Hillary vs. Obama

For the first time during the campaign, I was hanging around the house during last night's Democratic debate (that is, at 11 a.m. in Tokyo) and could watch the action - mostly live, with buffering delays - on msnbc.com.

My back-of-envelope analysis:

1. Obama is such a natural that HRC and her staff must be going nuts that her intense preparation and criticism don't rattle him. He has an innate ability to respond rhetorically when he's under pressure - and to know in advance how the audience will hear him. He's a rhetorical boxer, very light on his feet, and about 99 percent on message.

So he always sounds tough on big issues, i.e. when he criticizes her vote on the Iraq War. He's wonky enough - but not too wonky as to bore anyone - on policy stuff like health care. On bland subjects like the economy or veterans, he filibusters with long-winded, uncontroversial answers so she can't interrupt. And when he's asked about her criticism of him, he fends it off with a joke.

For example, in the debate tonite, he sort-of praised the "timing and delivery" of her sarcastic "choirs will sing" speech of last weekend. I think he wants to convey to the audience that he doesn't take anything personally; conversely, when HRC complained that she always gets the first tough question in debates - like the Saturday Night Live skit - it proved again that the Clintons do take everything personally.

But what I also think is so tactically smart is that Obama knows when to concede a lesser point - that is, to give in and get on with it, while Hillary is primed (like many powerful women) to argue every point because she always wants to look tough and in control and to make him look soft.

The best example was the question about Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. I thought Obama's original response was quite tepid - "I've denounced him many times, blah, blah, etc." Hillary saw an opening and feasted on it, saying sternly said that he should "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement. (Side note: I'm sure that at that moment, the NY Post's political editor said, "Hey, what about the time she kissed Suha Arafat after Suha trashed Israel?")

But Obama just slipped away. Instead of getting into a "mine is bigger" contest, he tossed off this quick line about, effectively, "reject or denounce - I'll do both if it makes you happy." End result: no headlines, nothing big, move on.

2. She's not going to win Texas. The Newshour tonite interviewed Texas reporters who said that early voting was, like 900 percent higher than last year - especially in big cities like Houston, which have large black populations, and in Austin, home of the Univ of Texas. There's nothing to suggest that HRC is inspiring or inciting people to flock to the polls.

3. Bill Clinton said she has to win both TX and OH, but I think if she wins one of two (i.e., Ohio), she'll move on to Pennsylvania and drag it out for a few more weeks.

4. McCain: I think the NYT's story about his alleged affair was half-baked, and the story was wedged uncomfortably into a "McCain's history with lobbyists" profile. I assume the NYT reporters knew more than they could print - but heck, even if he did sleep with her, they should have offered more than the "concerns" of two former aides and a corporate plane ride from Miami to DC.

5. But the brief, NYT-inspired love affair with McCain ended in the past 24 hrs, after McCain denounced a conservative radio talk show host's nasty speech about "Barack Hussein Obama." That's exactly what conservatives want to use in the general election, and they don't like it when McCain takes the high road.