Democratic Love Fest

Well, not surprisingly, the Dems tonight played it safe and tried to "get along." They were all on a first name basis and smiles and nods all around. For a number of reasons--personally, culturally, academically, pedagogically--I was very excited about tonight's debate and the coverage from South Carolina State University, an institution from which several of my friends and family members have degrees.

But I knew ahead of time this would be a very straightforward debate. No one wants to rock the boat this early. In prepping for my class next semester, I was reading a few weeks ago on primary debates. The lack of public interest in these debates seems to reflect a lack of scholarly interest as well, as most of the scholarship on debates is focused on the general election. Still, there is a good bit of conventional wisdom that says primary debates serve important functions in helping candidates to create and shape their image, to set the agenda in terms of the issues discuss, and to demonstrate why they are a viable candidate for the "job." Going into an election where there are no incumbents, it was expected that the Dems would avoid in-fighting or stepping on anyone's toes. And for the most part they did.

My highlights of the debate:

• The coverage of South Carolina State University--in particular--explicit mention of the Orangeburg Massacre which is continually ignored in conversations of student protests like Kent State. As Rep. Clyburn mentioned on the pre-coverage broadcast, the town of Orangeburg is still healing and working through what happened on the campus. So I was glad that had national coverage--even it is almost four decades later.
• The questions from the local news viewers were excellent--a number of the questions gave more insight into what the candidates were thinking (or trying not to discuss) than those that were created by the political staff at NBC.
• Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kept everyone on their toes and made sure that this wasn't just 90 minutes of Democratic song and dance. Gravel in particular did take the frontrunners to task for why they continued to keep funding the war and trying to pass "soft" bills while ignoring the fact that Bush has made it clear he won't withdraw the troops while in office.
• Obama did nicely in his "rookie appearance" though I thought he played it a bit too safe. He was clear on healthcare and Iraq and the environment but I really wanted to hear about something else--especially given they are going to beat these issues into the ground for the rest of the year. I understand that was due largely to the nature of the questions, but there were some windows to discuss some other issues. I did appreciate his being firm on saying (in South Carolina) that the Confederate flag belongs in a museum--big points for me personally that could cost him a bit in the media outlets south of the M/D--as well as bringing up the poor response of the federal government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
• Clinton was polished and direct overall. Strong on defense, clear on health care, and she spoke with the tone of a leader.

My lowlights:

• Before the coverage began, Chris Matthews asked a Clinton strategist--"What is she wearing tonight?" I've studied this--this is not new and women in politics have always been questioned more about their appearance and fashion. But Matthews followup comments demonstrated his ignorance of this as he continued by saying that he was really fascinated by this "visual" and that we've never had to consider before what someone might wear other than the charcoal suit. Wrong Chris. Just four years ago you (the media) dubbed Carol Moseley Braun the "Lady in Red." That's just as one example.
• Bill Richardson--who has a lot of potential--really missed an opportunity to shine by being way too wordy.
• Clinton calling everyone by their first names was weird to me. There will be much conversation about this I'm sure, so I'll leave it to the "experts." I was more annoyed when she began to sound a bit like Bush in talking about retaliation and raised her hand in the belief of a "global war on terror" (as did most of the candidates).
• John Edwards must do something other than rely on his Southern charm when he's in the South. We get it--you're from the Carolinas. Beyond that I was disappointed that he didn't bring anything really new to the table and at times sounded defeated. Although he gave the "when I'm president" lines, they were delivered with a bit of a nonchalant or disconnected flavor that is not going to help him move up in the polls. Still, I'm sure his supporters were happy with his candor and his clear arguments about defense and healthcare.
• Too much focus on Iraq. And no discussion on education--that was very disappointing--especially given the setting of a historical Black college in a southern state not known for great education.

That was fun. I'm one of those weirdos who enjoys campaigns and it is really one of the few things that will make me watch the news. But enough for tonight (I switched from the debate to Moesha). Now its time to do a little grading before bed. Coverage of the Republican debate to come...