Obama-Clinton: The Final Debate?

Not really; I'm sure there will be others. But this was the final one before MONSTER TUESDAY(!), though that won't be the end of the Democratic primary process. For the record, I thought it was the most interesting debate yet. Instead of half a dozen people talking over each other, you simply had the two frontrunners having a serious and substantive debate over policies that matter. And when a few predictably dumb questions surfaced-- like the Bill Clinton sideshow-- both candidates refused to take the bait. On that note, they both came out looking like winners, because they took it seriously.

(And the difference between this debate and the GOP panderfests can't be understated)

Also impressive was how far we've come in standing our progressive ground. Four years ago, John Kerry played the muddled centrist role he was told was necessary to win in George Bush's America and got clobbered by the guy who discussed terrorism and gay marriage as if they were equal threats. And yet here, both Obama and Clinton refused to do the same. When asked the "won't you be accused of being tax-and-spend liberals?" question about their proposals for health-care (etc), they refused to cower. They made the moral case for universal health-care and called BS on the Bush tax policies (good article on that- here). When asked a xenophobic question on immigration, they refused to pander, making it clear that's it's wrong to scapegoat immigrants for economic failures, and both had good answers on how to fix the system. When asked how they will run America when neither has run a business, they gave the obvious answer: America is a country, not a business. Etc.

Still, there were differences. Sen. Clinton was more realistic about the fierce opposition universal health care will face (it will be "nibbled to death", she said). But she failed on this in '93, and I see Obama's plan as far more plausible. She also faltered on the war (how was she to knew that the war resolution was a resolution for war?) and on the issue of dynasty (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is fine; it's not her fault people kept electing Bushes). The differences between the two are subtle on the surface, but very, very important (ie. the issue of mandates in health-care coverage). I'd say that Obama won overall; he answered better and just-- frankly-- looked presidential.

Good summaries from the Reality-Based Community (here, here, here), Andrew Sullivan (here), and TPM (here and here). Full video- here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

[UPDATE: Yep- No global warming questions.... In another debate sponsored by Big Coal.]