A Brand New Ball Game?

---

---

I've heard the question asked by several people in the last 24 hours.

Is this a new race now?

The subject, obviously, is Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The Los Angeles Times reports that more than 67 million Americans watched it.

And I am — as the Batman character Two–Face said — of two minds on the question of whether things have changed. At least in a long–term sense.

On the one hand, of course, there is that election campaign.

If the polls have been correct (and I'm not convinced that they have been) and Obama's lead has been growing in recent weeks, then my answer would be "yes, it probably is a new race now" because Romney clearly and decisively won the debate. Virtually everyone is saying so. Even the president's staunchest defenders have conceded that point.

In the short term — and, with fewer than five weeks to go, short term is really all there is in this presidential election campaign — will it be enough?

To truly win the hearts and minds of the voters takes more than a single debate and longer than five weeks — but, if the viewership of this year's conventions is any indication (and I believe it is), way more than half of the electorate doesn't pay close attention to the campaign until only a few weeks remain.

And many, many more people are undecided — or at least willing to reconsider voting to re–elect the president — than we have been led to believe.

Candidates don't have much choice. They must first be elected before they can start doing the work of governing that will ultimately define them so they must go for the quick scores and hope that will be sufficient to win enough votes.

It's different for incumbents. They already hold the office they seek, and voters want reasons to justify re–electing incumbents.

There will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate before they count the votes on Nov. 6. Winning the election is what matters at this point, and Romney almost certainly could not have been seen as the debate's winner if the general perception had been that he had had a bad night.

Winning the debates — especially the first one — and winning the election are the immediate tasks. The hearts and minds can be won later.

Wednesday night's debate was indisputably more important for Romney than Obama. The polls, whether they are accurate or not, were showing Romney behind Obama nationally and in nearly every so–called "swing state;" if he had been seen as the loser of this debate, I think it would have been almost impossible for him to bounce back and win the election — even if he won the last two debates.

But Romney wasn't seen as the loser in the immediate assessments of Americans who watched the debate.

Now, I am curious to see what the post–debate surveys, which are being conducted as I write this (and sampling probably will continue for a few more days), reveal about the voters' impression.

My gut tells me that, by Sunday or Monday, the overwhelming perception still will be that Romney won the debate with a president who was widely expected to win. I say that because Romney (who had been criticized for being too vague) provided as much detail as a 90–minute debate would allow, he was relaxed and smiling and he even managed to work in a few humorous comments (who woulda guessed that Mitt Romney had a pretty decent sense of humor?).

He made a favorable impression on many voters who had believed much of the negative stuff that was spread about Romney by Obama's campaign.

That may have been the thing that irked Democrats the most — that Obama never really used their favorite (albeit faulty) talking points about who Romney is. Those talking points were completely at odds with what viewers saw and heard.

And, in my experience, when people conclude that they have been deceived about one thing, they become suspicious of other things that are said by that person or whoever is authorized to speak on that person's behalf.

Now, that's largely what I believe happened last night. Conservative commentators had their own interpretations. I share some of their conclusions, and I'm lukewarm on others. Guess that's proof that I really am a centrist.

There have been many theories offered today by Obama's defenders about why the president was "off his game," if he was — and I am not convinced that he was.

Some have suggested that he was simply mindful of the need to uphold the dignity of his office — but, having observed this man in the presidency for more than 3½ years, I simply do not find that plausible.

Others have tried to put the best spin possible on an epically bad debate performance.

Aw, gee, folks, Gail Collins writes in the New York Times. Do debates really matter?

Until last night, my answer would have been "not that much." But, in fact, we don't really have that much to go on. Debates have only been regular parts of presidential elections since 1976.

And I have watched most of them. Believe me, I have seen some pretty bad performances over the years, sometimes by incumbents, but I have never seen an incumbent perform as poorly in a debate as Obama did Wednesday night.

It wasn't really as bad as your eyes and ears told you it was, Jonathan Chait suggests in New York Magazine.

Oh, yes, it was. For viewers who expected to see the scripted, teleprompter–aided president they've watched for the last four years, it was a shock.

Where was Obama, moaned a distraught Chris Matthews.

Former Vice President Al Gore — who knows a few things about presidential debates — theorized that Obama hadn't had enough time to adjust to the altitude of Denver.

I've been to Denver. Yes, the air is thin up there, but I wasn't light–headed or anything like that. It didn't affect my judgment or my coordination. I was able to function normally (of course, I didn't have 67 million people watching me do it, either).

I drove there from Oklahoma, where the altitude is about one–fifth that of Denver. If I suffered any ill effects physically, it probably was from such a long drive.

And I'm pretty certain that Obama didn't have to operate Air Force One when he flew to Denver.

I worked in the newspaper business for many years. I have a lot of experience as a professional journalist, and I know that post mortems on a debate are fun for journalists, especially since one person's theory about why such a gifted speaker as Obama should do so poorly in a debate is as good as another person's.

Frankly, though, I don't really think it was a matter of Obama losing the debate. I think Romney won the debate — substance over style.

No matter what the polls show in the next few days, however, there is still much work to be done by Romney.

But the thing I have been thinking about today is the role of the press in this disaster for the Democrats.

No, I am not going to suggest that there is some sort of liberal conspiracy within the media. I would guess that most of the employees of newspapers or magazines or radio stations or TV networks are liberals — but probably the majority of the owners of those media outlets are conservatives.

And it is the owners who have the real influence.

That leads me to the thing I've been wondering about all day.

When Obama ran for president in 2008, he promised a transparent presidency that would include regular press conferences. But he has delivered precisely the opposite. He seldom answers questions from the White House reporters in a press conference setting, preferring instead to have one–on–one interviews with journalists who could be counted upon to toss him softball questions:

Is the earth round, Mr. President? It is? You are truly wise, blessed with keen insight, Mr. President.

I'm not one of those who wails about media bias because it smacks too much of an allegation of conspiracy, and I don't believe a conspiracy on that kind of scale is possible.

But I do believe a kind of passive acceptance of the progressive narrative of the moment has been going on for the last 3½ years. Many (not all) journalists have treated this president with kid gloves. He has been pampered and has rarely, if ever, been challenged.

I doubt that Obama ever believed he would be challenged within his party for renomination so there was no reason to think he would have to debate anyone the way he had to debate Hillary Clinton. And the debates with John McCain were pretty easy because they were held a few weeks after the economic implosion, and the voters were turning from the party that had been in power for eight years.

The president often complains about the lousy hand he was dealt, but the truth is that the road to the White House would have been a lot rockier for Obama without that implosion. Polls just before the implosion indicated that Obama and McCain were running neck and neck, and there had been symptoms of buyer's remorse among Democrats over the selection of Joe Biden as running mate.

