The sport of politics. The politics of sport.

Jump to Comments

I’m not going to cover the details of the policy part of Tuesday night’s debate, because it was pretty much boilerplate and if you want to read the debate transcript, you can find copies all over the Web. No, my focus for this post is on the perception ball as it was handled and mishandled by the candidates; and the way the media pundits interpreted the final score.

 The first thing I noticed at the outset of Tuesday night’s debate in Cleveland between the two remaining Democratic contenders for the presidency was that a) Hillary Clinton looked wiped out and b) Barack Obama looked relaxed.

The good news for Clinton: after that initial shot, the cameras were kind to her. Whoever did her makeup gets gold stars because she actually looked rather beautiful, with arched eyebrows, glowing skin and rosy cheeks.

MSNBC’s Brian Williams got right to the point, asking Clinton about the “striking” difference between her warmth toward her opponent in the previous debate (”I’m honored” to share the stage with Obama) to her reprimanding tone in response to Obama flyers criticizing her pro-NAFTA stance and healthcare plan (”Shame on you, Barack Obama”). Clinton said the flyers were “disturbing” in their intent to mislead voters about her positions.

When pressed on the picture of Obama wearing Somali (read: Muslim) garb leaked to the “Drudge Report” last week, Clinton said that, “as far as I know,” it didn’t come from her campaign. Obama said he would take Clinton “at her word,” and basically let the matter drop.

In a bit of weirdness, the producers inadvertently aired a clip of Clinton making fun of Obama’s inspiring stage presence. Even though she said she was just having “fun,” anyone paying attention knew perfectly well that she what she was really doing was trying to ridicule Obama because she’s jealous of his charisma. Obama, knowing she had just made herself look like an ass, dismissed the clip by giving Clinton props for her humor and good “delivery.”

Meanwhile, my boyfriend was studying Obama’s face for any inadvertent smirks. As he has done in previous debates, Obama sat back and let Clinton hang herself with her own, long-winded rope as she went into wonk-speak during their 16-minute segue into dueling healthcare plans. “Let her do it, Obama,” he advised the television screen. “But don’t make those fucked-up smirks.”

Clinton, showing her growing tendency to veer off message, reminded audience members of the crappy, post-writer’s-strike Saturday Night Live, in which she was referred to as a “bitch.” She said something weird about Obama, in contrast, being given a pillow and asked if he were comfortable.

Of course, the actor playing Obama in the SNL intro did such a bad job of portraying him — using some weird, vaguely Southern accent and completely inaccurate hand gestures — that it’s up for debate whether Obama was given special treatment. All in all, not much seems to have changed since the writer’s strike: SNL still, for the most part, sucks. The only truly funny person on there is Seth What’s-His-Name.

Clinton at one point expressed smiley-faced annoyance about being made to field the bulk of debate questions first over the course of this season’s debate history. For some reason, this mystified a lot of commentators, which in turn mystified me. I mean, Clinton was talking about the right to rebuttal, a standard competitive advantage in the art of the debate. So maybe she had a point. But because of the way she put it out there, mentioning it and then adding insincerely that she was “happy” to answer the questions first, she didn’t do herself any perceptual favors.

When all was said and done, the two-headed tag team known as Chris Matthews-Keith Olbermann said the candidates had traded “field goals” rather than “touchdowns.” Really, boys? What about Obama’s foreign-policy cred? You don’t think, with the recent bombing of Al Qaeda hideouts in Northwestern Pakistan by the Bush administration and the consequent death of an Al Qaeda lieutenant, that Obama scored a TD by having his previous stance on the issue vindicated?

Matthews wanted to see more “punchy lines,” while Olbermann was impressed with Obama’s “unflappability.” Part 3 of the “Tres Amigos Blancos,” David Gregory, admired Obama’s ability to take the sting out of every arrow Clinton tried to launch with his Teflon shield of amiable comebacks.

The biggest opportunity for Obama to trip up was when he was asked about Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s unwelcome endorsement of his candidacy. Farrakhan, who has called Judaism a “gutter religion,” is a potentially annoying gnat buzzing around Obama as he works to solidify his relationship with American Jews. Clinton thought she was going to score big after Obama “denounced” Farrakhan rather than “rejecting” him. Obama took all the wind out of her sails by listening respectfully. Then, he declared he would “cede the point,” before going on to “denounce” and “reject” Farrakhan. A masterful defensive stop worthy of the 2007-08 New York Giants.

As far as I’m concerned, Clinton barely hung on. Obama had an effective rebuttal for EVERYTHING. Final score: Obama 28, Clinton 3.

Clinton’s biggest turnover of the night? Not being able to pronounce the name of the soon-to-be Russian successor to President Vladimir Putin. After basically dismissing the next leader of the former, but still scary, superpower as Putin’s “hand-picked” guy, she struggled with Medvedev’s name and finally gave up with a very unpresidential, “Whatever.” And we’re supposed to respect her foreign policy experience?

Big Oops.

Yours Truly, A.F. Cook