Clinton, Obama Engage in Tiff Over the Trivial

It’s unfortunate, but last night’s debate at Cleveland State University in Ohio focused just as much on campaign speeches and tactics as it did on substantive issues.

This was both the fault of the moderators – NBC’s Brian Williams and Tim Russert – who set the tone by opening the debate with questions regarding Hillary Clinton’s recent emotionally charged speeches, and the candidates, who wasted their precious time spewing shallow anecdotes and petty differences.

These are the types of displays that could ultimately lead to the party’s downfall.

The only major policy issues that were discussed in detail were health care, NAFTA and its relation to job creation, and foreign policy experience. And even these segments of the debate prompted little discussion about actual solutions.

The rest of the debate was full of trivial video clips, talk about endorsements, and the release of tax returns – all of which have little bearing on the candidates’ possible future roles. Although these topics may give voters insight into the candidate’s character, it seems that the voters would be much better served with a discussion of a broader span of topics.

For example, education, which is a huge issue in Ohio, and has been for years, wasn’t mentioned once. Neither was the environment, outside of the candidates’ references to the aptly named green-collar jobs. Spending policies were also ignored, along with overall political philosophy, which could give insight into how a future president might respond to unforeseen challenges or crises.

Overall, Clinton had a few strong moments – her detailed health care plan and her broad foreign policy experience – but her more memorable moments will most likely be the groan-inducing ones, like her reference to the Saturday Night Live skit or when she insisted on telling an anecdote to suggest Obama was not sufficiently renouncing a controversial endorsement.

Obama, on the other hand, didn’t make much of an impression at all. He kind of disappeared, drifted off into the background. So while he didn’t make any significant blunders, he also didn’t attempt to steer the direction of the conversation. He would let Clinton attack, then calmly refute – always acknowledging her strengths and their similarities along the way.

Of course we knew that the criticisms of the role speeches play in the Obama campaign (and possibly inducing what David Brooks calls Obama come-down syndrome) would enter the debate. However, instead of making the connection between his words and demonstrating that they represent bold ideas, Obama dismissed them: “I’m not interested in talk; I’m not interested in speeches.”

In the end, the only winner of this debate might have been John McCain.

As the Democratic candidates spend their time debating who has been the most consistent on NAFTA (instead of how they’ll renegotiate it), what Obama’s 2002 anti-war speech means for his foreign policy, and providing constant interruptions to take cheap shots at each other, they leave undecided voters even more confused, and less confident in these two historic choices. Meanwhile, McCain continues to tout a platform that no one can deny has been fairly consistent throughout his extensive political career.

If Clinton and Obama aren’t careful, they may find themselves on the wrong end of the Straight Talk Express.