Thougths After the Debate

bviously you can discount this as biased because I'm an Obama supporter, but by the end of the debate, it seemed that Clinton had pretty much discounted whatever rationales she had left for her candidacy. Recall her "For shame!" tirade about the mailings -- by the debate it had revolved into a civil factual disagreement. That mocking speech from last Saturday? -- now it's just a way to let off steam during a tough campaign.

Obama could afford to be gracious and acknowledge that Clinton is a substantive candidate -- his campaign is predicated on his superior gifts as a politician. His campaign narrative says that he is more likely to get elected and more likely to successfully rally the people to demand political change.

Hillary's narrative is that Obama is inexperienced and insubstantial. As such, she was in the unenviable position of needing to attack right after he acted the gentleman. If she had attacked it may well have been judged a gaffe. But instead the debate ended with Obama having shown that he is substantive and experience, but a better leader, and Clinton having conceded that he is substantive and experienced but that, well, maybe she has a bit of an edge or something.

Add to that the extreme difficulty finding a sliver of daylight between their positions on most issues, and you are left with two solid candidates, one with a broader skill set, one who has basically been alive longer.

The general consensus was that Hillary needed a clear win and didn't get it. True, but she actually lost ground by conceding so much.