So it had been close to 4½ years since Obama had participated in a debate, and many of his supporters have been pointing that out today. He was simply out of practice, they say.

I think there is some truth in that, but I also believe the give and take of regular presidential press conferences keeps a president on his toes. Apparently, Obama simply decided not to hold press conferences, and the press acquiesced.

The press should have protested this — vigorously. Not because being able to question those in power is essential to a free society — although it is.

And not because regular press conferences would have benefited a president trying to win re–election with a bad economy that was bad when he took office but was made worse when he failed to turn it around in his first term — although they would.

But because many of those in the press have abdicated their responsibility to be the public's watch dog. The press' allegiance is to the citizens of the United States — not to any president, regardless of party affiliation or political ideology.

It is my deep hope that, whoever is elected president, press conferences will become commonplace at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue once again.

The press should insist on it.

Ronald Reagan vs. Robert Kennedy

---

---

In the 1980s, I had a Commodore 64 computer in my home, which I used primarily for two purposes — writing (using word processing software that probably can't be found anymore, even though, as I understand it, Commodore 64s and their accessories are still sold online) and playing the computer games of that time.

One of the games that I enjoyed playing was a presidential election game. You could use preprogrammed historical figures from 1960 to 1984, which meant you could re–create actual election contests or match other candidates in a kind of what–if scenario. You could also answer a series of questions on various issues and program yourself to be a candidate.

For that matter, you could alter the actual economic and foreign conditions. You could have a third–party candidate. It was really the ideal game for a political junkie like myself.

The computer could even manage any or all of the candidates.

Then, during the course of the game, you could budget your advertising and campaign appearances for each of nine rounds (weeks), followed by a realistic depiction of a minute–by–minute Election Night.

One scenario that I liked to play was a what–if scenario featuring New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and California Gov. Ronald Reagan as opponents in the 1968 election. Kennedy, of course, was assassinated while he campaigned for the Democratic nomination, and Reagan's 1968 campaign never really got off the ground.

But there was a time when a confrontation between the two was not only regarded as possible, it was even seen by some as probable.

I was an admirer of Kennedy, even though I really wasn't old enough in 1968 to understand much about him, other than, I suppose, the fact that I knew his name.

I didn't really know Reagan's name at the time, but a decade later, I sure did. And I had heard plenty of speculation over the years about how an election campaign between Kennedy and Reagan would have turned out.

So I often played the 1968 scenario managing Kennedy against Reagan. Sometimes I included George Wallace as a third–party candidate — as he was in real life.

Kennedy and Reagan tended to split the three–way scenarios. When it was just the two of them running against each other, Reagan won just about every time.

Like all the other what–ifs of history, the outcome of such an electoral confrontation will forever be a mystery. No one knows, for example, if Wallace would have mounted a third–party candidacy if Reagan had been the Republican nominee.

If he had, would he and Reagan have split the right–wing vote, permitting Kennedy to take a razor–thin victory?

And if Wallace had chosen not to run, would Reagan have won?

Forty–five years ago today, voters got a taste of what it might have been like.

On Monday night, May 15, 1967, Reagan and Kennedy met in a one–hour debate about the Vietnam War. Approximately 15 million Americans watched it on CBS.

Footage from that occasion is fascinating to watch today — in no small part because, even though there have been many books written about both men, I have seen very few references to that debate.

In fact, the only article I have seen about that debate — which was really more of a global town hall meeting — was Paul Kengor's piece in the National Review five years ago.

Kengor observed that the consensus that Reagan "won" the debate was virtually unanimous, and I have found no reason to dispute that.

If they had been their respective parties' nominees and had met in a series of debates in the fall of 1968, it seems logical to me that Reagan might have prevailed. He had a very folksy way of speaking when he was president that endeared him to people, even those who disagreed with him. Kennedy, on the other hand, had a reputation for being "ruthless" that turned off even those who supported him.

(In the debate 45 years ago tonight, however, the two seemed to switch roles. Reagan came across as the more ruthless while Kennedy seemed more amiable. At least, that is my impression from the clips I have seen.)

Also, the Democrats had held the White House for eight years, and the incumbent was very unpopular. On this occasion, though, as Kengor points out, Kennedy and Reagan "ended up debating the group of students" who questioned them, "not one another." A panel of "extremely rude" international students served as the questioners, and they "seemed to bask in their big chance to unleash their torrent of anger on the two available representatives of the country they despised."

Even if Kennedy and Reagan had run against each other, the debate in which they participated 45 years ago today might have been vastly different from the ones they would have had in their campaign.

If debates in 1968 resembled the ones that have been held since, the panel of questioners wouldn't have been students intent on challenging authority but professional journalists with expertise in the subjects about which the candidates were asked.

But it's difficult to say that because, in 1968, presidential debates were not the campaign fixtures they have become. The only models at the time were the debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Who knows what the organizers might have done to the format in 1968?

And who knows what America would be like in 2012 if either Bobby Kennedy or Ronald Reagan had been elected president in 1968?

That would have meant that Richard Nixon probably never would have been elected president — hence, there would have been no Watergate. Would either Kennedy or Reagan have been finished in national politics if one had lost to the other in 1968 — however narrowly?

Would the winner have ended the Vietnam War years before it actually ended?

To be sure, it would be an alternate reality.

Technical Difficulties

---

---

It had been nearly 16 years since the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees had squared off in a televised debate.

But on this night in 1976, when President Ford and former Gov. Jimmy Carter came to Philadelphia, they weren't there to see the Liberty Bell. They were there to debate, and there was much anticipation in the air on that Thursday night.

In a couple of departures from how things had been done in 1960, the debates of 1976 were held in public places and in front of live audiences. The audience that assembled on this night in 1976 for the first of three debates between Ford and Carter expected to see a 90–minute encounter — but they saw more than that.

That first Ford–Carter debate was a lot more than most folks probably expected.

For one thing, it was longer than planned — by 27 minutes. That was how long the sound was out, and that is how long both candidates stood on that stage, virtually motionless, until the problem was resolved.

Because of Carter's huge lead in the polls, Ford had been willing, even eager, to do something that previous incumbents had been unwilling to do — debate his opponent. He believed — as Jules Witcover wrote in "Marathon" — that the American people didn't want someone who had been unknown to them a year and a half earlier to be in charge of foreign policy, and Ford's campaign emphasized questions and doubts about Carter's experience weeks before the two met for their first debate.

Carter later said he wouldn't have won the election if not for the debates. I didn't get that sense at the time, but I wasn't old enough to vote, and perhaps there were nuances that I missed.

But I did get the feeling that the technical difficulties that disrupted that first debate (which really wasn't too memorable, otherwise) gave Carter an opportunity to mentally assess his performance to that point and, like a coach at halftime, make adjustments.

