by Jonathan Singer, Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:30:52 PM EDT
The last thread is getting a little clogged, so let's move on to a new thread. Feel free to consider this a post-debate thread. What were your thoughts? Who did well? Who didn't? What were the memorable lines? Who flubbed?
Winners:
Biden
Gravel
Kucinich
Clinton
Obama
Losers:
Dodd
Richardson
Edwards
Gravel was a winner for the shear nonsense he brought to the debate.
Without it I may have fallen asleep.
Lol, I thought Edwards and Richardson were the winners.
Obama was remarkable for his inability to answer the question. Biden had a couple nice answers but made up for it with his usual dullness on the other questions. Dodd just reminds me of Gore Vidal. Kucinich- ugh. Clinton held her own.
Does Gravel have dementia? I did like his talk about the military industrial complex, though.
Edwards was very good on the `two simultaneous terrorist attacks' question in my opinion. Obama seemed to be caught flat-footed on the same question just moments before. I don't mind Gravel and Kucinich. Overall they will probably be an asset and keep a large number of voters interested and that is good. No mater how legitimate their points about impeachment and the MIC they also make the others look statesman like--sorry but its true.
Kept me from falling asleep. The rest of the candidates provided a snooze fest. Kusinich is a nutbar, so hopefully Gravel will steal whatever hard-left base he has.
The other candidates, seriously no one stood out at all, and I wish we could see debates with the top three or four candidates. A Hillary/Obama would put me to sleep for sure, though.
I wish these guys would mix it up a little, though.
Did anyone else catch Richardson's comment to the tune of "Americans want candor, not fancy haircuts"? Maybe I caught it wrong but I was surprised to see Richardson taking shots at Edwards. In general he seemed very aggressive for someone who I THOUGHT was running for VP.
Yeah, getting out of Iraq right now is just what the right wing is advocating. Richardson is the right wing's worst nightmare and by advocating an Edwards candidacy you are giving them just what they want, and that is disappointing.
The Republicans' worst nightmare is someone who'll get out of Iraq but otherwise will essentially do what they want for the next 8 years? Good to know.
Well, I think Richardson is actually the right-wing's dream candidate but is the Republicans worst nightmare because he'd be bad for their patronage jobs since he'd probably appoint Democrats.
So it'd be like electing Grover Cleveland. Republicans hate it 'cause he's a Democrat, but laissez-faire neo-liberals don't mind at all.
That is because he is hoping to position himself with Hillary as the VP candidate, and/or Secretary of State. By dissing Edwards, he helps Hillary. He will go after Obama too, because you cannot have a ticket with two racial minority groups at this time in America.
I guess this means you think Gravel was advocating right wing talking points, too?
anybody who mentions hair cuts is advocating right wing talking points! this is the opinion of the 12 edwards supporters on mydd who account for 80% of posts and 75% of recommended diaries
my mom who could not believe anyone could spend 400$ on a haircut, and has been living abroad, is apparently also a right winger.
You had a point? Aside from 'expensive haircuts are a bad thing'?
Speaking as somebody who's had one haircut in the past 12 months, and that was free, it's a total non-issue. Presidential candidates with a chance of winning have to be rich. Getting the campaign started requires that.
And if people have money, what they spend it on isn't any of our business. Unless you're going to call for the introduction of rationing, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
Whether they should have that much money, that's a fair question. But since Edwards is calling for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, that's a much harder issue to attack him on.
That said, I'm bemused by how it's possible to spend $400 on a haircut.
But the minority logic applies to Hillary too. That why I was confused about him going after Edwards. An Edwards nominee is the best chance he has of getting on the ticket (actually I they'd complement each other very well). Besides Hillary isn't going to put an OUT NOW candidate next to her.
As posted in Post Thread 1: Edwards DID NOT raise his hand, and Obama DID NOT look around before raising his.
Richardson looked nervous, unprepared, and not in tune with the democratic party. I was quite disappointed with his performance, as I thought he may be a surprise tonight.
I think that to hard-core Dems watching, Richardson just played his hand out of the race.
He came across as the last vestiges of the DLC Democratic Party of the 90s, a bloviator, and a laundry-lister.
He's not ready for prime-time and I don't think he will be.
You're right about Richardson. In the second tier I thought Dodd and Biden were very good. We have a good slate of candidates this year.
1. Edwards
I thought Obama and Richardson were trying to sound hawkish.
Gee, this was a shock. Looks like most pundits and most people with some kind of objectivity pretty much call it a draw.
