First let me say how wonderful it is to actually be hanging my hat here in Philadelphia, so an ordinary bloke like me can actually get to watch the Democrat debate in the Constitution Center live and in person. My heart raced at all the well-known and “important” people in the audience, and returned to normalcy rate when I wasn’t afforded the opportunity to actually speak to any of them or get interviewed on camera. And I suppose autographing hunting from the two Most Holy Anointed Ones would have been good to show the grandkids someday, but my wife wouldn’t have been impressed. And neither would I. Obama made more than a few remarks about a grossly inordinate amount of attention being paid to unsubstantial and manufactured issues. I’d say autograph hounding each of the persons who may be someday be leading our nation is one of them.

Anyway – I’ve already heard several reactionary comments on the debate, both sides putting their spins on their boy’s or girl’s performance. (Sorry – should I have said “girl’s or boy’s?” Oh God : I must have a hidden agenda!!) I must say, I was surprised that the audience was so sedate. I’ve heard more chatter at public concertos – though the swarm on any given day at the Alamo would make these debate-spectator critters look like your average pub crowd.

Am I wasting your time talking about trivialities? Don’t you recognize a metaphor when you see one? Look, Obama made a huge mistake when he categorized and sectionalized a enormous slice of the American populace. I’m glad it was brought up as the first question. But didn’t the media hammer go beyond the boundaries of a reasonable arc when it dragged that and every other piece of garbage out there for almost half of the debate?

And when I say media I know there were only two men asking the questions, but let’s face it – they represent the whole. So let Obama answer the question about small-town bitterness. Move on. Somewhere along the line ask about Wright. (But maybe not right after the small-town bit.) Then move on. Let Clinton do her bit to talk about her involvement in Bosnia. Then move on. Yes, these were important questions about how the candidates view themselves and their presumed constituencies. But guys… 40 minutes of this prattle? The back-and-forth on the whole “Weather Underground” thing (didn’t they record “It’s Raining Men”? I love that song!) was…. Absolutely Nothing.

At least Hillary had the integrity to apologize for her remarks. Classy. Too many authority figures refuse to apologize for anything. Saying you’re sorry just makes you reachable, accessible. Obama did take ownership of his “mangled” remark, and that was good, but he didn’t apologize for it and instead tried to defend it, and that was bad, Why? Hillary was on the mark here: he is out of touch with a certain segment of the population. At least that’s my impression. Small-town folk have embraced religion and 2nd Amendment rights through good times and bad. So do a lot of urbanites. It’s got little, if anything, to do with politics. He had the chance here to really connect with rural Americans, and he squandered it.

I could feel his frustration at the constant attacks on his character during this interminable period of the debate. Now he knows how Hillary felt for lo, these many months. (Sorry – I just get a kick out of writing that phrase.)  He comported himself admirably; shoot, as little as three months ago during the same sort of exchange Hillary’s eyes would flare up like lava bubbles and she’d be breathing the requisite fire to boot. I know when it’s me in similar situations I’d be ready to deck somebody. So hats off to Obama, there.

But the fact of the matter is that Hillary won this one. And she won it at a crucial time. She won it in the first half of the debate because she was not only feeling the confidence of her popularity surge, she is now not the one on the defensive. And for a long time she was. She’s learned form that – we hope. Obama could have gained points by not tying to justify his positions, or revealed more about his character by saying why he has made the decisions he has made. (Like the flag pin: sure, trivial. Buy why? McGain’s gonna grill him on that, so don’t you think he should have an answer he can tell the public by now?) Irregardless, ABC was playing lowball here. I think ol’ Georgie and Charlie were trying to give him the chance to say “You know what? My bad. I’m sorry.” Pity Obama didn’t take the bait.

When the debate moved onto weightier topics (And I swore I heard this huge sigh of relief from the audience – this first outburst, to presage their jeering of Charlie Gibson later in the night), Hillary won again. Both candidates were happy to address the actual issues they were running on, but I know Hillary got a kick out of being able to stand back and watch the other guy get beat up for a change – and get to throw a few choice blows herself.

