Why Hillary Clinton was clear winner in first debate

Only Bernie Sanders made any impact at all. But deprived of his adoring crowds, Sanders’ pitch fell flat. 

John Locher/AP
Hillary Rodham Clinton (r.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont speak during the CNN Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday in Las Vegas.

My impression of the first Democratic debate of the 2016 cycle comports with that of the media accounts that I’ve read: Hillary Clinton was the clear winner and, among her challengers, only Bernie Sanders made any impact at all.

Clinton has been in the national spotlight for 23 years and nearly won the nomination eight years ago. So perhaps it’s not surprising that she was far and away the most comfortable on the debate stage. But she was ready for every question and managed to avoid looking bored or condescending.

Deprived of his adoring crowds, Sanders’ pitch fell flat. He strikes me as the Democratic Donald Trump, feeding his party’s id without the slightest regard for feasibility. He seems to think that simply wanting bad things to go away will make it so.

Sanders’ counterpoise is Jim Webb, the Democratic John McCain. Like the 2008 Republican nominee, he’s long taken positions that put him at odds with his own base. And, sadly, both have gotten much crankier in recent years. I half expected him to tell the other candidates to get off his lawn last night.

Lincoln Chafee is Democratic Lindsey Graham, well qualified for the job in terms of experience but lacking the personal gravitas to be taken seriously.

My favorite of the candidates is Martin O’Malley, who’s serving as the Democratic John Kasich. As a former mayor and governor, he has tons of executive experience and his record is one that would appeal to swing voters in a general election campaign. He comes across as likeable but, alas, didn’t do anything last night likely to connect him with the voters.

Clinton is the odds-on front-runner. Nothing last night even put a slight dent in that. And, indeed, Sanders’ seeming dismissal of the e-mail scandal as a relevant issue may well have given her a boost.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.