SC Democratic Debate

Some quick notes on the first Democratic debate at South Carolina State.

Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.

Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.

Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.

Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.

Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.

Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.

Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.

This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...

Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.