The first debate between the two gubernatorial candidates was held tonight at UC Davis, and the clear winner – acknowledged even by right-winger Debra J. Saunders – was Jerry Brown. Brown was honest and direct with the people of California while Meg Whitman robotically stuck to her right-wing talking points that, bizarrely, suggested she was actually running for governor of Texas and not California.

Whitman spent the night attacking Brown as a tool of the labor unions. In a rather stunning quote that may come to define Whitman’s night, she claimed that putting Brown in charge of the state budget “is like putting Count Dracula in charge of the blood bank.” Whitman said that to further her basic claim that Brown is a tool of the labor unions that want to destroy California.

Yet Brown very effectively dodged that line of attack – without giving in to the too-frequent temptation among Democrats to engage in a game of “punch a worker” to prove they’re not a union tool. Brown pointed out that he had fought public employee unions while governor in the 1970s and 1980s, vetoing bills that he thought paid state workers too generously – but added that public employees should be thanked and honored for choosing a lifetime of public service. He humanized public workers – instead of treating them like scapegoats and villains, he treated the issue of their pay like the budget and public policy issue that it actually is. I don’t agree with Brown’s “era of limits” budgeting philosophy, but he is at least able to articulate it without using right-wing frames.

Brown got some funny lines in, but the night was won through his devastating attacks on Whitman’s reckless capital gains tax cut that would blow a $5 billion hole in the budget and force massive cuts to schools and other key priorities. Brown compounded the attack by pointing out Whitman’s own “special interests” – the wealthy donors that have given tens of thousands to her campaign, totaling $25 million in donations. It was refreshing to see a Democrat frame the race as the workers vs. the wealthy.

Whitman’s approach was a mixture of right-wing talking points and strange appeals to how things are done in Texas. At times it seemed that Whitman was just lip-syncing to Pete Wilson, especially when she denounced immigrants and blamed welfare for the state’s financial problems and claimed she would be a “tough on crime” governor. Whitman even brought up Rose Bird, who I am guessing barely a third of the electorate even remembers (including those who were eligible to vote in the 1986 election that recalled her from her post as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court).

As to Texas, Whitman kept talking about how California should emulate Texas on this or that issue. It was a nonsensical move – most Californians do not have a favorable view of Texas and pride themselves on not being anything like Texas. Whitman even name-dropped Rick Perry, which set up Brown to slam Whitman for “taking a page from George Bush’s playbook” in terms of economic policy.

One might ask Whitman why she didn’t move eBay to Texas if they had such a good business climate. I’d have settled for someone asking her why she persists in claiming California loses jobs to other states when the PPIC has clearly shown that California simply does not lose very many jobs at all to other states. Whitman prattled on about the “factory tax” without mentioning that train companies like Siemens and Alstom or solar panel companies have built or expanded their factories in California in recent years.

The Calbuzzers argued that the debate was “an exciting and entertaining event that will not change the dynamic of the race.” I agree, but only because I see the dynamic of this race as one of an electorate growing less and less willing to elect a right-wing Republican, particularly a wealthy CEO who never voted. Brown is really getting traction with his attacks on Whitman’s tax cuts for the rich and her lack of experience.

Perhaps most importantly, voters seem to be warming to Brown’s odd, esoteric, even rambling approach to politics. Brown wasn’t scripted, and as a result he was honest and direct with voters. Whitman, who has already alienated voters with her constant TV ad barrage, came off as a robot programmed by Pete Wilson and Grover Norquist. Both in terms of style and substance, Whitman failed to match what Brown had to offer.

UPDATE: Doug Sovern of CBS/5 Tweets about a SurveyUSA instapoll on the debate:

Only 33% of 1525 surveyed in CA watched or listened. 40% say Brown won, 37% say Whitman. 23% say no clear winner. 12% say they will switch vote from Whitman to Brown; 12% say they will switch from Brown to Whitman! And 67% say debate won’t change their vote at all: 41% will still vote for Brown, 26% for Whitman, making total Brown 53 Whitman 38.

Which would seem to confirm the diagnosis that Brown won the debate and that it didn’t really change anyone’s mind. Brown has the momentum right now, but there are still four weeks to go – maybe Whitman will be able to shake this race up. She won’t do with with her TV ad barrage or her lame attempts to turn California into Texas.