When the debate began, Ford, who trailed by a significant margin in the national polls, came out swinging. Carter, on the other hand, often seemed timid — as if he was intimidated by the aura of the presidency. Perhaps he was.

But, after the unscheduled interruption, Carter appeared more forceful in his criticism of Ford — and he maintained his offensive for the rest of the campaign.

At the time, most surveys indicated the debate had been a draw, although some concluded that Ford had been the winner. But the momentum was with Carter after those technical difficulties 35 years ago.

Irreversibly.

Prosperity Is Just Around the Corner

I am a concerned American.

I am concerned for many reasons, and I have been concerned for a long time. The debt ceiling crisis that is consuming so much time and energy is an additional concern that no one really needs.

I know I don't need it. It's just more stress for me.

That stress level wasn't eased by the tenor of the debate over the debt ceiling that played out on TV tonight.

Now, if you read this blog on even a semi–regular basis, you know that I don't always agree with Barack Obama. In fact, I have frequently disagreed with him — and, although you may not realize it, that is a source of considerable anxiety for me.

I have struggled with this because, as I have said before, I was brought up by parents who were Democrats. And there have been times when I have given this president the benefit of the doubt — in no small part because I understand, at least instinctively, his objective.

But I have had nagging doubts about his leadership from the start — and much of it, I think, has stemmed from the fact that Obama doesn't stay focused on anything for very long. Sometimes, I have wondered if he has undiagnosed attention deficit disorder.

For awhile, I felt my doubts might have been misplaced. Obama came into office and made what appeared to be bold moves that were designed to put people back to work and really fix the economy.

But that is what was misleading.

It wasn't long before his focus shifted to other things — and, ever since, I have felt increasingly uneasy about the way that Obama and his followers rely on racism and Republican obstructionism as excuses for why they can't do things.

They get mired in the blame game, and they whine about the rigidity of the opposition. They act as if this is something new in American politics, but it isn't.

I'll admit that the opposition to Obama is more extreme, more polarized than ever before in my experience — just as his support is more polarized in the other direction. Obviously, it is more difficult to bring these two sides together than ever before.

But that is not an excuse.

Successful presidents learn to use the "bully pulpit," as Teddy Roosevelt called it. Mobilizing public opinion — in fact, using it pre–emptively — is a big part of presidential leadership.

Obama and his supporters have been correct when they have pointed out that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all lobbied for — and got — higher debt ceilings. They understood how critical it was for a president to mobilize public opinion if he was going to come out ahead in any significant negotiation.

To mobilize the public, a president must empathize with people's problems — "feel their pain," in Clinton's words — and that has been a problem for Obama. Do you recall the exchange last year between Obama and the middle–class black woman who told him, at a town meeting, that she was worn out defending him while she saw her standard of living deteriorate?

Obama used the opportunity to polish his campaign pitch, spoke of achievements that had no real bearing on the woman's situation as she had described it (but would clearly appeal to select segments of the electorate) and wrapped up his answer with a Reaganesque "stay the course" message.

He never thanked that woman for her support nor did he ask her any questions that were intended to find out more about her situation so he could address issues that directly affected her. In fact, he showed very little interest in her concerns. He was far more interested in promoting what he saw as his administration's achievements — perhaps with an eye to the approaching midterms but almost certainly with his re–election bid (which he announced about six months later) in mind.

"Stay the course" doesn't tend to mean much to people who have been out of work for a year or more and can't see any improvement that affects them. It tends to sound like "Prosperity is just around the corner."

The case for that — and a lot of other things — would be better if Obama had shown himself to be a better negotiator, but he hasn't. He is almost always reactive, not proactive.

That isn't leadership, and it's been an issue on just about every domestic and international matter that has come up in this president's term.

But, in the interest of brevity, let's just look at the debate on the debt ceiling for a minute.

When Obama agreed to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last year, why didn't he do so on the condition that the debt ceiling would be raised at the same time?

I've heard Obama supporters argue (and justifiably) that the Bush tax cuts expanded the deficit considerably. Republicans wanted those tax cuts, though, and my guess is they would have been willing to make a deal.

The time to cut such a deal passed long ago, though. I don't know why, but, like most of the opportunities that were presented to Obama and the Democrat–controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010, it was allowed to slip away.

It remains to be seen whether the two sides can work out a deal in a week.

Frankly, it's more drama than I need right now.

No Republican Frontrunner

---

---

I didn't watch Monday night's Republican debate from New Hampshire, but I've been reading a lot about it.

And I have come to the same conclusion as Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner — there is no frontrunner yet.

How could there be? I mean, this is June. The party conventions won't be held for more than a year. Primary voters won't start going to the polls for another six or seven months.

The debate, as Barone observed, "was a New Hampshire debate, but it has serious ramifications for Iowa as well."

Beyond that?

Well, I guess it can also have important repercussions throughout the party, but right now it is one small piece of a still–emerging puzzle.

Immediately, I don't think it registered with many people. A lot can — and probably will — happen between now and the first primaries and caucuses of the 2012 election cycle. This is a time when voters traditionally (and mostly silently) take the candidates' measure. Debates and straw polls have little real meaning at this point.

What matters most right now — when there are no delegates to be won — is perception, and, as Barone suggests, Romney may have the edge in that department. His "behavior," as Barone put it, was that of a frontrunner, "one with confidence and sense of command and with the adroitness to step aside from two major issue challenges."

That could be what a party that is nostalgic for the days of Ronald Reagan needs.

As I recall, "confidence and sense of command" were mostly what Reagan had going for him as the 1980 campaign began. He had been vetted against Gerald Ford in the battle for the GOP's 1976 nomination. Prior to that, he had been governor of the largest state in the nation for eight years, and he had spent decades in front of motion picture and TV cameras.

There really wasn't much left that voters didn't know about him. His challenge was to project an image of strength that would serve him beyond the primaries — which had only begun to assume their prominent role in the nomination process.

When Reagan memorably protested that "I am paying for this microphone!" at a New Hampshire debate in February 1980, it solidified his status as frontrunner for his party's nomination, and he wrapped things up quite early.

No such line appears to have emerged from the June 2011 New Hampshire debate.

There may be no frontrunner yet, either, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't legitimate news coming from the debate. Michele Bachmann, who can be something of a loose cannon, announced that she will be a candidate for the nomination.

Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post that she stole the show with that "bombshell."

Jackie Kucinich of USA Today said that Bachmann "emerged from the pack" with her debate performance.

I think that perception derives mostly from the fact that she made her candidacy official. Most people already suspected that she was going to run, though — why participate in a presidential debate if you aren't planning to run? — so the announcement really didn't come as a surprise.

But neither did the announcement automatically confer upon her the title of frontrunner. That, it seems to me, is still up for grabs.

