There were the emails from CNN – cover a presidential debate as a credentialed member of the press once, blogging it in real time, and these folks think you’ll do it again. So there were the emails – the forms to fill out and the schedules, and all the insider stuff. But the Democratic debate on Thursday, February 21, was in Austin, and that’s in Texas. When you live in Hollywood traveling to Texas seems less a great adventure and more a punishment. Maybe that has to do with the business trips to the Perot Systems headquarters in Plano – one just-what-you-would-expect moment after another, the women with big hair, the pick-up trucks with the gun racks (and guns), businessmen in expensive, well-tailored suits wearing even more expensive hand-tooled leather cowboy boots, the slow, lazy but somewhat threatening drawl of the guy at the gas station, and the heat. What – was this a set and did they get all these folks from central casting? Of course visitors from Texas, to these parts, no doubt feel the same way. If you followed the Hollywood narrative last time, you know we’re talking two entirely different cultures – both America, both not.
But there was the odd chance of missing an earth-shattering event, or really big news – the earth being relatively shatter-proof of course.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram teed that up:
Security details at Barack Obama’s rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.
Dallas Deputy Police Chief T. W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department’s homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order - apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service - was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena’s vacant seats before Obama came on.
“Sure,” said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a “friendly crowd.”
The crowd in Dallas on November 22, 1963, looked friendly too. We’ve all seen the film – they were waving and cheering. And we’ve all seen the film of John Kennedy’s brain exploding out of his skull, throwing what was left of his head back to the left. Hollywood’s own Oliver Stone made sure we saw that, with Kevin Kostner intoning, “Back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left…” (as you might remember).
Maybe it’s a Texas thing. But the Star-Telegram story, for those of us of a certain age, just made your heart sink. What was going on? And then, if you’re a of a certain age and one of those ridiculous idealists and not a no-nonsense conservative, you remember what happened to the key leaders of what we now call progressive thought in the sixties – Kennedy, then King, then Bobby Kennedy, gunned down. Cut off the head and the snake dies. And it worked. To be fair, George Wallace got shot too, and Malcolm X – two guys at opposite ends of some pole or another. Perhaps Americans are just not very nice people.
But for many of us the first three assassinations were a warning – and we got the message. Like a lynching to a Negro in the Jim Crow south, it was a statement of what happens if you get too uppity. These days we call such stuff terrorism, the swift and unexpected death of key people as political statement, and a reminder of your own powerlessness. Now we have a brilliant young black man, Barack Obama, running for president. This news item out of Texas just made no sense, or made all the sense in the world.
And none of this was helped by Bill O’Reilly saying he certainly wouldn’t lead a mob to lynch Michelle Obama, the wife – unless, unless she really said what he thought she might have said. Many found that appalling, others suggested it was a poor choice of words, but the evening of this debate O’Reilly was on-air saying he would never apologize – he had been defending her from people who jump to conclusions. All you could do was sigh. His audience is vast. Again, maybe Americans are just not very nice people – and that word, unless, hangs in the air. Yep, terrorists work that way.
But who was the responsible authority in Austin? That was even more alarming:
Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.
“How can you not be concerned in this day and age,” said one policeman.
Federal Officials? This is not Pakistan, where Musharraf sets up conditions allowing pesky people to get blown up, then shrugs and says such things happen and it’s just a coincidence such things keep him in power. But our president says Musharraf is a key ally and that Musharraf deeply believes in the democratic process. Maybe the two of them have been chatting.
No – that’s crazy-talk. Some low-level functionary made a bad call in Austin. No harm, no foul. But such things make you edgy. Or making people edgy was the idea, a political tactic – something could happen, you know. But that’s crazy-talk too. It was nothing, nothing at all.
The debate itself wasn’t much. The immediate CNN headline was Clinton, Obama Throw Few Punches. They were nice to each other, and watching, you realized they agree on most everything. Their differences are in details, not in basic policy – so the questioners went after those nuances, picking nits as it were. It was less than compelling.
The conventional wisdom was that with Obama ahead and pulling away Clinton had to go on the attack – all that she-had-to land-a-knockout-punch stuff you heard, and all Obama had to do was not make a major mistake. She didn’t, and he didn’t. That only makes sense – she could hardly shriek that this man was not ready to be president as, were he to win, McCain, or whomever, could shriek the same words. She’s not dumb.