When she spoke of an “affirmative action” for every young person she took the lead in painting a picture of a unified America, something Barack stopped just short of. Still, it was refreshing to hear a black candidate speak of the “poor white child”. Sometimes, though, it’s not just the poor who are disadvantaged. It’s the middle-class folk, as well. Hillary’s response sounded more inclusive.

Troop withdrawal from Iraq? Sure. Both candidates are pretty much the same on that; there’s a slight variance on dates, but nothing big here. Iran? Well, Obama’s willing to try more options than Clinton. But neither one want to give an inch on that oaf running the Iranian country.  Similar strategies again.

Tax relief for the middle class hit a curious note. Why was everyone on the Kimmel-I-had-never-known-it-was-star- shaped-Floor talking about incomes of 250,000 or less? Show me all those people! ‘Cause I know they’re out there and I know a few personally, but they’re not representative of any America I know. Barack mentioned that 7% of Americans make less than 100 grand; I’ve read 15%. But either way, it’s certainly not the “middle” of anything.

Then Gibson goes on and on about the capital gains tax. Wait! The tax on market earnings? And how does that represent the middle class we talked about in the preceding paragraph? Although it was interesting how both candidates made ironclad pledges not to raise taxes below that hollowed “200,000 to 250,000” mark, then each immediately rescinded that pledge with their hemming and hawing over capital gains. Which tells me two things: (1) the tax situation in America is not and cannot be as simple as anyone, even self-professed beacons of integrity like Obama, make it out to be, and (2) …..er….oh, I forgot. It was going to a good point, though. Oh well.

Then guns. They both managed to play to both sides on this one. And made very rational explanations why. Which was very interesting, coming from Obama, because it’s the sort of thing he needed to say or at least allude to in during that interminable first half of the debate. They managed to straddle the fence with Israel, too – backing off from inflammatory comments that could have had unfair accusations of anti-Semitism hurled at them. But they didn’t embrace the country and the hardnosed policies of its government, either. Guess that’s proof positive that Obama has learned to play the game.

The real thing here that got to me is how what I had previously viewed as Obama’s greatest asset – his unwillingness to play the political game and his insistence on straight talk and, as he put it, “honest conversation” – played like a liability here. While he was busy talking about how much he wants to talk, Hillary was striking the familiar chords of all her years in the business – and I must admit she really came off as being able to handle any power-mad dictator or dire American crisis. She just sounded more forceful, more unwilling to compromise when perseverance is genuinely called for, and yes, more willing to fight for the entire team.

Of course, Barack’s strength is his willingness to fight with the team. Hillary do that? Not bloody likely. Before the debate, what had been my rock-hard faith in Barack was shaken by what I characterized in the initial paragraphs of my essay as insubstantial,  by his comments on rural Americans and his lack of comments on Reverend Wright.. By how that played into the flag pin and his wife’s former lack of pride in America. The media spent an obscene amount of time hammering away on these questions, given the time constraints of the whole evening. (A few minutes each on Iraq? Iran? Gun control? Superdelagates? 40 minutes on pins and bitterness and pastors? Please.)

I was hoping that Obama would deliver a knockout blow, a rousing invocation to the best in all of us by calling from deep within the best in himself. This was not to be. And thus I am still on the fence.

In the end, one of our loveable hosts called upon some guy who was watching the debate on TV at Independence Hall 650 feet away. Muttered the inanity that this guy had an “interesting vantage point.”

Maybe I’m just old-school, but the host’s use of the word “vantage point” could only have meant that he commanded a smashing view of the outline of the Constitution Center’s roof from Independence Hall’s 2nd story or tower windows. The guy at the Hall certainly didn’t have much to say from his “interesting vantage.” How is it the debate coverage ended on this note?

Though it was a fitting ending, really, since it demonstrates just how unaware all of us can be. How easily distracted we are in our quest for what we perceive as the upper hand. Myself, I’m aware I need some sleep. It’s been a grand evening of fluff and substance, but now it’s time for solely the fluff that dreams are made of. I shouldn’t have any trouble finding solace in my dreams tonight. I wonder how the candidates will fare with that?

Good night.