of the night. "I've been present at hostage negotiations that were more civil than this." It may have been prepared, but it's a line that plays to his benefit in all regards, and he delivered it with a comic's timing.

Richardson's presence forces the others to give clear answers on the parameters of their plans for Iraq. It probably serves no one's interest except President Bush, and unfortunately he's not going to be smart enough to take advantage of his leverage--the looming threat of Democrats--with the Iraqis. Richardson will need to break into double figures in New Hampshire or Nevada on the 19th to stay in for UNP (and a potential Favorite Son win in NM) on Feb. 5. I think he will fall a little short in NH but can still make it in NV if he makes an effective pitch to his fellow Hispanics.

Finally, I'm disappointed that no one is picking up on the idea that this strange Unofficial National Primary approach (i.e., one with a few outliers) is actually working properly (though in the wrong month) . The "regional rotation" thing reformers suggest is much too logical to fit into the untidy American Presidential election political process.

Secondly, this absurd focus on who "wins", or finishes second, or third. Obama's victory was of such significance because it was a "significant" victory of several percent, not a technical edge of a few in the count (as was Edwards' over Clinton, of Thompson over McCain). I'm of the opinion that a New Hampshire win, whether for McCain or Romney, or for Hillary or for Obama, is not important unless it is significant.

Short Term Outlook

After New Hampshire's photo finishes, everyone stays alive for February Five. And we will move on, to the chaotic segment of the race.

On the Republican side, everybody also has a good reason to stay in, regardless of New Hampshire's results (I'm excluding Duncan Hunter, who I heard tonight has now won his one delegate, in the Wyoming caucuses, and should now get out, without discharging his delegate):

McCain--the vendetta in S.C. he's planning is worth any result in the meantime;
Romney--should finish no worse than a "disappointing second", once again;
Giuliani--the good stuff is coming, and Romney's fading;
Thompson--in 'til S.C., at least;
Huckabee--at least they're not all like New Hampshire! and
Paul--"they gave me this money to run, and I'm going to stay in until it's spent, if it takes me until November!"