Post-debate reactions & reflections

I don't enjoy watching political debates, especially primary debates, but they are a necessary discomfort.  Now I know some ([cough] Sam) will say that we should suspend judgments after a mere single debate with a number more yet to come, the voting is many months away.  The problem with that is that our media hosts and panels are obsessively cranking out their takes from the second the bell rings closed the final round.  The perception cake is getting baked, like it or not.  So premature or not, for whatever they're worth, I have some reactions and reflections to add to the batter...

One debater on Thursday night almost brought tears to my eyes.  His rasping speeches evoked in me the memory of the now-classic movie whose last scene had me bawling when I was leaving the theater: it was called Old Yeller (the eponymous dog is dispatched off-screen at the end).  His words said "Medicare for all!" but his tone said "Get off my lawn!"  (It has also been suggested that the tone is more like -- "I'll have the Reuben, put the sauce on the side!")

None of last night's candidates inspired me with their hopeful vision or passion for justice, much as they tried.  They seemed to have taken a few lessons from Wednesday night: barge in hard and loud to get as much air time as possible (they saw that moderators could be pushed and self-assertion worked better than hand-raising); attack rump whenever possible (post-game panelists spotlighted the lack of same); and the best way to get talked about in the TV post-mortems is to make a frontal assault on a higher-polling competitor (e.g., Julian Castro on Beto O'Rourke).  

But none of them could be Elizabeth Warren.  Warren did inspire me, again.  She has the studied X-ray vision to see the nature of the American problem with greater perspicacity, confidence and clarity of expression than any other candidate.  She effectively relates the life narrative that authenticates her empathy and her devotion to economic and social justice.  And she has thought through the root problem to well-differentiated, well-articulated, reality-based solutions.  (Although her endorsement of eliminating private insurance in favor of Medicare for All seems out of tune with her groundedness in policy proposals.  On this one I think Klobuchar makes more sense; the impression is that EW strayed a bit out of her pragmatic lane to compete ideologically for Bernie's peeps.) 

I had already seen those strengths in her, but what I had not seen before was the easy warmth she showed in mingling intimately with the people on the seating floor after the debate.  She seemed to be responding on substance with them while she was posing for selfies and kissing children.  My sense is that, unlike Joe Biden, she has been coachable and responsive to suggestions that she be a bit less strident and bring out more of her inner Dalai Lama. 

Last night Joe and Angry Bernie both seemed brittle and defensive.  Being the front-runners, they've been under attack from all sides, and they knew they'd be targets.  Joe didn't seem to have his heart in it, as if he wished he could have skipped the whole thing.  His unpreparedness also suggests that he may think he can just show up and wing it based on his experience, his personal story, his instincts and his effective and enduring close partnership with Obama.    

Over his many appearances with Rachel and Co., I have come to see Eric Swalwell as firmly grounded in his commitment to doing the right thing, but he struck me as lacking the depth to make a dent in this  I thought he way overdid the "pass the torch" mantra.  Come on, bring a better reason for me to vote for you than being younger than the poll-leaders -- especially when the most reliable demographic group to turn out to vote are the alter cockers.    

Mayor Pete had gravitas and the composure to generate substance and even weave in nuance and deep reflectivity.  His acknowledgement of his inefficacy as mayor at building trust between police and the minority community was both lauded for honesty and flagged as an explanation for his low numbers with black voters.  My sense is that he will come out of this debate at about the same place in the pecking order as he went in. 

Marianne Williamson probably should have gone full-bore New Age spirituality rather than trying to offer political critiques of her fellow Dems' ideas.  She's being satirized anyway as if she had recommended national distribution of crystals and essential oils.  She'd have added something no one else could have if she had actually talked about collective consciousness, meditation, the power of visualization.  It is remarkable that she has received sufficient support to get on the stage, but I saw an interviewed voter in NH say that "Marianne's my girl", so there is a following that believes in her.  But... for president?  

Kirsten Gillebrand lost me when she appeared to me to make the case that a male presidential candidate is disqualified by dint of gender from proposing to be effective in protecting women's reproductive rights.  Full disclosure, she lost me long ago when she forced her fellow Democratic senators to go along with her call for Al Franken's immediate resignation or else to be left with the mark of a sexual-assault enabler.  That wasn't due process, that was no process. 

To my dismay, Joe was not ready to face even the most expectable confrontations, most notably the one launched from a script by Kamala Harris.  She opened with, "I know you're not a racist," then launched into the BUT part wherein she accused him of "praising" segregationist senators (e.g., Eastland) and opposing busing for desegregation.  Either he had neglected to prepare a response to shots taken at these brightly flashing soft targets at which many had already aiming charges, or he and his team did a terrible job of same.  That does not inspire confidence that he would be the person to beat rump or the person to lead the country.   

Harris had been polling way behind Biden among black voters, by 30+ points.  They reportedly are wary of her hard-liner prosecutorial past, while Uncle Joe has the glow of the Obama association.  So her number one priority was to change those images and those numbers.  The post-hoc TV commentarians universally hailed her successful offensive against Joe's cred in the black community.  

My evaluation is that Kamala clearly is comfortable, authentic, strong and competent at aggressively prosecuting a case and attacking an opponent, as she also did in a hearing in questioning the diabolical dissembler, Bill Barr. I'm less convinced of her authenticity when she goes on to advocate progressive policies.   

What will be the upshot of Harris's rat-a-tat at Biden?  I believe Harris's attack may have done him more harm than it did her good, despite the herd-like kowtowing to her by the post-mortemers.  If that's right, Liz Warren will benefit most from any points Joe lost.  

Joe will have his chances to return Harris's fire and in general to show greater agility and capacity for honest reflection.  Kamala will have opportunities to show that she has deeply-thought-through solutions to national problems.  She identifies and states the problems quite well.  Maybe it's just that I've listened to Warren more than Harris, but to me that's the key difference, and Warren's greater traction in polls up until now could be read as reflecting that difference.  Harris needs to convince that she's a better candidate for president than she is for Attorney General.   

Last impressions:  Why does Joe not get down on the floor with the crowd like all others after the debate?  And his avoidance of responding to an interviewer's questions is a mistake.  If he doesn't trust himself to deal with questions, how can he expect us to?