The Democratic Debate: Reflections after reading commentary

1. There is witnessing what one sees, in real time.

2. And then there is witnessing, after others tell us what they saw. It is socially constructed.

Today's post is Number Two. 

"Warren hit it out of the park!"

Last night, in real time, I described what I saw, a fast action of questions and brief answers. I had a strong impression of the competence of all the candidates and then one, big takeaway about the dustup between Sanders and Warren.  Click: Last Night's real time impressions

It was obvious to me that Bernie Sanders wanted the dispute to end. Of course a woman can win the presidency. No one would say the opposite, he said, and indeed cited his YouTube video evidence that he had said that years ago. Bigger message: Let's not fight.

Warren, as I saw it, rejected his olive branch. Women win elections, she said, and do so better than guys. You guys up here on the stage, you lose elections. Women beat Republican incumbents and you don't.

That was an accusation.

Bernie said that he, actually, had unseated a Republican incumbent to enter Congress. Warren's assertion that women unseated Republicans had inserted a time limit that seemed arbitrary, thirty years. Her time limit just excluded Sanders' win.

She was accurate, but misleading. The men-don't-unseat-Republicans position relied on it being 30 years, not 32.  

My take on this was negative. That was petty and dishonest, I thought.

The pundits saw it differently. CNN commentary overwhelmingly concluded Warren decisively won the exchange, that Warren looked like a winner and demolished the meme that women aren't electable. Gloria Borger said she hit it out of the park. 

CNN's words on the screen said "Elizabeth Warren fires back at Bernie Sanders." Fires back makes Warren a victim, defending herself, and Sanders the initial provoker. I had not seen it that way.

Click: NY Times columnist ratings.

Meanwhile, the Des Moines Register reports the audience response: 

"Her remarks were met with the most enthusiastic applause of the evening from the small audience at Drake University’s Sheslow Auditorium."

That was a real time response.

The New York Times this morning presented fourteen different pundit opinions on the race. The overwhelming consensus was that Warren looked great and made her case on the really important point to address: women's electability. Michelle Goldberg wrote: 'She had the most memorable line of the night: 'The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women.'”

The Times quoted Will Wilkinson saying, "She made a fiery, galvanizing case on women’s electability that made Sanders seem less than honest."  That is the exact opposite of my take. I thought her the one that was less than honest.

Click: Washington Post

The Washington Post had its own story, titled "Winners And Losers from the Iowa Democratic Debate." 

Their conclusion: Warren was the winner, indeed crediting her for her "Sly Attack on Sanders."

View number two--the socially constructed one-- is the more important and durable way to witness the event. The event experience is its interpretation. Others saw her looking strong. Others saw her winning an exchange and appearing sly--i.e good and effective--not misleading and sneaky.  I am affected by that. I notice myself thinking that maybe she wasn't so bad. Maybe others are right. My view was changing.

Still, this morning, I like her less than I did yesterday. That is real, too.