He won. He not only won by not losing, but he also won on points–and on demeanor, and on quickness, if not quite substance (although this was a fairly substantive debate on both sides). A few points:
–On health care: she’s right and he’s wrong. His implication that she would force people “who can’t afford it” to buy health insurance is just plain nonsense. The whole point of her plan is to subsidize health care for those who can’t afford it. The problem is the 15 million, more or less, who can afford it and choose not to buy in. They are mostly young, mostly well-off…you’ve heard the arguments. I agree with Clinton (and the ever-crusading Paul Krugman) that they have a moral and civic responsibility to buy in. I also agree with Clinton that it will be easier for insurance companies to discriminate and cherry pick absent a mandate. (But looking ahead to the general election, Obama’s position will be more tenable against a Republican trying to sell the Democrats’ plan as a “Government takeover of health care.”)
–On NAFTA, both were more realistic than their stump speeches and advertising. Neither made outlandish claims about the impact–peripheral, at best–that trade deals have had on the decline of manufacturing jobs. I spoke with James Galbraith, the University of Texas economist today, and he said the major impact of NAFTA was on illegal immigration, not manufacturing jobs: the deal removed Mexican tariffs on agricultural products, which flooded Mexico with cheaper US food, which made farming untenable for many Mexicans, which sent them hurtling north in search of jobs. (I should Add that Galbraith agrees with both democratic candidates that trade deals should be carefully reviewed–for special interest trade breaks. Apparently, the loopholes in trade deals are beginning to look like the loopholes in the tax code.)
–On getting asked questions first: Bad, bad moment for Clinton. She seemed whiney, especially raising the SNL skit about the press fawning over Obama. If you go there–which you shouldn’t–you do it cleverly. She didn’t.
–On getting endorsed by Louis Farrakhan: Bad moment by Obama, later redeemed. Russert asked if he rejected Farrakhan’s support. Obama said he denounced Farrakhan’s antisemitism–which was to say, I don’t like him but I won’t kick away his (or the Nation of Islam’s) support. Incredibly, Clinton saved him by mentioning that she had rejected the support of an anti-semitic fringe group in 2000. He responded brilliantly, “I would reject and denounce.” There is a growing, despicable movement to denounce and defame Obama among right-wing Jews and this would have given them ammunition. He escaped, narrowly.
–On Russert’s Iraq hypothetical: Way too hypothetical. We pull out, Al Qaeda in Iraq–which has been decisively rejected by the Sunni community and is on the run–comes back in droves? I think not. A more plausible hypothetical–and not so hypothetical: Kirkuk votes to join Kurdistan, the Turks invade…Senators, do you really think a referendum on the status of Kirkuk is a good idea? What do you do if Turkey invades? (Oh, and by the way, what do you think about Turkey’s current operations against the PKK in Iraq?)
–On Clinton’s Iraq vote: “You voted for driving the bus into the ditch.” Great moment for Obama.
–On Clinton’s “celestial choir” sarcasm: Great, gracious response by Obama. “I thought she showed some good humor there. She gets points for delivery.”
–On Pakistan: Bad for Clinton, who repeated the canard that Obama wanted to “bomb” Pakistan. Excellent for Obama, who said he wanted to go after Al Qaeda operatives there if we had actionable intelligence and Pakistan was refusing to act. (Which we did a few weeks ago, in the CIA strike against al-Libi.)
Again, Obama just seemed in command throughout, never threatened, never flustered. Clinton didn’t seem flustered either, but she didn’t seem as big as Obama. We’re nearing the end of this incredible race.