Spinderella

After reading a number of the candidates' websites regarding this evening's Democratic presidential debate, I came to the following conclusion: THEY ALL WON. You'd think it would be impossible for this to happen, but you'd be wrong. Hillary was "dominant," Edwards was "smart" and "bold," and Obama "provided a clear example of strong, honest leadership."

Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, Stanley Fish writes a second, particularly relevant, entry on "spin." (Unfortunately, it's TimesSelect, but highly recommended reading, as is the first entry and the comments received on it.)

Fish writes of the "impossibility of avoiding 'spin' in a world (our world) [Ed. note: was this parenthetical really needed, Stanley?] where perception and expression necessarily proceed from some angled perspective or point of view."

And while Fish is not writing specifically for the presidential debates (or politics generally), this discussion is timely. After an eight person debate (which few watched), most people will learn about the debate through soundbites, youtubes, summaries and interpretations. So how does one find out who "won" the debate?

CNN's commentators take a similar, albeit much less intellectual or nuanced, perspective as Fish. Two of three think that Clinton was the "winner," although both of them also think that Biden "seemed to know the most about the issues" and none of them cite anything she did. Carville did say he thought she was "best dressed." But even that comment means little, when you consider that he likely said it only to avoid being seen as fruity for saying another man was well dressed.

Are any of the commentators correct? No, of course not, but when combined with the perspectives of so many others available online, you can get a pretty good understanding of the debate - and possibly a better one than just by watching it yourself. You'll even be able to get the result you wanted. Like Kucinich? He did great - in fact he was the best on the floor. Richardson? Man he was kicking ass and taking names. Undoubtedly, some accounts will even promise you that Mike Gravel will be the next president of the United States. Fortunately for us, political debates aren't like sports; no matter how many times I check ESPN, the Spurs are playing the Cavs in the Finals, not the Bulls and Suns.

-----------------------------------------------------

Despite what I've said above (or maybe because of it), continue here, to see Cosmodrome's take on the debaters.


Biden: As good a performance as he could have had. The guy knows most of the issues better than most of the other candidates. Unfortunately for him, most people (myself included) will continue to be turned off by his lack of patience. On numerous moments he looked ready to punch the other candidates in the face (Edwards and Kucinich in particular). Not saying that they don't deserve a punch in the face, but Biden could certainly learn some lessons in tact.

Clinton: Hillary, who received the polemical treatment from the NYT Magazine yesterday, treated the debate like she was a varsity player stuck in the JV game. The only problem was that she didn't dominate the game, making her cockiness much less effective.

Dodd: I have nothing to say about him other than he's a decent Senator who says and does nothing to make anyone think about voting for him over any of the front-runners. Also, it might just be me, but I think he's incredibly weird looking. [Ed. note: it's probably the eyebrows.]

Edwards: Incredibly grating, again. Could sorely use a shot of Biden in him. Edwards suffers from his inability to overcome a lack of policy gravitas, and he's doing nothing to improve this. His bit about legislating-versus-leading was particularly insipid. He's like the bad waiter who's too nice to you in an effort to up his tip. (See also the photo above - he's the image of trying to look sincere.) UPDATE: TNR gives Edwards failing grades as well.

Gravel: Entertaining as always. Particularly enjoyed when he talked about where he gets his "meds."

Kucinich: In 2004, I was rather fond of Kucinich; I appreciated his idealism and elan. Three years later (i.e. today), he just seems like a sideshow. Still like his wife though.

Obama: Full disclosure: He's my favorite right now. He did nothing to change this opinion. He even managed to not stumble when Gravel appropriately questioned his work on the Veterans Affairs committee in light of the Walter Reed fiasco, and apologized for causing people to miss the Yankess-Red Sox game. (As an aside - it's interesting to me that, unlike Edwards and Clinton, Obama's campaign website didn't immediately claim victory. While it's an appropriate and honest method, I'm not convinced appropriate and honest are election-winners.)

Richardson: The National Review (!) best explained Richardson's performance (emphasis added): "Richardson continues to be the Ryan Leaf of this election. Meandering answers, can't seem to focus, has yet to look comfortable. It’s kind of hard to believe he has the resume he does with the public speaking skills he’s shown." Slate also covered this territory in discussing his appearance on Meet the Press.

Cosmodrome Categories: