Who Won The Debate Is Debatable, But The Snow-Cone Is Still Melting

All four candidates were at their best this morning. Each seems to have improved in debate over time.

And each campaign can plausibly claim that its candidate “won” with an audience.

Republican Charlie Baker probably won the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce audience — not necessarily the people sitting there, but the business community generally. He made a strong, business-like case that state government hinders entrepreneurship and job-creation because of its tax, spending and regulatory policies.

Miss the debate? Listen…

Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick likely won the WBUR audience. With the most mellifluous voice of the candidates, he cited litanies of achievements in his first term and an equally impressive litany of things he promised to deliver in a second term. If he were allowed a third term, surely we’d have Utopia. (Good name for a casino?)

Independent Tim Cahill might have won with the audience that will only hear soundbites in news coverage, just because he sounded like he was still a viable candidate. That is a victory of sorts since, as moderator Bob Oakes analogized, his candidacy seems like “a snow-cone melting on a Revere beach in July.” (Bob, don’t be surprised if you are named in Cahill’s next lawsuit. Cahill has never had a snow-cone on a Revere beach and he has e-mails to prove it!)

Green-Rainbow’s Jill Stein likely won the audience of volunteers at her campaign headquarters. She was sincere, as always, but not stirring. At mid-point, Oakes tossed her a softball, asking about the other candidates’ campaign shenanigans — an opportunity to hit an issue out of the park as a truly independent (i.e. broke) reformer. Instead, she caught the ball and handed it to the catcher.

Naturally Oakes asked all four about the alleged campaign shenanigans since that issue dominated the news last week. Cahill’s lawsuit against his former campaign consultants triggered accusations between the Cahill, Baker and Patrick camps. Yet when they had to face each other, Patrick and Baker feigned indignation that a question about campaign ethics would be raised when voters are more concerned about issues like how many racinos we need.

When Patrick was asked whether his campaign would be willing to disclose campaign e-mails proving that there was no collusion with the Cahill campaign and with the Democratic Governors Association to orchestrate attack ads against Baker, Patrick seemed especially indignant. That’s odd; he didn’t seem to mind when the issue first emerged as a question of whether Republicans colluded against Cahill, as Cahill charged.

The audience reflexively applauded Patrick’s dismissal of that issue as a “sideshow” but, as Oakes pointed out, character and judgment are relevant issues in choosing a leader. Indeed, character and judgment are more reliable indicators of how a candidate would govern than the ability to memorize and deliver scripted lines. All the candidates can do that quite well.

Questions about character, judgment and campaign ethics will persist in these final 20 days. For undecided voters in particular, that debate is far from over.

• Dan’s Debate Take: Given The Chance To Launch Fireworks, The Candidates Fizzled