From what I have read, all the participants said things that should appeal to the Republican base — which strikes me as being decidedly more conservative than it was four years ago.

I mean, when I look at the 2012 field of GOP candidates, the class of '08 appears practically centrist by comparison. That suggests, to me, that politics in America has become more polarized, not less, in the last four years — and that whoever is elected will most likely be the survivor of a tug–o–war between political extremes unlike any we have witnessed.

Unless the congressional majorities with which that president must work are made up of like–minded individuals, that doesn't seem encouraging for the passage of landmark, historic legislation.

Compromise will be harder to achieve, and economic recovery will take much longer to accomplish.

That's a gloomy forecast, I know, but these are gloomy times.

The Health Care Debate

There is a lot of rhetoric these days — from both sides — in the health care reform debate.

For my own reasons, I have been a supporter of health care reform in the past. I supported it when Bill Clinton was president. It was, perhaps, the main reason I supported John Edwards when he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination last year.

I still think health care reform is important, and I give Barack Obama credit for taking it on. But I believe it needs to be done right.

And doing it right — especially when the president clearly has been pursuing a bipartisan consensus on issues — means taking the time that is necessary to address all concerns and responding adequately to the asinine charges that have been made in this debate. And to stop some of the ridiculous countercharges.

It does not mean rushing the legislation through Congress.

There is a lot on the line. Groups that want to influence the direction of the debate have already spent more than $57 million on TV advertising, reports CNN.com. With so much money involved, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of dubious information is being spread.

To help you separate fact from fiction, I encourage you to bookmark PolitiFact.com, which clearly states that it is dedicated to "separating fact from fiction." It is a service of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I will remind you that the Times endorsed Obama in last year's election.

PolitiFact supports the validity of Obama's assertion that the health care plan for members of Congress "is no better than [the one for] the janitor who cleans their offices."

That does not mean, however, that PolitiFact is a pushover for everything Obama says and does. When Obama says, "I just want to assure [you] we're not talking about cutting Medicare benefits," PolitiFact reports that such a statement is "half–true."

PolitiFact also finds that Obama's suggestion that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" is a half–truth.

Likewise, Obama's claim that AARP is "endorsing" the health care reform bill is "barely true," says PolitiFact.

But "half–true" or "barely true" is better than being labeled "false," and that is precisely what PolitiFact says about some allegations from the other side:

• Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's key health care advisers, "says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you're disabled," said Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann. That isn't true, says PolitiFact.


• And Sarah Palin's claim that a provision in the health care reform bill for end–of–life counseling for seniors is not "entirely voluntary" is false, says PolitiFact.

But don't get the idea that Obama is always right. Or even "half" right or "barely" right.

Obama's claim that "I have not said that I was a single–payer supporter" is just plain false, PolitiFact says.

A lot of oxen are being gored in this debate so it really shouldn't be surprising that people on both sides get carried away. All the more reason to do it right.

Doing this right means waiting until the economy is clearly turning around. Most people won't feel that things are really turning around until unemployment starts to go down. That's one of the reasons I have been saying that job creation needed to be a priority. Despite lip service to the contrary, it hasn't been.

And when it comes down to a choice between providing a roof over your head and the heads of your children or paying for COBRA benefits (and millions who lost their jobs before September 1 of last year do not qualify for the assistance of the government to pay for those benefits) to treat a malady that doesn't exist yet (and may never exist), which expense do you think unemployed Americans will choose?

Yes, I believe health care is important. And I believe the system needs to be reformed.

But food, clothing and shelter are also important.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

The old adage is true in baseball and it's true in politics. It ain't over 'til it's over.

What's over, for good or ill, is the 2008 presidential debates.

And, in three weeks, the election campaign will be over as well.

Speaking of the debates ...

I give a narrow edge in tonight's debate to John McCain, for a few reasons.

• I thought McCain seized the moment at the start of the debate while Barack Obama stumbled along. If the course of the evening's competition shifted, it started doing so about halfway through the debate, when the discussion moved to the nasty tone of both campaign's commercials.
  
  McCain seemed obsessive about his treatment by Rep. John Lewis and mostly remained on the defensive the rest of the way. But Obama never really took control of his opportunity.
  
  And neither candidate could give a satisfactory answer on balancing the budget.


• It shouldn't be necessary to do it, but McCain emphasized for Obama as well as the viewing audience that he is not George W. Bush.
  
  So great is the public's anger with Bush that the Republican nominee must remind the voters (as frequently as possible between now and the election) that Bush is not on the ballot.
  
  And basic American fairness dictates that one is not held responsible for the actions of someone else.
  
  But that doesn't mean the voters won't punish McCain, anyway.


• The fact that the debate was on domestic issues in an election campaign in which the economic dynamics clearly favor Democrats should have contributed to an easy win for Obama.
  
  But, while I give Obama credit for managing to introduce topics like health care into the discussion and thoroughly confronting the subject of abortion while answering the critical question of judicial appointments, I felt that McCain won the debate, if only because he was actually scoring points on economic questions — on what is, in effect, Obama's home turf.
  
  Perhaps it was a result of sufficiently lowering the pre-debate expectations.

Will McCain translate an apparent debate victory into gains in the public opinion polls? And, more importantly, will it lead to more actual votes in the election?

Last Call

---

"Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next 10 words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next 10 words. How are we going to do it? Give me 10 after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while ... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for 10 words."

Martin Sheen as President Jed Bartlet
"The West Wing" (Episode: "Game On")

---

Tonight is the final presidential debate of 2008. The election itself is 20 days away.

This is the last chance for Barack Obama and John McCain to make their appeals to the electorate in this setting.

Briefly, let's review where things stand:

• The latest public opinion surveys, fueled by economic concerns, show Obama in front by varying margins.
  
  For example, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll says Obama leads, 50% to 41%. The Times also advises both candidates that whoever wins the election must "bridge partisan divides."
  
  That sounds vaguely reminiscent of Richard Nixon's 1968 post-election claim to have seen a young girl holding a sign that said "Bring us together" during the campaign — a declaration that could have been every bit as fictitious as Nixon's pledge to have a "secret plan" for ending the war in Vietnam.
  
  Of course, even if Nixon's claim was bogus, that didn't mean the sentiment wasn't valid. It is. Just as it is today.


• Since tonight's debate is scheduled to be about domestic matters, it would be nice to have in-depth discussions about issues that are important to the American people, like
  
  
  1. the economy and its myriad of sub-issues (Brent Budowsky writes, in The Hill, that "[w]e need sweeping reforms of Wall Street to protect the integrity of markets, restore the integrity of credit rating agencies and bring stability and fiduciary trust back to banking and investing.")
  
  
  2. health care,
  
  
  3. energy (the Los Angeles Times says it is "doubly disappointing" that neither candidate has a "responsible" energy plan),
  
  
  4. education,
  
  
  5. the environment
  
  
  6. and so many others.

