DEBATES, DEBATES... Spain brings government and opposition face to face; America brings... two rivals within the same side?

No knockout in Democrats' TV bout
By Kevin Connolly BBC News, Cleveland


It was the most eagerly awaited debate of the primary season so far - another meeting between evenly matched contenders that cried out for the kind of title once reserved for the great heavyweight boxing contests of the past. The 1970s had the Rumble in the Jungle and the Thriller in Manila. Campaign 2008 brought you the Confrontation in Cleveland.

It was Hillary Clinton who did most of the pre-fight publicity work, warning her rival that she wanted to debate his "behaviour in the campaign" and denouncing him for mis-representing her health and trade policies in his campaign literature. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," she had thundered.
The contrast between that attack and her tone in the last debate a few days earlier, when she told her rival she was honoured to share the stage with him, made the prospect of the Ohio debate particularly intriguing.

Clearly, the Clinton Camp cannot decide how to deal with the Obama bandwagon. So, over the course of the build-up to Cleveland, Mrs Clinton has tried implying that she likes him - she praised his "eloquence" last week; but also hinting that she finds him slightly ridiculous - she had a go at parodying his speaking style at the weekend. Like sportswriters assigned to cover a brilliant but inconsistent team we wondered which Hillary would turn up - the sharp-tongued avenger of the last few days, or the conciliatory and rather philosophical figure of last week.

Tension

Journalists are often (and sometimes quite correctly) criticised for focusing on the personal, rather than the political in the race for the White House - of ignoring complex questions of public policy in favour of reporting on the campaign as a combination of horse race and soap opera.
For this 20th Democratic debate of the season - and the second between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama in the last five days, it felt absolutely right to concentrate on the atmosphere between the two candidates, because it offered the best clue as to where the two camps really feel the balance of advantage really lies between them.
And at that level at least, Cleveland didn't disappoint.
It began with a debate on the differences between their healthcare programmes - differences which in truth are not enormous. I suspect if you read the transcripts of the proceedings you might get the impression that it was a dull exchange - at 16 minutes it was certainly a long one. In fact, it crackled with tension. Everyone in America has by now heard the two Democratic senators comparing and contrasting their health plans, and in Cleveland they did it again.

Attacks

This time the exchanges were snippy and occasionally ill-tempered. You could sense the effort each had to make to force themselves to listen to the criticism. Eye contact was avoided, facial expressions became glassy with the effort of appearing to listen patiently.
It was revealing stuff. Mrs Clinton went after Mr Obama again, charging him with using "very disturbing" tactics and misrepresenting her healthcare plans.
His game plan was clearly to meet the charges with a kind of patient reasonableness which seemed designed to provoke her into being more aggressive still. At one point he said: "Her campaign has constantly sent out negative attacks on us... we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns."
Senator Obama's tactic of using the debate to demonstrate his credentials as a man who can bring people together reached a peak towards the end of the evening, when he said of Hillary Clinton... "she would be worthy as a nominee... she's an outstanding public servant" before pointing out that he thought he was a better candidate.
Senator Clinton again showed herself to be a master of detail - and she got across her core idea that she is a "fighter" - but she scored the only real own goal of the night when she complained that she was "always" invited to answer questions first... it seemed to be leading to a charge that the media were giving her rival an easier night, but she allowed the issue to peter out without developing the argument, and that simply seemed peevish.


I suspect these debates only really shift the mood of the voters when a candidate makes a glaring error, or delivers a killer blow - and none of the 20 Democratic debates have been rich in such moments. Cleveland certainly wasn't.
As to who won the debate... well, both candidates are highly-capable , well-rehearsed, and highly experienced debaters and the truth is that while each is capable of scoring an occasional point off the other neither has shown any ability to land a knockout blow. In a situation where Barack Obama has a lead in delegates for the summer nominating conference, and has the momentum with him, he is probably favoured by what might be described in sporting terms as a low-scoring draw.
The bottom line from all this might in the end be that Hillary Clinton needed a clear victory more than Mr Obama, and neither really got one.

SOURCE: adapted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7266212.stm

Published: 2008/02/27 07:11:44 GMT