WHAT WE FOUND OUT
About Obama:
- As an executive, Obama is really, really cool in situations of high conflict. To the point that it frustrates even his own supporters. Unfortunately, this display of skill and temperament is colored by the fact that he had some assurances of a victory, so we don't really know how high marks to give (unless you are an insider).
- Obama doesn't take risks when he doesn't have to. He mixed up his stump speech just a little bit. He and his team haven't explored a range of new messages or evolutions/expansions on the basic "Obama theme". He choose not to debate, when he didn't have to. Put another way, their "act three" was arguably weak, not aggressive, more self-assured than self-confident, perhaps.
- Obama can let a distance open up between himself and his own team.
- He "failed" to re-organize his staff promptly for a two-front war (at least from what is visible from the keyboard). That's suggestive, but not conclusive.
- We found out that the corporate press can be anti-Obama.
- Money isn't going to help Obama with some constituencies.
We found out perhaps a little more about Hillary.
- She's totally self-driven - she doesn't need/feed off acclamation. This can lead to what seems like delusion.
- She puts her money where her mouth is - maybe up to $20 million of her own cash to back her bid alongside her donors. She's willing to go to the brink (while some admire that, I don't).
- She's appears to have a higher energy level than Obama and McCain (combined?).
- She's a far better extemporaneous speaker than Obama, although he takes the high marks in oratory. (I don't count her "white"-remarks as extemporaneous).
- She's got a team that are expert at managing expectations. Her keeping-up-appearances routine, whether you like it or not, worked for weeks. (For the record, using Bill O'Reilly as an outlet was ... just too far, even if you 'understand' the logic of going after fence-conservatives). [I believe this is another area in which she cuts into the GOP's turf, and why the regular GOP can't stand 'the Clintons'.]
- The bitter fate of losing (in Bill's early career) arguably twisted a high value on the innate valor of winning 'clean' and 'true', if you believe such a thing exists in politics. Inadvertently or not, the upshot of this for campaigning choices has created trust-issues with the electorate (in my speculation on causality only) and a grossly inartful, ungraceful cobbling together of a new Clinton-coalition (charitably put).
- Judging by how often the corporate media declared her gross income as her net wealth, there is enough journalistic failure to go around.
WHAT WE DIDN'T FIND OUT
We found out very little about other substantive issues, on energy policy, justice for the Bush-Rove era, foreign policy mastery in general, ... {insert long list}. Instead, we learned about the importance of rules-based nomination processes...
The "last round" didn't push candidates to further redefine themselves, in a creative-tension way, whatsoever, that I can appreciate off-hand (I may have forgotten something, but I don't recall any major policy speeches or gripping press conferences...).
MINIMIZE REGRET
What we worry about? Barack could end up like Jimmy Carter, with a winning coalition and philosophy that none of his congressional members use for their own election... Hillary could end up being ... well, in a phrase, all the sad parts of Clintonesque.
