An Off Night for the Messiah

Posted by Robert Zimmer on 04.19.2008

Will Obama’s disastrously human debate performance ensure a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania?

I'm not really sure who showed up to debate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night, but it sure wasn't the smooth, cool, relaxed Senator Obama we've grown accustomed to seeing at town halls, rallies, and the 20-odd other debates. NBC's Chuck Todd called it "a near-disastrous performance for the front-runner," and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder was equally blunt: "[T]here's no way Obama could fared worse." ABC News' Rick Klein concluded, "Clinton is back to the strong presence we saw early in the cycle."

I actually felt sorry for Obama as he wilted under the questioning from ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, offering a weak array of responses ranging from feeble and legalistic (his answer on Ayers and the flag question) to outright lies (claiming he didn't fill out a policy position questionnaire with a damning answer about gun control when his handwriting plainly appears on the document). Senator Clinton was wisely restrained, declining several clear opportunities to clobber Obama and largely staying positive, as she should. Mark Penn's absence is, mercifully, almost palpable.

What's painfully clear is that Obama is irritated he hasn't won the nomination yet. He thinks he's owed it and he barely masked his exasperation during the debate. He scowled through at least half of the 90-minute train wreck, particularly when Senator Clinton was speaking. It reminded me of Al Gore's exaggerated sighs during his debate with George W. Bush in 2000 – like Gore, Obama simply appeared rude and condescending, and made his opponent look better in the process. I watched the debate with an astute friend who grew so appalled by it that he called out "Don't scowl so much, babe. Those Marlboro lines are easier to see when you frown." I suspect Senator Obama had a cigarette or two after the debate, regardless of his wife's admonishments.

Obama has had a terrible week, first providing the Republicans with a few extra yards of rope with which to hang him via his condescending remarks in San Francisco about voters clinging to guns and God because of their bitterness. He could have erased that problem by turning in a command performance at the debate, but instead he turned in what was easily his worst showing of the nearly two-dozen debates thus far. It seems unlikely that his campaign will consent to another debate with Senator Clinton after this drubbing.

Something that baffled me about Obama was why he didn't follow Senator Clinton's lead when she was confronted directly by a question from a voter who said he decided not to support her over her Bosnia exaggeration. She simply admitted she'd screwed up, apologized for it, and asked the man to reconsider supporting her. Instead of doing the same when asked again about his San Francisco remarks, Obama tried to talk his way out of it and essentially blamed everybody but himself for his tone-deaf remark. The result was that he – again – diminished his own stature by looking whiny and made Senator Clinton look better in the process.

One of Obama's very worst responses came on a topic which he needed badly to hit out of the park after his San Francisco treat: guns.

Clinton gave a common sense answer on the gun question posed to the candidates: we balance the personal right to gun ownership with the reality of urban life. I haven't seen a better-articulated Democratic position on the 2nd Amendment than what she offered during the debate. Obama (again) gave a very legalistic response: there is an individual right, but obviously we can restrict that right because it's a matter of constitutional course. What? People don't like to hear about constraining individual rights (especially 2nd Amendment, and certainly not backed by an abstract justification. Obama then co-opted Clinton's answer about lawful gun owners supporting appropriate regulations, nearly word-for-word. The distinction she drew between New York City and Montana was spot on--she hammered home the right of local communities to craft reasonable gun regulations. Obama totally dropped the ball on this and if anything, dug himself a deeper hole. Every time he sounds like a constitutional law professor, you can hear the giant sucking sound of undecided blue-collar voters gravitating towards Clinton.

Given that she is behind in both pledged delegates and the popular vote (no thanks to the DNC's inept inability to figure out how to fairly accommodate the voters of Florida and Michigan), the electability issue is Clinton's strongest case to make to the remaining undecided superdelegates. Obama did not look remotely presidential last night. He looked frustrated, overwhelmed, underprepared, and worst of all – small. I felt like I was watching a guy running for president of the law review, not president of a superpower that is facing its worst set of crises since the Great Depression. If the Obama who showed up at the Wednesday night debate were to luck his way into the Oval Office (and I think McCain would clobber Mr. Law Professor version of Obama), I would be worried he wasn't up to the job. Sadly, and perhaps predictably, the Obama camp blamed his lousy performance on the moderators, Stephanopolous and Gibson, claiming their questions were unfair and accusing Stephanopolous of bias because of his tenure in the Clinton White House. On the contrary, it seemed he went out of his way to be fair for this precise reason – in one of the more remarkable moments in the debate, he pinned Senator Clinton down and essentially forced her to admit Obama was electable. I don't see how this is evidence of bias, but certainly there is evidence of sour milk from the Obama campaign that clearly woke up today extremely rattled by the Messiah's very human debate performance.

It will be interesting to see how polls between now and April 22 (primary election day in Pennsylvania) indicate voter reaction to Obama's bad night. My gut instinct is that there will be a sizable drop in his numbers and that the unusually large percentage of undecided voters in Pennsylvania will break for Clinton. If she beats him as badly on election day as she did during the debate, Obama's campaign will be in the worst trouble it's seen since December of 2007, when Senator Clinton held commanding leads in every poll in existence. One thing is for sure: the cacophony of calls a few weeks ago for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race seem ridiculous in retrospect. She looks both wiser and stronger for having ignored the chattering class. Obama has his work cut out for him over the next few weeks, and how he responds to this self-created adversity will provide a powerful indicator of his character and in turn, whether he is fit for the presidency.