Debate Watch with a Beer and a Shot
By Brian Lambert
Circumstances forced me to watch last night's Clinton-Obama debate in a lightly populated exurban bar. I knew I wasn't in my west suburban ivory tower when three well-lubricated dudes smoking out front stopped me as I was walking in.
"Hey man," said the one with the tattooed neck and nose ring, "I don't mean anything by this, but do you know where there's a titty bar?" The fact that I had just seen one—surrounded by a sea of pickups a few miles down the road—seemed to delight him. "Aw right!"
Dialing back on the paternalism, I reminded him that just because the girls smile at him and call him "good lookin' " doesn't mean they want to meet up afterwards for a little KFC and schnapps.
Once inside, I found a corner with a TV and asked the bartender to flip it over to ABC. No problem. Around the bar, the other two dozen sets were tuned either to the Twins game or some shrieky reality game show. I had the "elite" viewership to myself.
Because I knew it'd be until this morning before I'd post, I've avoided the no-doubt voluminous analysis of who won, who stumbled, and how so and so's dreams of November were dashed on a night in distant April.
In broad strokes, I thought Obama was in no mood to wade any further into his "bitter" thinking. Better to deliver what more he wants to say in a controlled environment, such as his Philadelphia race speech. Besides, he's going to get the nomination, both he and Hillary know that, and McCain will come at him hammer and tong on any semblance of elitism they can froth up. As I think Newsweek's Richard Wolffe said the other night, "They will because it's all they've got." They're dead if they talk about the war(s) or the economy.
I thought Obama missed a golden opportunity to obliquely expand on that "small town" malaise business when he was asked about affirmative action. The question appeared designed to draw him into some inflexible defense of another buzzword emotional "issue," possibly with him refusing to consider eliminating affluent blacks from affirmative action laws. I was hoping he'd say something to the effect that it is time for affirmative action to be reimagined to reflect the twenty-first century reality that low-income minorities and low-income whites are in the same leaky boat—they are the "bitter" ones standard operating procedures have ignored—, whether they live in Garden City, Kansas or south Chicago, and generally mistrust each other. But he didn't . . . much.
I also thought Hillary was most impressive when she—speaking after Obama—talked about a Middle East-wide security/deterrence umbrella, as opposed to simply leaving the matter of a security agreement with Israel alone. She knows this stuff, probably better than Obama does . . . right now. But the follow-up to any "umbrella" agreement that has us jumping into (another) Mideast war to defend the Saudis, the UAE, Kuwait, or whomever from Iran should have been for George Stephanopoulos or Charlie Gibson to ask, "Really? Well, what else do we get from these characters for our promise to go to war for them (again). Israel at least is a practicing democracy."
But my big beef is with Stephanopoulos. The guy loves these cheesy "scoop/gotcha" questions. It's one thing for some middle-aged gal to ask Obama why he doesn't wear a flag pin. (All the real patriots do, you know. Just look at those NFL game day anchors: Terry, Howie, Shannon, Jimmy. You know from their lapel pins that those guys would lay down everything for the red, white, and blue.) But—oh, come on!—a "tax pledge?" I don't think you have to be a Minnesotan to know the steep downside to getting baited into "taking the pledge." But Stephanopoulos looked like a rodent chewing on a wire as Obama tried to avoid locking himself to one of the most nonsensical and counter-effective "promises" you can imagine.
During a commercial break, I walked by two twenty-something girls in a booth on my way to the john. They weren't watching the debate, the ball game, or the shrieky reality show. They were embroiled in a pretty solemn discussion about a feud, I guess, between E! diva du jour Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
The first hour of the debate (to use the term loosely) was substantively rather close to the level of the feud between Kim and Paris. I have not gotten rid of my TV quickly enough to avoid such drivel. It's an unfortunate commentary on the race that the debates in November '07 were issue-driven and now are personality- or gaffe-driven.
LAMBERT: Whoa! Now that I put this up I've checked the usual sources. I haven't seen reviews this bad since that last Lindsay Lohan movie. I'm WAAAY too nice. (I forgot to mention Stephanopoulos's question about whether the Rev. Wright "loves America".
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on April 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Both Gibson and George Stephanopolous were frankly, embarassing. Nearly an HOUR before any substantial policy discussion! Thanks for wasting my time. And was there - can there be - ANY disclosure that George worked in the Clinton cabinet? Really, the Weather Underground? Lapel pins?
LAMBERT: That was Gibson, blowing a couple toes off, pressing Obama with the ever-lame rationalization that, "It keeps coming up". Of course it does, Charlie. YOU keep asking it.
Posted by: essar1 on April 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
"Reviews this bad"?
LOOK who the candidates are!
Good grief, it's the veritable Decline of Western Civilization in spades.
(Is it alright to use that word?)
LAMBERT: Try, "Decline of Western Civilization in less than ideal pinkish-white Islamo-Facists". Just to be clearer, you know?
Posted by: bertram jr on April 17, 2008 at 4:27 PM
do you still think, along with every other democrat, that the party has two strong candidates?
LAMBERT: Obama is a uniquely strong candidate. Clinton, had she not gotten desperate and alternately silly and destructive, would have been better than average ... i.e. tougher minded than Kerry, less reticent than Gore (who won ...). I assume you think McCain is the Second Coming.
Posted by: hoppy on April 17, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Your editor must have cut out the last paragraph delivering the payoff: Does Kim Kardashian wear an American flag...on her bow or stern?
LAMBERT: She's a stern-pinner.
Posted by: Jed Leyland on April 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Tom Shales at the Washington Post got it right when he called ABC's performance "despicable." Stephanopoulis and Gibson stopped short of asking Obama if he is secretly a Muslim, or Hillary if she had Vince Foster killed...but not by much. This time, the media lost the debate.
That said, I'm beginning to sense the ultimate endgame here: Over the next few weeks, Obama and Clinton hold serve, each winning where they're supposed to, with the margins of victory the only thing to talk about. In June, with both still short of the nomination and with the superdelegates wavering, the process freezes in place. Hillary forges on to the convention, arguing that the race is essentially "tied."
In Denver, the convention splits down the middle. Ballot after ballot fail to resolve who will represent the party. Finally, after many hours of hopeless deadlock, a compromise is reached. Spotlight on! Cue the band! Enter the hero...
It's Al Gore for president. At last.
LAMBERT: Yours is an intriguing and provocative theory, although I was certain you'd reveal Lyndon LaRouche behind the final curtain.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on April 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I'm not sure what Hoppy has been smoking (unless she's reverted to her Whitehurst days), but are there actually any Dems who really believe both candidates are strong (as opposed to endlessly mouthing that mantra to Chris Matthews)? Jesus, Hillary's negatives only continue to rise, now coupled with similar numbers attaching to the unleashed former President. No question Obama's been tested by her, maybe hurt, but he has a far greater likelihood of transcending the residue of the primary fight. Hillary haters have had 16 years to firm up an opinion, and it can't and won't be undone.
LAMBERT: I said this thing was over after Super Tuesday and that Hillary would do the decent thing and bow out by St. Patty's Day. I was wrong about that last part.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
son of mississippi: i asked brian what he thought. i didn't give any clue about what i think. i have not been smoking anything. or drinking anything, either. not even the kool aid being dispensed on both sides.
brian: no, i don't think mccain is the seocnd coming. but after they finish beating each other up, i think he'll have a good chance of beating either one of them.
LAMBERT: It's still ... April.
Posted by: hoppy on April 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM
still april?
t.s. eliot was wrong. november is the cruelest month.
LAMBERT: Few months were as cruel as December 2000.
Posted by: hoppy on April 23, 2008 at 10:44 AM