That’s probably what makes primary debates dull – attack and make the other guy damaged goods, say he is obviously unfit for office, and you can screw your own party. She was trapped, and he looked bored.
So she opened the debate by saying she was special - she “offers a lifetime of experience and proven results.” That was her pitch. See Josh Marshall:
9:16 PM - I don’t see how Sen. Clinton can say she’s been representing the United States for fifteen years. I know this is a dicey topic. But she wasn’t president from 1993-2001. What am I missing? Here’s the quote: “For more than fifteen years, I’ve been honored to represent our country in more than eighty countries, to negotiate on matters such as opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women’s rights as human rights around the world.”
Not exactly, but she has been marketing herself as the one candidate in the “solutions business.” She knows he draws the crowds, that everyone who listens to him is not just impressed, but actually moved. She gets it. She just says she’s offering something else, something better – “I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words, and I offer that.”
CNN’s Bill Schneider – “Obama responded effectively - he defended his achievements, and characterized Clinton as suggesting his supporters are delusional for supporting him. The line played well.”
But there was more to it. Some of us heard Obama pretty much say that deep experience was great, and important, and beside the point. The two of them share all sorts of policy positions, and experience is nice and all that, but “there’s a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about.” It was all about process. You don’t demonize people, you don’t get into pointless fights – you talk with them, listen a lot, and see what you can work out that’s best for everyone. And that’s just not how she thinks.
That came out on the Castro thing. When asked if she would meet with the person who takes over for Fidel Castro, who just resigned, she said she would certainly not do that “until there was evidence that change was happening.” She mentioned preconditions – the release of each and every political prisoner, free and open elections, and a change in the economic system so the place ran like Iowa on a Thursday afternoon or something. Yeah, that’s a paraphrase, but not that far off – when they run things like we want them to, then, and only then, we might talk with them, maybe. That will play well in the Cuban-American areas of Miami – lots of votes there.
Obama said he would meet with the future leader of Cuba without preconditions, but he threw her a sop – “Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation.” She didn’t say that. It was devastating, but it was subtle. He just doesn’t think that way, nor do those who find him appealing. It’s the community organizer in him – he knows how to work with people and, without compromising, get done what needs to get done.
It wasn’t all that subtle and high-level. The Associated Press opened their account of the debate with the one spat:
Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism Thursday night and said he represented “change you can Xerox.” Obama dismissed the charge out of hand, adding in a campaign debate, “What we shouldn’t be doing is tearing each other down; we should be lifting the country up.”
And the audience booed her.
She doesn’t get it. She’s offering solutions, and experience, and he again and again said lots of people have those, and they’re fine, but what are you going to do with them – ram them down people’s throats? It’s as if they were from different worlds. She doesn’t get him, or what he’s about. She attacks the wrong things. It wasn’t pretty.
But she did have her moments:
“She was blessed” to “give others the same opportunities that I take for granted. That’s why I get up in the morning. That’s what motivates me for this campaign. No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored to be here with Barack Obama… whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people.”
She got a standing ovation for that, the first one of all the debates. That’s how it closed.
Marc Ambinder comments:
Almost wistful … acknowledging reality… but forcefully asserting her humanity … extremely, seemingly, genuine. And at the right time…
But he adds this:
Clinton gave strong answers on health care and on local issues, and regularly referred to local issues. She had a strong response to questions about John McCain and earmarking late in the debate. Her final answer was humble and endearing. She ended stronger than she started.
The puzzler of the night, to me, is why Clinton refused to answer a simple question that she clearly has an answer to: And that is: Is Barack Obama ready to be commander in chief? Clearly the answer, for Clinton, is “no.” It’s her best argument against him. But twice she avoided it and instead recapitulated her own resume.
At this point, she has nothing to lose by making that argument. The fact that she did not suggests to me that she is thinking, already, about life as a Senator from New York supporting Barack Obama and did not want to give John McCain the soundbite that could doom Obama’s candidacy. I don’t think she’s conceded the nomination in her mind, but I do think she had two temporal audiences in mind when she answered: Democrats now and the nation in the fall.
Later he added this:
This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination.
Things have moved on. Her way of thinking – not her ideas and experience – has become a second-level virtue. She would be a fine vice president or senior planner. Perhaps she will realize being leader is best handled by those who know how to do such things.
On the other hand, Obama might be shot.