But the Miami Herald warns against expecting depth in the debate.

An economics professor from Ole Miss (which hosted the first debate nearly three weeks ago) told the Herald, "I've been very disappointed in both of them for the lack of vision."

That, regretfully, reflects an idealistic approach to a modern political debate.

Realistically, however, the ultimate objective in a debate is to deliver at least one memorable "sound bite" — a "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again."

A mind-numbing litany of statistics isn't going to be played endlessly on the TV news.

A professor of governmental operations at New York University reminds USA Today that "[w]e tend to remember that first 100 days" of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, when the Congress and the administration pushed through a flurry of economic legislation.

"But that transition went on for six or seven years — trying new things, trying to get the economy restarted, all sorts of maneuvering, and then finally things started to turn around. It was brutal."

No one is suggesting that it will take six or seven years to resolve this financial crisis, but no sound bite can adequately prepare voters for the experimentation they will have to endure while an answer is sought.

In a debate, viewers are looking for what Martin Sheen called, in his debate on "The West Wing," the "10-word answer." Unfortunately, the world is too complex to find solutions in 10 words.

There's not much reason that I can see for the candidates to change their approach in a single debate.

Obama believes he has the lead and, like a quarterback protecting a lead, he will be inclined to play it safe.

McCain, believing his team is trailing, may be more inclined to make bold moves to try to regain lost ground in a hurry.

I think he may be likely to repeatedly emphasize that he is not George W. Bush — without identifying the issues on which he and the president differ.

It's worth remembering that Hubert Humphrey began to make rapid gains on Nixon in the polls in 1968 when he finally began to distance himself from Lyndon Johnson.

But there is a crucial difference. As Johnson's vice president, Humphrey was intimately connected to the administration's policies. McCain, as a senator, is perceived as being more independent than that, even though he is the nominee of the president's party.

Don't expect McCain to connect the dots for you.


• However, I won't be surprised if McCain does connect the dots — and often — between Obama and Bill Ayers. The Boston Herald tells readers it is likely that McCain will bring up the subject. I agree.
  
  But that doesn't mean I believe it's a good idea — and neither, apparently, does Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal, who writes that the Republicans' use of the Ayers issue is their "vilest hour."
  
  (Personally, I don't think it's quite as vile as the Republicans' smear campaign against Georgia Sen. Max Cleland in 2002 — but it's close.)


• But McCain appears to disagree with his advisers, including his running mate, over whether he should bring up the subject of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to Mike Allen in Politico.
  
  To his credit, McCain has resisted inserting Wright into the dialogue, believing (correctly, in my opinion) he would be reintroducing racism.

Game on.

Advantage Obama in Second Debate

By a slim margin, I would give tonight's debate to Barack Obama.

I thought he was more in command of economic issues than John McCain. And I don't think there's any question that economic issues will be crucial in determining who is elected.

But being in command of a debate is not the same thing as winning an election. As I recall, John Kerry was acknowledged to be the winner of all three of his debates with George W. Bush in 2004 — but Bush won the election by 3 million votes.

Obama also seemed to do a better job of connecting with the audience than McCain did.

And I thought his answer to the last question — what do you not know and how will you learn it? — was more thoughtful than McCain's. (To be fair, I thought McCain's response to the same question was more realistic than Obama's.)

But the margins in these categories were narrow. I can understand how some observers would reach the conclusion that the debate was a tie. I can even understand how others would conclude that McCain won the debate.

The dynamics of the "town hall" format make it trickier to interpret than standard debates.

We will get the chance to hear the candidates discuss only domestic issues when they hold the final debate next Wednesday night.

The Daily Decline

It seems to be a daily occurrence now — the triple-digit drop in the stock market.

Last week, the news was about the 777.68-point drop in the stock market — the largest single-day decline in history (exceeding the previous record of 684.81 points on the first day of business following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks).

Yesterday, "[t]he Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much as 800 points to trade below the 10,000 mark," reports Nick Godt of MarketWatch, "as nervousness over the credit crisis spread."

Eventually, as Godt reports, "hopes of a coordinated intervention to stop the bleeding in global markets helped the Dow recoup half of its losses, to close down 369 points, or 3.6%, to 9,955."

And he reports hopeful speculation that the markets could experience a "bounce" today — if there is a "coordinated rate cut by the three main central banks."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that — although I guess it exists in the "anything is possible" realm.

It's one of life's ironies that it was only a year ago (on Oct. 9, 2007) that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at the record level of 14,164.53 points.

And now, around one-third of that volume has disappeared. It seems to have vanished into thin air.

John McCain and Barack Obama are scheduled to hold their second presidential debate tonight. It will be done in the "town hall" format — first used in the 1992 presidential debates — in which members of the audience ask the questions in a freewheeling debate with no topic restrictions.

You might remember that 1992 debate. A man with a ponytail chastised Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush for their negative campaigns and tried to get them to promise to stop it and focus on the issues. His effort didn't succeed — but it was memorable.

I wouldn't be surprised if several questions tonight deal with the stock market and the financial crisis. That is what most affects Americans today.

The American people are entitled to know what the men who want to be the next president will do about the problem.

"Voters should demand that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain level with them," writes the Dallas Morning News.

It seems to me that the truth is up for grabs.

---

"Did you hear about the U.S. senator who dared to utter an inconvenient truth about the poor quality of U.S. leadership and followership in taking on the looming entitlements disaster?
  "'In what I regret to call a conspiracy of silence among all of the presidential candidates and most members of Congress, few of us are willing to talk about the real problem,' he said. 'Why? Because of the fear that if you address the issues honestly, you will lose votes — and possibly the election.'
  "That brave senator had one colleague who rose to agree with him, saying of the Congress, 'Deep down in our hearts we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded the country to get ourselves elected.'
   "Good, right?
  "Actually, it's depressing. Why? Because Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., and Sen. Jack Danforth, R-Mo., made those statements, respectively, in 1992.
  "Both left the Senate at the end of their terms. Nothing has changed — except that we're 16 years closer to the day of fiscal reckoning that will make this bleak and anxious autumn seem like a season in the sun."

   Dallas Morning News

---

The First Debate

After watching tonight's first Obama-McCain debate, I have to say I neither saw nor heard anything that surprised me.

In the early portion of the debate, which focused on the economic crisis even though the debate was supposed to be on foreign policy, McCain seemed uncomfortable. He's acknowledged a lack of familiarity with economic issues so it wasn't surprising when he stumbled a bit on those questions.

During that portion of the debate, Obama appeared to be more assertive, more in control of things.

It's a good thing for Obama that he came across as more reassuring on economic issues, because he appeared to revert to being shaky on foreign policy, while McCain gave the impression of someone who spoke from experience. It seemed to me that, in that portion of the debate, Obama appeared to be on the defensive. And that allowed McCain to seize the momentum.

