Debate Impressions

I did manage to watch both debates yesterday, and I think the contrast between the two parties couldn't be sharper. The Republicans had a nasty, mean, grumpy old man debate highlighted by John McCain's sniping and Fred Thompson occasionally weighing in from his rocking chair with a snide remark, not that he had a plan of his own. In a way Thompson is the quintessential conservative in this race; only caring about what we can't do, completely unconcerned about governance, just interested in showing his dominance by insulting his opponents. If he wasn't in a coma for six months I would say he epitomized the conservative id and would sail to victory. But Mitt Romney's got a better chance even though he was smacked around to an almost pity-inducing degree last night. And the Huckabump is going to be sufficient for him to claim that he defied expectations with a strong third-place finish. I still think he's the nominee, no matter how much the media wanks for St. McCain. Also, I forgot every word 9iu11iani said.

By contrast the Democrats had a pretty sober, substantive debate, outside of one defining moment when John Edwards tried to stick the knife in Hillary Clinton by parrying a Clinton attack with "any time the agents of change speak out, this is what the status quo does." That really pissed Clinton off, though she improved throughout the debate. I thought her faulting Edwards for not getting the patient's bill of rights through Tom DeLay's House when he worked his ass off to pass it in the Senate was a really weak return, however. Obama stayed relatively above the fray. Richardson was kind of just there.

But there were two defining moments. One was in the Democratic debate, when Charlie Gibson proved the cluelessness of the Beltway media with what is going on in the rest of the country.

Summary: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, moderator Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families, adding, "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." According to the U.S. Census, however, the median income for a U.S. household is $48,451, and the mean household income is $65,527; and only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.

It was worse than that. The crowd openly laughed at Gibson for the stupidity of suggesting that two professors at St. Anselm make that kind of money (more like $75,000). And the larger point was that, because everybody in Gibson's world is rich, he naturally believes that the rest of the country is the same way.

The other key moment was when the Republicans were asked how they would contrast themselves with Barack Obama. They didn't find it very possible. It was easy for them to characterize Hillary as some sort of demon. But with Obama, Romney praised him, McCain praised him, Huckabee praised him and compared the two's success in Iowa, and Ron Paul praised him and compared the two's success with young voters. When McCain tried to draw contrast on experience, Romney stopped him and said "that's what Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton said in Iowa, and they all got smoked." When the Republicans can't figure out a line of attack, you know they're worried. They'll fall back on the same liberal boogeyman stuff, but clearly Obama and his movement represent a real problem for Republicans.

That's all I got...