It wasn't the person with the most to lose on the stage Thursday night that almost lost it. Gingrich was dinged up but still running by the end of the first half and then seemed to repair himself – Christine-like – during the second. Ron Paul was the debate's angry-old-man-yelling-at-clouds, though his policy stance on Iran is actually more like angry-old-man-insisting-it-won't-rain.
Well, that's probably not fair. Paul's skepticism about the immediacy of the Iranian threat is probably one of his more comparatively rational positions, but his vigor in stating it underscores just how distant he is from the GOP base on the issue. Paul has a coherent defense of his foreign policy positions, which is more than most of the candidates can say, but that may not be enough for some Iowans who otherwise would support him.
It was a night for the also-rans, in general. Santorum's discovered grace in loss – like a good Christian – and Bachmann has turned those crazy eyes to her rivals with unrestrained venom, getting off some of the sharpest attacks on Gingrich of the night. Perry has discovered his comfort level, which apparently has to do with quoting verbatim whatever it is his handlers have written for him. And Huntsman's eyebrows still betray an ironic distance from the charade that David Letterman would envy.
As the last debate before the caucuses, pundits had freighted the event with meaning long before anyone took the stage. But like all the debates, it was more flash than actual dazzle, memory of it lost as soon as the light leaves the retina.
More meaningful, I hope, are the headlines this morning, one of which reveals yet another Gingrich lie, phrased with careful Timesian disdain: "Gingrich Push on Health Care Appears at Odds With G.O.P."
Debates are easy to chat about, and you can play clips of them endlessly on TV, but it's the slower drip of information – like icicles building on Sioux City eaves – that create campaign-killers.