But Obama will get the opportunity to reinforce a favorable image on economic issues when he debates McCain again in the next few weeks.

Neither candidate made a serious mistake. Both candidates remained on message. Voters who aren't familiar with one or both of the candidates got to see a lot of what each is about tonight.

I saw no clear advantage for either side.

Let's call it a draw.

Ronald Reagan and the Electoral Legacy of 1980

---

---

It's ironic, in many ways and on many levels, that the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 served as the subject of the final installment in Kenneth Walsh's series in U.S. News & World Report on the most consequential presidential elections in American history.

• In the current context, the unemployment and inflation numbers may not look as scary today as they did in 1980 (although $4/gallon gas certainly would have horrified voters 30 years ago — when gas was selling for about $1.20/gallon), but the underlying problems in the financial system pose a greater, more lasting threat to the American economy than the painful (but temporary) late-1970s adjustment from a wartime economy to a peacetime one that was more responsible for the country's economic woes than was ever acknowledged in the heat of the political battle in 1980.
  
  However, today, as it was in 1980, Americans must come to terms with the financial reality and decide what must be done. In 1980, Americans decided to follow Reagan's proposals and abandon many of the New Deal programs that had been responsible for reviving and modernizing the American economy half a century earlier but had come to be regarded as outmoded by a majority of voters.


• Twenty years after leaving the presidency (and four years after his death), Reagan remains an admired figure in Republican politics.
  
  During the presidential primaries last spring, Republicans debated each other endlessly over who would be the "new" Reagan — as if that had become the latest question in the unofficial litmus test for being nominated by the Republican Party ["1) Are you against abortion? 2) Are you for gun rights? 3) Are you against gay marriage? 4) Do you have Reaganesque qualities?"].
  
  The ironic part of all that is that Reagan was considered too extreme by many observers during the 1980 campaign. And, as admired as he became during his eight years in the White House and as revered as he has been in the two decades since he left Washington, there are still people who believe that his policies were too extreme — and that his aversion to regulation is at least in part responsible for the economic mess in which we find ourselves today.


• In spite of criticism, Walsh writes, Reagan "pursued the presidency with a special brand of good cheer and optimism that impressed the American people."
  
  And the American people responded.
  
  The part that I find ironic — taken in today's context — is that I don't see much cheer or optimism emanating from either side this year.
  
  In spite of his right-wing views, Reagan managed to reassure people, even those who disagreed with him. And that included many in the Republican Party.
  
  There was perhaps no greater example of Reagan's reassuring quality during the 1980 campaign than his performance in his one and only debate with President Carter a week before the election. That was the debate in which Reagan asked viewers if they were better off than they had been four years earlier.
  
  (It was also the debate in which Carter — unfortunately for him — claimed to have had a discussion about the task of controlling nuclear weapons with his young daughter.)

---

As I write this, it remains unclear whether tonight's debate between Barack Obama and John McCain will go forward as scheduled.

But, if nothing else, the election of 1980 symbolizes the importance of presidential debates in the formation of the relationship between a would-be president and the electorate.

Even in 1980, when presidential debates were still an infrequent occurrence in American politics, voters overcame their reservations about Reagan as they watched the debate — and rewarded him a week later with a landslide victory over an incumbent president.

The incumbent won't be on the ballot in 2008, but many Americans still need a nudge to push them from the fence on which they're sitting.

Whether the voters are trying to overcome whatever objections they may have to voting for a black man or a 72-year-old white man with a woman as his running mate, the debates can help provide that nudge.

The debate can even help the millions of Hillary Clinton supporters who remain torn between supporting a ticket that comes closest to sharing their views (in spite of the presence of a nominee many Clinton supporters still see as smug and elitist) or a ticket that has a candidate who shares their gender but not their philosophy.

A couple of months ago, I wrote about Michael Barone's article in National Review about Gerald Ford's near-comeback against Carter in the 1976 campaign.

Barone wrote that 1976 resembled 2008 in many ways — and one of the similarities was how many "gaps" there were in the public's knowledge about the candidates. Ford's comeback was made possible, in part, by his campaign's efforts to educate the public and re-define both candidates' images.

Likewise, there are gaps in the public's knowledge of McCain and Obama. The debates — starting tonight — provide both candidates with the opportunity to fill in those gaps.

Proceed With the Debate

John McCain may have the most noble of intentions by suggesting that his Friday night debate with Barack Obama be postponed.

The cynical side of my nature whispers to me that it's a political ploy, most likely desperation from a man who fears he may say or do something in the debate that leads to his defeat — and believes he has only a narrow margin for error.

President Bush is right when he says the bailout is vital to the economy. That much, it seems to me, is beyond debate. But the amount of the bailout could be debated endlessly.

It took decades of mismanagement by both parties to get us to this point. It's not going to be solved in the 40 days we have left until the election.

And I'm glad Bush agreed to meet with McCain and Obama, since one of those two men will be taking the torch in January. Until one has been elected, though, they both need to be in the loop.

But what else can McCain or Obama do? What can they achieve by postponing their debate, as McCain has suggested?

Nothing.

Neither man has been elected president. They have different views on economic policy, and no doubt each would take the country in a different direction. All they can contribute to the crisis is more finger pointing and divisive talk.

In the true spirit of partisanship, both sides seem anxious to paint the other as being culpable in the financial crisis.

McCain's proposal to suspend the campaign until a solution is found is "presidential," according to William Kristol in the Weekly Standard. Harold Meyerson calls it a "ploy" in the Washington Post. The truth is, both parties bear equal responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves.

So if the candidates are going to debate each other anyway, why not go ahead and do it in the formalized setting upon which both sides agreed months ago?

Sure, the topic is different. Friday's debate is supposed to be about foreign affairs. And, while there are certainly voters who believe national security is the #1 issue in this campaign (my brother is one of them), the vast majority of voters are concerned about the economy.

The debate won't answer the questions the voters are asking right now. But it's better than the posturing the candidates would do after postponing the debate.

Proceed with the debate. Let the voters hear what the candidates have to say about foreign policy. Then, when the domestic debate is held, let's hear their views on gas prices and food prices and bad loans and the financial system.

Let's hear all we can about what they want to do after they take office.

The Verdict: Clinton Wins Lackluster Debate

I admit, I didn't watch all of last night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But, in their last head-to-head confrontation before Pennsylvania's voters go to the polls, the media's verdict is that Clinton won a victory over Obama that was -- shall we say? -- less than inspiring. And it seems to me that "inspiring" was the minimum that Clinton needed to achieve.

The headline in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, "Obama, Clinton debate delivers no knockout punch," seems to sum it up rather well.

