Hillary and Bernie finally had to fight in last debate

So Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had what I hope will be their last debate on Thursday night.   Yes, I'm the same person who was outraged that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to tilt the election to Hillary by allowing only a few debates and scheduling them at times when the TV audience was likely to be otherwise occupied (weekend nights;  big, once a year sports events;  the final episode of "Downton Abbey").

I wanted more when Bernie and Hillary were really having a debate about issues, and when it was civil and so far above the mud pit the Republicans were sloshing around in that I wanted more people to see our team for comparison.

It seemed to me that Thursday night, our team stooped to dip their toes in the mud -- and I think the media practically demanded that they have a fight.   It's good for ratings, you know.   Nothing makes news like a fight;    civil discourse does not draw a crowd.

But, honestly, my reason for wanting no more debates now is that, in the last one,  everything I dislike about Hillary Clinton got exaggerated.   Yes, they both made some good points and they both got in some digs at the other.   Nobody made any game-changing scores -- although, if either came close, it would be Sanders standing up for better treatment of the Palestinians and Hillary going full Israel-pander in response to his criticism of her AIPAC speech.

It is widely agreed, among those who know Hillary personally, that she can be a warm, caring human being.  And I have seen that in some informal tv coverage of her.   But, put a microphone in front of her and a large audience, and she tightens up, goes hard and cold, tilts back her head and talks down to everyone.    That's how it feels to me -- and I don't want to see any more of it.   I don't want to dislike her.   I want to respect her.   And this makes it harder.

Let me illustrate with a bit of textual analysis.   I took these transcript samples of the debate from Charlie Pierce's Esquire political web site critique of the debate.  It's from the exchange where Sanders criticized Clinton's AIPAC speech for almost ignoring the plight of the Palestinians in discussing the Middle East before a group of U.S. Jewish leaders.

Their two comments are roughly equal in length.    Hillary uses the word "I" eleven times;   Bernie says "I" four times.   Further, nine of eleven of Hillary's I's were in some form of "I did":   I negotiated, I did, I did, I can tell you, I have been there, I was in Cambodia, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated.

In contrast, Bernies four I's were:   I was a kid, I do believe, I believe, I believe.

OK.   So what is the point?    First, it's a personal, subjective thing with me -- something I noticed while watching it live:   every time the word "I" came out of her mouth, it came to feel like an attack -- on me, the listener.    She puts a special emphasis on it:   "I negotiated," I flew all night," "I can tell you right now."   The I always feels like the high point of the sentence.  A boast.   It feels like she is saying, "how dare you question ME?"

The other, less subjective thing is this:   This exchange (and I'll post it below for anyone who wants to read it) is a microcosm of their respective strengths and weaknesses.    Hillary's strong suit is her experience and wide knowledge about governance;    Bernie's strong point is in his passion about the issues of economic inequality and workers' rights;  about belief in ideals and his ability to inspire the same in others.   So it makes perfect sense that this excerpt I'm using -- which was chosen by someone else to convey a policy difference -- also illustrates textually a major difference in their two personalities, their policy positions, and their strengths:   experience and pragmatism vs ideals and optimism.

My agita about Clinton's overuse of "I," has nothing to do with whether I think she would be a good president and better than anyone the Republicans could choose.   But it does have something to do with how much I can like her and feel committed to her cause.

Ralph

Here are the two excerpts:

SANDERS: 
Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack. That is not a debate. But—but what you just read [his prior statement that Israel's response to Palestinian attacks was disproportionate], yeah, I do believe that. Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. But we had in the Gaza area—not a very large area—some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1,500 who were killed. Now, if you're asking not just me, but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is that I believe it was, and let me say something else. And, let me say something else. As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run—and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity. So what is not to say—to say that right now in Gaza, right now in Gaza unemployment is s somewhere around 40%.  You got a log of that area continues, it hasn't been built, decimated, houses decimated, health care decimated, schools decimated. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people. That does not make me anti-Israel.


CLINTON:
I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with...President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn't find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that. So, I don't know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself. That does not mean—that does not mean that you don't take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there's always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and…the autonomy that they deserve.