As a supporter of Obama – Biden, I found the debate last night soothing. Biden performed well, better than Ryan. From my partisan point of view, it was a good night. After the first Obama – Romney debate, I had a hard time sleeping. Last night, I slept like a baby.

In form and substance, I think Biden was convincing, presenting passionately and clearly the case for re-election, providing Obama a proper introduction for a debate comeback. The contrasting approaches to the practical challenges of our times were on clear view and, I believe, Biden made the Democrats approach more cogent, while Ryan was not able to overcome the contradictions of the conservative Romney-Ryan approach.

First form: Republicans are in convinced. Biden was boorish, Gore – like, patronizing rude. Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard summarizes their judgment: “You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious. You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard. You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.”

Indeed Biden was highly expressive. He interrupted Ryan. He smiled, laughed and non-verbally belittled his opponent. I knew as I watched Biden’s performance that the Republican partisans would draw the Gore analogy. I worried, but was also enthused. Now that I have had a bit of time to deliberately consider the evening, I think that there was good reason for my enthusiasm.

Biden non-verbally framed the debate, deflecting Ryan’s criticisms, highlighting the thinness of the Romney-Ryan critique of the administrations foreign policy, and the contradictions of the Romney Ryan economic plans. Take a look at the embedded video. Notice that Biden’s expressive behavior was responsive to what Ryan was saying and that it is consistent with what we know about Biden, the man, how he presented himself last night and how he has presented himself in our experience.

Biden is an honest Joe, sitting at the bar, infuriated by the nonsense he is hearing, unable to control himself, wanting desperately to set the record straight. Herein lies Biden’s victory (I am thinking about the great sociologist Erving Goffman and his master essay “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor”). Far from being a weakness Biden’s expressions are at the root of his decisive victory.

Through his demeanor and his lack of deference, Biden managed to define the situation. He turned the evening in his favor. The debate started with Obama – Biden on the run. Romney had won the last debate and has been on a roll. His stock was up, Obama’s down. Romney seemed to be turning the election into a referendum over the Obama record, as he presented himself as a competent moderate Republican technocrat: no right-wing extremist he. Biden last night in his body language reversed the trend. Who are Romney and Ryan? And why are the saying what they have been saying about American foreign policy? With a puzzled frown, Biden underscored this question. And what are they saying about taxes, Medicare and Social Security? With a flash of a smile, Biden raised serious doubts about the veracity of what they have been saying.

Apart from this win, the debate was a success because each man presented his party’s position: on foreign policy, taxes and deficits, economic growth, social justice, and on the proper relationship between religious belief and public policy, including the issues of women’s rights and abortion.

As a partisan, I am very pleased that Biden made the positions of Obama and his party clear, with a full command of the facts. Ryan also presented his party’s positions effectively. As a theater critic, though, I am struck by the fact that Biden’s performance was more sincere, fluid and engaging. But I know that other theater critics, such as Peggy Noonan at that great theater review, the Wall Street Journal, with different politics, review the debate drama differently.

But theatrical performance, of course, is not really the issue. How the performance is defined by and helps define a script is. And this is why I think that not only did Biden win last night, but that Ryan and Romney lost. Their script is flawed, filled with contradictions about which they can’t, in the end, give persuasive account.

Their response to Obama’s foreign policy successes is to tell a story of weakness, of apology for America. They present a neo-conservative position, while not clearly identifying with the position as brought to us by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They want to criticize Obama’s policies in North African and the Middle East, asserting the need for toughness. They criticize Obama for working through the United Nations, consulting with allies, dealing with Russia and China as they are, not as imagined Cold War enemies, but they have not presented alternative policies, which very well might not be popular. As Biden suggested: ground troops in Syria and a regional conflict, an international conflict in Iran with a global economic crisis, and continued American troops in Afghanistan.

On tax policy, Ryan claimed they had a plan but wouldn’t explain any details. Cut tax rates for the rich and middle class alike by twenty per cent, pay for it by closing loopholes and reducing deductions, with only the faintest hint of what would be closed and reduced. There’s a problem. Now Romney-Ryan want to claim that this will not affect the taxes of the middle class, but if it is born by the rich (oopps, I mean job creators), how would this lead to their supply side fantasies of an economic boom created by cutting taxes.

The Ryan plan of old was more about reducing the size of government and unleashing private entrepreneurship, unshackling individual creativity, advocating minimal government, his strong Randian inspired ideological streak, also the rallying cry of the Tea Party. Romney, the severe conservative, supported this during the Republican primaries and his choice of Ryan confirmed this support. Now the running mates are running away from this position, as is confirmed by both debates. Romney somehow pulled this off last week, a commanding performance. Ryan couldn’t.

Biden did his job. He has helped Obama by leveling the playing field for the next debate. Biden wins, and the campaign proceeds. I think with the advantage now turning in Obama’s favor.

Last month, I speculated that the supercommittee had the potential to help drag our legislature into a more authentic form of bipartisanship, a bipartisanship based on principled mutual compromise in the tradition of Henry Clay. I expressed my belief that the makeup of the committee would determine its ability to affect change. In that respect, the prospect of the committee changing the status quo now seems bleak. There is great opportunity but the membership of the committee suggested that the opportunity will be missed.