* "This was not a good debate for Obama," says Chuck Todd of NBC News. "But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either."

* In Slate, John Dickerson observes, "[Primary voters] might wonder how [Obama] could, with a straight face, decry Hillary Clinton for taking snippets of his remarks out of context and blowing them up, when he has done the same so expertly and so frequently with John McCain's claim about America's 100-year commitment to Iraq."

In the New York Times, David Brooks suggests that it isn't ABC's fault that the Democratic candidates looked bad.

"Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible," Brooks writes. "As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues."

Even so, Tom Shales says, in the Washington Post, that ABC was the "clear loser" in its telecast of the debate.

Shales criticizes the performances of ABC's moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, and observes, "Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent."

Maybe the most important aspect of the debate was what it implied.

Michael Goodwin writes, in the New York Daily News, "Obama is clearly guilty of horrible judgment, and maybe worse."

Did the debate change the dynamics of the race for the nomination? I doubt it. Did it change the dynamics of the general election? Again, I doubt it.

It's Always Something

Back in the golden days of Saturday Night Live, one of my favorite characters was Gilda Radner's Roseanne Roseannadanna, who would appear as a commentator on the Weekend Update segment.

She would read a letter on some sort of current issue or event (the letter was always from the same Richard Feder in Fort Lee, New Jersey) and after a lengthy monologue in which she inevitably got away from the original subject, the character would find a way to bring everything together by saying, "It just goes to show you, it's always something."

I'm getting that feeling with John McCain and the article that appeared in the New York Times about McCain and his relationship with a young lobbyist eight years ago.

Polls show a tough fight ahead for McCain. Based on the results in the recent primaries, he's still having some problems with the right wing of his party. He needs to be using this time to patch things up with his conservative base, and he needs to be devoting a lot of attention to his choice of a running mate.

But as Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, "It's always something."

I studied journalism in college. I majored in it as an undergraduate student at the University of Arkansas and as a master's student at the University of North Texas. I worked for newspapers for 10 years and I taught editing for four years.

And I have to say I'm very disappointed in the New York Times. The story was merely innuendo and gossip. It had no evidence of anything improper, only hearsay. In school or on the job, this kind of story had no news value, in my experience.

I can honestly say that no one I ever worked with and no one I shared a journalism classroom with believed that it was newsworthy to report something that someone said simply because someone said it.

In a business that is so concerned about being sued for libel that many newspapers retain the full-time services of attorneys who have specialized in that area of the law, it makes no sense to repeat anything that someone says without having something to back it up.

But it seems that things have changed at the New York Times.

A friend of mine who was a journalism student with me sent me an e-mail about all this. She said, "Sadly, journalism isn’t what it used to be in the 'good old days.'"

Maybe the Times has something to back up the story. I don't have to see it. But if I know that the Times has a paper trail that can prove what's been written, I'd feel a lot better about publishing it.

I feel there are a lot of gaps in the story. And that leads to gaps in the credibility of the newspaper. The Times is giving readers the opportunity to ask questions about how the article was handled. They pledge to answer questions on Friday. So use that link if you want to ask a question.

A newspaper like the Times needs to be held accountable.

On the other side of the political divide, I watched tonight's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The prevailing wisdom was that Clinton needed to do something dramatic to change the dynamics of the race. If that moment came, I must have been in the bathroom at the time.

As much as I hate to give Karl Rove credit for anything, he may have been on to something in the Wall Street Journal.

In observing Obama's vulnerability as a candidate, Rove said, "[Clinton] can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument."

But that didn't happen tonight. And time may be running out for Clinton. Early voting has already begun here in Texas. By the time she gets around to following Rove's advice, she may have lost too many votes already.

I haven't decided how to vote in the Texas primary. But I can't help feeling that a cult seems to be developing around Obama.

I had dinner with my father tonight, and I told him it reminds me of Peter Sellers in the 1980 movie "Being There." Sellers plays a naive man who has had limited exposure to other people. He suddenly finds himself cast into the world, where he hardly says anything and spends a lot of time mimicking people he's seen on TV.

The people who come in contact with him become enamored with him, projecting a lot into what they think he says to them. At the end of the movie, without his knowledge, a movement to nominate him for president is building, and in the last scene the audience sees, he appears to be walking on water.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Obama is naive or stupid or anything like that. And I'm certainly not implying that this is the Second Coming. But over the last several weeks, I've heard words like hope and change bandied about a lot. I want details. I heard a few new details from him in tonight's debate, but not much. I'd really like to see more media scrutiny applied to his candidacy.

On the day that the New York Times' piece about John McCain made its appearance, though, I'm not too optimistic.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Replay of the Debate

I watched some of the New Hampshire debate last night on ABC and I've been watching the replay tonight on CNN. And a thought occurred to me.

It seems like I've been watching Hillary Clinton on TV all my life.

It may seem that way to you as well. But it is no idle exaggeration on my part. I grew up in Arkansas, graduated from Conway High School just north of Little Rock and graduated from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

I was 18 the year Bill Clinton was first elected governor, and I voted in that election. Arkansas elected its governor every two years in those days, so Clinton came up for re-election when I was 20. He lost that race, but won his next bid for governor when I was 22. He was re-elected when I was 24 and 26.

The year I was 24, Arkansas voters wisely chose to amend the state's constitution to make terms in state offices like governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc., four-year terms instead of two-year terms. So when Clinton ran again when I was 26, it was for a four-year term. I moved away from Arkansas when I was 28, and I haven't been back there to live in 20 years.

But less than four years after I left Arkansas, Clinton ran for president. And seeing the Clintons on the evening news every night made it seem like I had never left.

In the 16 years that have passed, the Clintons have remained in the public eye. And, with Mrs. Clinton running for this year's Democratic presidential nomination, it once again seems like I never left Arkansas -- even though both of us long ago left that state. After being the nation's first lady for eight years, of course, Hillary went on to be elected -- and re-elected -- to the U.S. Senate from the state of New York.

Actually, now that I reflect on it, I guess I haven't been watching Hillary on TV all my life.

For one thing, my family didn't get a TV set until I was 6 years old, so I really have no memories of seeing an Arkansas governor on TV before Winthrop Rockefeller -- or of seeing an American president before Lyndon Johnson.

And, for another thing, it was 12 more years before Clinton became governor, so I guess Hillary's been on my TV for about two-thirds of my life!

* I have no first-hand memories or knowledge of Mike Huckabee. He became governor many years after I left. But a good friend of mine who still lives in Arkansas was bringing me up to speed on Huckabee a few months before Iowa discovered him.

Huckabee is different from most modern Republicans, but perhaps he has more in common with earlier Republicans than today's Republicans do. In his way, I think he is reacquainting today's Republicans with their roots with his brand of populism.

