Thoughts on the first WA-08 debate of 2008

Earlier today I liveblogged the first debate of 2008 between incumbent Republican Dave Reichert and his Democratic challenger Darcy Burner, hosted by the CityClub of Seattle at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue, Washington.

The debate wasn't televised live on any of the major stations, unfortunately, but the traditional media was there in force, and I'm sure KOMO, KIRO, and KING will all air reports on it tonight.

What I found most remarkable about the debate was how far apart the candidates were - and I don't mean on the issues. I'm talking about presentation.

Darcy Burner looked (and sounded) confident. She spoke gracefully, concisely, and forcefully. She mixed in details yet kept her remarks focused on the big picture.

Reichert, on the other hand, came across as unprepared and unsure of himself. There were perhaps about a dozen instances where Reichert ran over his time and either sheepishly stopped himself mid-sentence or was cut off my the moderator. Each time he shrugged it off with an "aw shucks" demeanor, but it was embarrassing. The room was literally laughing at him by the end.

He also said a couple of things that I thought were both honest and funny, but unhelpful to himself. First, early on, he admitted, "I'm not an economic expert." (Darcy Burner, on the other hand, has a degree in economics from Harvard, and she pointed that out in her opening statement).

Second, later, he talked about needing "to send new people to Congress." If that's the case, why is he running for reelection? He's been on Capitol Hill for four years. If new blood is required to fix what is broken (and we agree that it is), then Darcy Burner is undoubtedly the best choice for the job.

Darcy excelled by being coolheaded and crisp throughout the entire debate. She rarely stumbled over words or lost track of the time.

One of her finest moments came when she was answering a question about how Congress should react if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

I'll let Darcy speak for herself here:

Darcy Burner: I feel pretty strongly about this particular issue. I don't think government has any right to make personal decisions like that for people. When I was pregnant with my son Henry - a much-wanted pregnancy - I had complication after complication where my doctor sat down with me and said, "If you continue this pregnancy, you might not survive it." And every single time, my husband and I sat down and talked through it, and decided to continue.

But that decision belongs to us, and there is no politician on the planet who has the right to make it for me.

The idea that there are politicians who think they have the right to tell people fundamental choices about what happens with their bodies is absurd. And I would support not only codifying Roe v. Wade into law, but ensuring that the Constitutional right to basic decisions about one's self and one's privacy is... [added as] a Constitutional amendment if Roe v. Wade were ever to be overturned.

Adding a new amendment to the Constitution explicitly guaranteeing a right to privacy is a bold idea. But bold ideas are what we've come to expect from Darcy Burner, who is unafraid to be honest with the people she seeks to represent.

The outcome of today's debate wasn't even close. It was decisively and clearly a big victory for Darcy Burner.

UPDATE: More on the debate from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Strange Bedfellows and the Seattle Times' Politics Northwest.