But while Obama and Clinton didn't seem especially warm toward each other - Clinton, watching Obama struggle, sometimes wore a tight little smile - this debate felt more like a tennis match than a bout in a boxing ring. Point lobbed. Point parried. Advantage, Obama. Advantage, Clinton.
In general, Clinton seemed to have an easier time. In part, as she often states herself, she has more experience with - and tolerance for - this particular type of game. In part, her recent high-profile mistakes seemed to invite less discussion than Obama's. There's no way to finesse the fact that you're caught in a lie, as Clinton was when she invented sniper fire on a 1990s trip to Bosnia. But her explanation was brightly delivered: "Unfortunately, on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past." And she was allowed to move on.
Obama, by contrast, was crippled by what is actually one of his strengths: a willingness to forgo sound bite in favor of nuanced thought. His race speech, delivered nearly a month ago in the same convention center, proved that he could address a complex issue with thoughtful detail. But that was a long speech, not a minutelong response in a debate. There was no one to give a rebuttal.
Last night, there was Hillary Clinton, and she was ready to push back.
When Obama was asked about his statement that angry working-class voters "cling to guns or religion," he gave a lengthy answer that touched on Washington fatigue and the enduring prominence of wedge issues.
Clinton's response was more calculated and, in some ways, more cogent: "I don't believe that my grandfather or my father . . . cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them," she said. She said it was a "misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith."