That's not a bad thing in a campaign that has seen both sides yearning for the "good old days" when other presidents were in charge.

For that matter, we've also seen several polls this year that suggest a high percentage of American voters feel that a third party would be better equipped than the two existing parties to embody the standards and principles people want in their leaders.

Perhaps what the voters really need is to learn about the original principles of each party -- and to see more examples of politicians who live by those principles.

My instincts tell me that Huckabee can't win the Republican nomination, for several reasons. But his insurgent candidacy could prove to be an irresistible force, like George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. It's too early to tell about that.

New Hampshire will tell us a lot about his ability to draw votes from other than his evangelical base. But we'll need to see what happens in Michigan and South Carolina -- and perhaps the mega-primary day on Feb. 5 -- before we'll know what kind of coalition of Republicans Huckabee can build.

* There is a certain inherent danger of reading too much into the results from a single state, like Iowa, but until New Hampshire's voters get out and vote on Tuesday, Iowa is the only thing we have to work with, other than polls.

For the Democrats, I think John Edwards has to do better in New Hampshire than the polls have been showing in order for his campaign to be considered viable. If he is close to the top, I think he can remain in the race for another week or two, competing in the Michigan and South Carolina primaries.

But he has to convince Democrats that he can attract votes outside his native region.

Unless Edwards is able to do that, the race will come down to Obama vs. Clinton very shortly. If it hasn't already.

On the Republican side, I think John McCain can beat Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, and Romney's campaign will be in trouble, having invested so much time and money in the first two states with no victories to show for it.

But the next states on the calendar -- Michigan and South Carolina -- favor different candidates. Romney may do well in Michigan. His father was governor there for six years. But Michigan and South Carolina may have enough evangelical voters to boost Huckabee to victories. And independents are the wild cards. Which candidate -- and which party -- will they favor?

And Rudy Giuliani is counting on a strong showing in Florida.

After that comes the "Super Tuesday" primaries on Feb. 5. Will the Republican picture come into focus on Feb. 6 (which, by the way, is Ronald Reagan's birthday)?

I'm starting to wonder ...

* Barack Obama's triumph in Iowa was impressive, but I think the comparisons between Obama and JFK are a little over done.

As my father told me today, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine ..."

* Well, Lloyd Bentsen is dead and buried.

But I thought New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had the best line last night.

After listening to several minutes of Clinton, Obama and Edwards parrying and thrusting, Richardson remarked, "I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this!"

The Next Debate

The Democratic presidential candidates will hold their next debate tomorrow night (Thursday) at 8 p.m. Eastern on CNN.

The debate will be televised from Las Vegas.

No matter which party you belong to, you can't say you haven't been given ample opportunities to hear what the candidates have to say. I think this will be the eighth or ninth Democratic debate, and I think the Republicans have held seven debates.

And no votes have been cast yet.

If you miss Thursday's debate, the Democrats have scheduled another debate on Dec. 17 (Boston) in their lead-up to the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3 and possibly the New Hampshire primary (the date for the primary still hasn't been determined).

The Democrats also will hold debates on Jan. 21 (Myrtle Beach, S.C.), and Jan. 31 (Los Angeles).

The Republican candidates are scheduled to hold another debate in two weeks, on Nov. 28 in St. Petersburg, Fla. They aren't scheduled for another debate until two months later -- on Jan. 30 in Simi Valley, Calif.

Defining Moments

Apparently, we've reached a stage in the campaign where leading presidential candidates are having their "defining moments."

In today's New York Times, one of my favorite columnists, Maureen Dowd, makes a point about Hillary Clinton that is similar to the one I've made in a previous post in this blog. Basically, the thing that Hillary feels strongly about is winning.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing for a politician to care about. A politician has to win elections in order to accomplish anything. But that seems to be where Hillary steps off the train. She wants to win. What she wants to accomplish once she wins is really anyone's guess.

Even hers.

In the aftermath of Hillary's have-it-both-ways on illegal immigration moment during last week's Democratic debate, Dowd observes that "there is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be."

Dowd calls it the "Gift of Gall." I call it an absence of vision.

Karen Tumulty writes in Time magazine that Mitt Romney's defining moment actually occurred when he was governor of Massachusetts. And, although he might not embrace it readily today, that defining moment was his health care initiative that transformed the state into an example of universal coverage.

Tumulty says that the people around Romney assumed that his battle for universal health care coverage in Massachusetts, which included reaching out to one-time rival Sen. Edward Kennedy, would be the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, illustrating his "data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side."

But Tumulty points out that "that other Mitt Romney, the one who wouldn't be satisfied until he found the answer himself" seldom emerges on the campaign trail.

One has to wonder if it will emerge more frequently if he wins the nomination and needs to run more to the center against the Democratic nominee.

For Mike Huckabee, the defining moment may be coming in a series of moments, starting with his surprising second-place finish in the straw poll of Iowa Republicans in August. That's when people really began talking about Huckabee.

Then, polls began to show Huckabee moving up in the standings. And then he made some waves with his speech to the Values Voters Summit in Washington, where he scored points with Christian conservatives, who are looking for the anti-Giuliani candidate who can successfully articulate their values and concerns.

If Huckabee can do well in Iowa, as Pat Robertson did a generation ago, it won't be necessary for him to win. Nor will it be necessary to win in New Hampshire, writes Charles Mahtesian of the Washington Post. After all, another Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton, didn't win New Hampshire's primary in 1992; he merely beat expectations before moving on to a series of primary victories that led to the nomination.

If Huckabee survives in Iowa and New Hampshire, it probably means one of the leading candidates didn't survive, Mahtesian, editor of The Almanac of American Politics, says. And that will mean a huge opportunity in the South Carolina primary, only days before Super Tuesday, when several Southern states with larger numbers of Southern Baptist voters (including Huckabee's home state of Arkansas) will be voting.

That will be Huckabee's time to shine, Mahtesian says. It's a tricky dance for the one-time Baptist preacher, but not one that is out of his range.

The Republican Debate

Although the highlight of last night's Republican debate was a sparring match between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, it was noteworthy for the fact that recent entry Fred Thompson made his debate debut.

And Thompson avoided making any serious mistakes that might have damaged his campaign. John Dickerson of Slate was impressed that Thompson made it through the debate without falling on his ***. The National Review's Byron York said Thompson was clearly among the top tier Republican candidates with his performance.

And Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News crowed that "Thompson shows he's no joke" in the debate.

Quin Hilyer of HumanEvents.com thought Giuliani and Thompson were the winners of the debate.

Did you watch the debate? What were your thoughts?

Republicans to Debate Tuesday

See what the Republican presidential candidates have to say on the issues of the day in their next debate.

MSNBC will be in Dearborn, Mich., on Tuesday to provide live coverage of the Republican debate from 9-11 p.m. (EDT).