Debate Over the Debate

The consensus among pundits concerning last night's presidential debate in Philadelphia between the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who trails him, was twofold.

First, it was not a great night for Senator Obama. He seemed tired, hesitant, and did not turn in a good performance. While you could argue he "lost," Senator Clinton didn't "win" either. Both gave and got throughout the encounter, but it came down to those who believe Senator Clinton isn't trustworthy (think Bosnia) versus those who thought Senator Obama was slippery (think "bitter" comments and more).

Additionally, those who were supporting Senator Obama thought the questioning in the debate by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused on trivial gossip, according to one critic. Their complaints focused on the opening 45 minutes in which Senator Obama seemed to be pummeled by the two network anchors, answering questions on his comments that a poor economy led Americans living in small towns to be "bitter" and "cling" to such things as their religion, gun ownership, as well as negative feelings on trade, immigration, and gay marriage.

They also brought up Senator Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose incendiary comments on America were made while Sen. Obama was a long-time member of Rev. Wright's church. They questioned Sen. Obama's decision not to wear a flag lapel (like many politicians do) and a new item-his association in Chicago with a former 1960s radical named William Ayers. A flag popped up recently on Senator Obama's lapel, but not last night.

Senator Clinton came in for her share of hard questioning about her account of a trip to Bosnia she took as First Lady in which she said that she landed under sniper fire-a story easily debunked by video posted on YouTube.

Some observations?

The two candidates are extremely close on most positions; the differences are minimal. And Senator Obama, as front-runner, is at this point, the natural target of journalists. Senator Clinton was the target late last year and I can recall her complaining about unfair questioning by journalists and giving a "pass" to Senator Obama. But now the positions are reversed, and Senator Obama is the target. This is only natural in presidential campaigns.

The questions were not off base, IMHO, and showed a lot more about Senator Obama's character and beliefs (which we really don't know much about) than drawn out discussions on the nuances of health care. Americans are concerned about whom their candidates associate with and what they truly believe, not what policy positions are dreamed up in the campaign press shop. Does Sen. Obama really think that people in small towns "cling" to religion because of poor economic times? If they were richer, would they give it up? He has tried to moderate those remarks in recent days but somehow has made his actual belief fuzzier.

And what about Senator Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers? Are dots starting to be connected?

Senator Clinton's veracity, according to polls, is also a viable issue. Many Americans, at least those in recent surveys, said they have problems believing what she says. She, too, had to answer some tough questions about this, and she did-without whining about the types of questions she has been asked.

Other writers, not me, have noted that supporters of Senator Obama feel as if he should not be asked any tough questions at all, particularly about his past. In fact, they say, all that he should be asked are questions in which he can criticize Senator Clinton and Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Part of this process-the presidential primary process-is to toughen our candidates because the challenges they will face, no matter who is elected, will be immense.

And I have to point this out: Senator McCain has answered every question thrown to him until reporters tire of them; Senator Clinton, after some complaining early in the cycle, has certainly stood in there and taken what was thrown at her.

I wonder if voters are beginning to sense vulnerability in Senator Obama in taking "tough" questions, no matter what they are. During one press conference, when "tough" questions were hurled at him, he left the stage after taking one or two. He generally seems annoyed at the prospect and has said since the debate that the questions he got in Philadelphia were, "… the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with."

While polls haven't reflected the outcome and effects of last night's debate yet, the Democratic voters seem to be in an unusual spot. While Senator Obama still leads in national polls, he trails in Pennsylvania (and leads in two states that will vote soon after Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina). If voters have doubts about him, they also express doubts about Senator Clinton. What to do?

If Senator Clinton wins Tuesday night, she stays in the race, and why not? The image of political sainthood that was bestowed upon Senator Obama early on has been slowly whittled away. Last night he looked, like, well, a politician. He has been on defense for the past few weeks and last night was another example that he is human.

It may not make any difference but the Democratic race is in an odd place. A favorite with more questions being asked about him, and his opponent, who is not a favorite but not an also-ran either.

Superdelegates, those delegates who are not elected and are free to vote as they wish, must be wondering which candidate they will support. It is becoming a more difficult decision each day.

Pennsylvania on Tuesday may be an interesting place to be.