The sport of politics. The politics of sport.

Jump to Comments

Every political pundit on the airwaves has been talking about the Democratic “debate” Monday night — specifically, about the sparks flying between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with John Edwards acting as a more-than-willing peacemaker (more points for him).

The debate came at the end of a long day of political news made by Bill Clinton, who seems to be teetering dangerously close to sacrificing his own memory in voter’s minds for the pyrrhic victory (if, in fact, victory is possible) of winning his wife the Democratic nomination, despite a persistent lack of likeability that makes her electability in the general election a big IF. The last image I’d seen of the former Prez on the nightly news prior to the debate had him nodding off as some illustrious personage delivered a speech honoring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This as Hillary was about to make her case as the best bet for blacks that very evening, at an event sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Ironies abound.

Prelude to a Fist?

The event looked at first like it might be more of a snoozefest than a slugfest. Viewers who tuned in at 8 p.m. sharp were treated to an awkward stretch of dead-air space as CNN master of ceremonies Wolf Blitzer delivered a long-winded explanation of WHAT WE WERE ABOUT TO WITNESS and the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. The candidates were “announced” and walked onto the stage, where they stood aimlessly as they waited for their cue to move to their podiums. Clinton and Edwards pulled out their super-smiles, while Obama seemed almost too serious.

It took at least five minutes for the sparring to begin. It became clear Obama was going to have the same sort of night — or at least the same sort of first half — as New England Patriots QB Tom Brady in Sunday’s AFC Championship. He seemed sluggish and hesitant compared with his competitors, who were aggressive from the get-go. Especially Hillary, whose demeanor in the first hour screamed “pit bull.”I saw a trait I never expected to see in Obama: he was humorless. Eventually he would warm up, but the Clintons clearly had gotten under his skin — in more ways than one. They were gnawing at the roots of his political identity.

Adversity brings out the best in the best competitors, so I say “Time for a MORPH!” If Obama expects to overcome the deceptiveness and deadly ambition of the Clintons, he will need to rebrand himself as a clearer, more firm presidential persona in the weeks to come. Pick three to five issues that appeal to the VOTING MAJORITY — not just liberal Democrats — and focus like a laser beam on developing the cleanest, most effective angle you can on those issues.

As Obama and Clinton quickly removed their gloves, what we were about to see was as close to a boxing match as you can get while dressed in a suit. Here’s the short version (we cover the substance afterward): Clinton asserted that she couldn’t find any “evidence” of how Obama planned to pay for his health care plan. He accused her of being a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart while he was helping lower-income and working people in the communities of Chicago. She flipped that around by accusing him of working for a “slumlord.” He “clarified” that he’d done about five hours of work pushing paper as an “associate” for a church client linked to the person in question.

Meanwhile, the audience reacted with a mixture of disgust and excitement as the candidates teetered on the brink of yelling. Obama at once point tried to paint himself as a David against the two-headed Clinton Goliath. “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” he said. And on it went. “It’s very difficult to get a straight answer” from Obama, Clinton asserted.

She also accused him of appreciating the power of Republican ideas and icons (Ronald Reagan) a bit too much. But I knew where Obama was coming from: Republicans stole a bunch of Democrats from the Party flock, for Pete’s sake. How the heck did they do that? It’s called “understanding your audience.” Obama, rightly, wants to steal some Republican votes for the Dems, and get some of those Reagan Democrats back. He knows it ain’t gonna happen with the same old liberal rhetoric. As I recall, Hillary Clinton didn’t seem to have a problem with her husband supporting welfare reform — a relatively “Republican” concept at the time — when he was president. Do I hear the sound of double-speak?

Overall, Hillary came across as something of a battle-axe with more than a touch of insincerity. Obama clearly doesn’t like being put in the position of arguing with a woman. He doesn’t seem to know where and to what degree manners are in order. Remember when Hillary lamented that all of this “wasn’t a game,” as she teared up in New Hampshire? Well, some of us have longer memories than others. Our girl might pull out the tears when she needs them, but Monday night she was playing hardball and making no apologies

Oh, yeah, substance. Why don’t we talk about that?

The designated question pitchers wasted no time trying to get the candidates to swing at the economy ball. What I heard from the candidates was basically, “We need to give everybody between $500 and $600 dollars really fast” to stave off a recession. (This was in the immediate wake of a worldwide market crash that the U.S. Federal Reserve helped slow the next morning with a .75 percent cut in the prime interest rate). When the candidates talked about paying peoples’ energy bills for them, I kept wondering why they weren’t talking about holding oil companies accountable for making huge profits off our backs — especially since Katrina. Why should taxpayers be forced to cover for oil companies? Haven’t Big Oil execs heard of “personal responsibility”? (A term Dems need to throw around more often, instead of letting Republicans abuse the privilege.)

Here’s the rhetorical bind for Dems in their attempts to get people mad as hell enough not to take economic unfairness anymore: their bad “wealthy” guy is the Republicans’ good “job creator.” My question is: When the heck are Dems going to figure that out and come up with an effective rebuttal??

I also get really tired of Democrats criticizing each other for their positioning on the Iraq War. We all know Congress was basically coerced, with the help of post 9/11 war fever, into signing onto the campaign or risk being labeled “unpatriotic.” And could someone please explain to me the ACTUAL difference between “supporting the war” and “supporting the troops?”

Obama seemed to be the most in sync with the voting majority on the illegal immigration issue. He explained that it didn’t make sense to pay for the health care of illegals when we can’t even pay for the health care of American citizens. Sounds logical to me. For the record, I still don’t understand why Democrats assume that LEGAL Hispanic voters automatically support illegal immigration and that they somehow have to tiptoe around the issue for fear of alienating those voters. Dems need to be more firm in stating their willingness to curb illegal immigration if they want to take advantage of Republican disunity on the subject. Obama seems to be the only one willing to call it like the voting majority sees it.

Obama also mentioned the situation in Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not buying health insurance, when the problem is they can’t afford it. So people are being FORCED TO PAY FINES that are less costly than what health care would cost them. It’s basically a monetary penalty for NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY. Why aren’t the big insurance companies and HMO executives instead of working taxpayers being forced to pay those fines??

Hillary Clinton left South Carolina for California Tuesday. She left Bill behind to mop up, I guess. But it was a strange move. Maybe she feels Bill will do a better job wooing Southerners. Remember, Hillary, we’re not voting for HIM anymore. You need to be your own best ambassador. The South may well be in play in November: but who among the Democrats can woo her right?

Yours Truly, A.F. Cook