The Committee on Deficit Reduction is nominally a “joint select committee.” Emphasis should be given to the “joint” nature. Select committees generally suggest, but don’t legislate.  In the present supercommittee, I see the spirit of the conference committees that resolve contentions between Senate and House bills. “Going to conference” offers possibilities of compromise that would not have previously existed for the conferees in their respective chambers or standing committees. Conference rules state that “the conferees are given free reign to resolve their differences without formal instructions from their bodies.” Senate scholar Walter Oleszek quoted an anonymous Senate leader opining, “Conferences are marvelous. They’re mystical. They’re alchemy. It’s absolutely dazzling what you can do.”

In the Obama budget talks, posturing was encouraged by heightened visibility. Separate branches of government competed for authority. With the supercommittee, we move to what Erving Goffman called the “backstage.” The individual actors have more agency to shape the outcome than the participants of last year’s deal. That is why I believe an overview of the members involved will not only be informative, but help us understand the debate’s nature. I have my partisan interests. Nonetheless, while I think the Democrats have some problems, I think the real problem lies with the Republicans.

The Democrats: The House delegation is perhaps too easy to dismiss as Pelosi loyalists – Van Hollen and Clyburn have been her top lieutenants. On the Senate side, Patty Murray is a progressive who could create real dialogue. However, my intuition tells me she is acting primarily as a representative of party leadership. There is nothing wrong with this (and I afford Senator Kyl the same leniency) but I am concerned it may constrain her in a way that, say, Senator Leahy would not have been. Senator Baucus suffers from allegations by Alan Simpson that he was all but absent in the Simpson-Bowles commission work. John Kerry, in contrast, was praised for his commitment to that report, and the “Senate Man” image that hurt his presidential bid may help him maneuver the wheeling-and-dealing of a private conference.

The Republicans: The choice of their delegates reflects a complete disinterest in any compromise. The committee is stacked with the “true believers” Jeffrey Goldfarb describes as a threat to the delicate relationship between truth and politics. Equally disturbing is how the choices seem to reflect ignorance of Americans’ struggles. “Out of touch” is a campaign cliché, but POLITICO’s David Rogers provided an interesting piece of journalism highlighting that the committee Republicans are all white men with “considerable wealth.” McConnell and Boehner are savvy politicians — they know that their selections convey a message beyond the fitness of the members to solve the problems in front of the committee. I’m incredulous that a single, competent woman or minority was not available to serve (Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Marco Rubio, even?).

So who are the GOP’s voices at the table?

Senator John Kyl of Arizona. Mr. Kyl was part of the Biden working group, but I would caution seeing this as a sign of bipartisan commitment. Mr. Kyl has followed up last fall’s inflexible opposition to the START treaty (despite full-throated support from the national security community and respected Republican experts including Dick Lugar)with the statement “I’m off the committee,” if defense cuts are considered. This after only one meeting.

Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is the only member on the committee who voted against the debt ceiling compromise, and I suspect that is the primary reason he was selected. Someone like Jim DeMint has more experience and more cache with the Tea Party.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio was elected in the Tea Party tidal-wave, but he is a pragmatic, career politician at heart. He served as budget director for George W. Bush. Portman describes himself as a “hawk on tax reform.” I believe that this is the proper lens through which to view Boehner’s unusual choice of appointing two Michigan representatives: Reps. Camp and Upton. Upton chairs the powerful Committee on Ways and Means through which any tax legislation would pass. Camp chairs the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which, by virtue of its broad jurisdiction, would be affected by practically any tax code changes.

Tax reform is popular with both parties. If the supercommittee were to hone in on  tax code reform, it may appear that acrimony could be avoided while addressing the deficit. I am not convinced Boehner’s motives are so pure. Boehner’s view of tax reform is essentialy of the revenue-neutral school of thought. A focus on revenue-neutral reform would allow a “front stage” appearance of mutual concession, while the “back stage” would hardly be worthy of the name in Goffman’s sense, opening the door to of a series of Democratic concessions to further tax cuts. From a practical standpoint it would also help the committee to avoid making the hard decisions it was convened to make.

Co-chair Jeb Hensarling is the House’s most fervent crusader against spending, and further complicates the tax reform issue. He could be a powerful advocate to push the tax reform angle. It was Hensarling who rallied his caucus to vote down the September 2008 financial bill, an action that sent the market into such a panic that the Bush bailout was passed on the second go with the Senate at the wheel. But Hensarling could also put the brakes on tax reform. Deficit hawks are not monolithic in their support of revenue-neutral reform and if Hensarling senses corporate taxes could be increased as a result, any movement on that issue would likely be stalled.

Considering the restrictions of the Democratic conferees and the aversion to concession of the Republican conferees, it seems to me that  any deal will necessarily have Senators Kerry and Portman as the designated deal-brokers. Their experience and relative pragmatism, respectively, will allow the committee to come to an agreement. But I fear it will be a modest agreement – a deal, not a compromise .

A great opportunity likely will be lost. Congress was given an opportunity to work outside of the normal constraints of legislation. There was a possibility for “alchemy.” Instead, I fear, there will be a deal almost indistinguishable from those the Senate has historically passed with regularity. We may save ourselves from an immediate crisis, but at the cost of continuing on our current path of disruptive partisanship avoiding the serious problems we face.