What kind of debate was it last night? Down and dirty or calm, measured and statesmanlike. I’d like to know, not having watched the damn thing for the benefit of my mental health. Still The Washington Post has the answer to my question, or should I say, multiple answers?
Here’s the view from Mounts Balz, Kornblut and Shailagh “Atrios’ Devil” Murray:
CLEVELAND, Feb. 26 — In their final debate before critical primaries in Ohio and Texas, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton clashed sharply on familiar ground, arguing Tuesday night over who has the better health-care plan, who has been right about Iraq and who would move most aggressively to rethink trade policy as president.
Oh I can just imagine the fireworks, the pies thrown in the faces of the candidates, the Monty Pythonesque atmosphere. I feel so stupid I didn’t turn in for such wonderful reality TV programming.
But wait. It seems others at the Post (i.e., Tom Shales) saw an entirely different event:
People and pundits who carp when political debates get too harsh and hostile can be counted on to complain that last night’s debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, televised on cable’s MSNBC, was too tame and tepid. It was, in fact, a relief to find both Democratic presidential candidates in a temperate zone . . .
If I was a psychiatrist I’d say the Post is having an identity crisis at the moment. But the Post is a very serious news organization filled with very serious and very dedicated journalists, and many wise old men (and women) of Washington who make profound and very serious pronouncements about the issues of day (unlike those dirty little peons on the intertubes) so it must be all a figment of my imagination.