It doesn't matter. Look, America has spoken. Are we going to take seriously, the doubts and critiques of a few Edwards supporters , or are we going to consider what over 35,000 Americans who voted on a system designed to allow one vote per computer.
Look at this. Reality trumps Rhetoric.
Yes 35,000 self-selecting people voting on an internet poll represent what America really thought.
That's pretty silly.
For what it's worth with about 25,000 votes on msnbc.com where you can rate the candidates performance after the debate it seemsonly Edwards and Obama had a net gain.
Edwards:
-25%
*38%
+38
= +13
Obama:
-23%
*31%
+46%
= +23
That or Edwards and Obama have the most internet-savvy supporters. I'd bet on the latter. There's a reason people don't pay too much attention to internet polls
I cannot take anyone seriously who thought Dodd or Richardson were winners.
Best Line, IMHO, goes to Obama:
We are one signature away from ending the war in Iraq
Great way to frame it, after his poor answer last month.
Wow, must have been planning it or someone at the campaign is REALLY quick on the draw. I hadn't seen that yet.
"This donor engaged in some ethical behavior and I denounced it." - Obama. That one's worthy of Bush.
It was unethical... I rewinded it when he said it... It was definately unethical.
He definitely said ethical. Overall he sounded like he got caught flat-footed a number of times, considering his rep for great rhetorical skills. Maybe that's only off a prompter.
Edwards: I don't, I don't think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader. (pause) My Lord (with a shrug) is important to me...
Right up there with Jesus being Bush's favorite philosopher.
It is amazing to see how peeved Edwards and his followers are that Obama has so much support. His "high falutin" line was pathetic.
I admittedly know I did, as did Sirius with the Obama quote. That was my point.
I will also admit my comment was snarky, but comparing the linguistics of Obama to Bush is ridiculous, and I was making the point that even Edwards, taken out of context, could be accused of the same thing. I should have mentioned all this in the first post, and probably shouldn't have posted it at all.
I would credit it to my frustration and consternation at how anti-Obama some Edwards supporters are. In the end, I think all of us will support the Dem candidate, and if Edwards supporters want to talk about John's more concrete policies, I applaud them, for I think it helps all candidates. But to take cheap shots at any candidate helps no one.
I like Obama.
It's his supporters on line I find annoying.
THey can't build up without tearing down.
He has inherited the worst part of the Deaniacs.
Sad, really.
...everyone else sounds so rehearsed, like they're speeching at us, not talking to us.
Edwards leaner I guess but not really liking ANY of them.
Where's a MIRROR because I just KNOW you're talking to yourself.
OBAMA supporters can't lift up without tearing down? Are you KIDDING!
That's all you guys do, well no. There's also lying and misrepresenting postions and statements......
Oh, and for the record, I am not an ex Deaniac. I am an ex EDWARDS SUPPORTER.
I supported HIM in 2003 and the only reason why I voted and didn't sit 2004 out was because EDWARDS was on the ticket. I was actually happy Dean lost because I was rooting for EDWARDS.
So, there.
;p
What is the point of comments like this?
The Rezko thing is a huge reach. Obama paid above market for the 10' strip of land he bought from Rezko's wife. There is no indication that he has ever used public office to benefit Rezko. These kind of "guilt by association" attacks are really weak.
Appearantly, you are willing to forgive Edwards for voting to authorize this terrible war, but you won't forgive Obama for buying a piece of land at above market rate. Your logic escapes me, and your tactics are beneath all of us.
I'm still not sold on that line. Bush is going to veto it, so we should be looking to lay blame on that on him and even more importantly on Republicans in general and those on the chopping block in 2008 specifically.
Best line was clearly Biden, when asked about if he'd continue to be a gasbag. One word.
Edwards gave the best answers--"we need weapons other than bombs"--but his delivery could have been sharper, more energetic. He needs to bring some of his stump energy into the debates. And I'm pretty sure he didn't raise his hand when asked if he believed there's a global war on terror--that shocked and pleased me.
Obama looked like a president, had a good delivery that made his answers seem deeper than they were. He'll be unfairly beat up for not mentioning Israel as a top ally.
Richardson lost.
Obama skirted at least two questions, one of which was 'how are you going to fund your healthcare plan?' Edwards nailed that one ad Obama really stuck to his usual schtick of being overly general and just sounding nice. Although, he didn't even sound that convincing. Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd were easily more succinct and eloquent tonight, and I hate to say that because I think Obama is usually a great speaker. Maybe he wasn't kidding when he said he was going to wing it...
I agree.
thats a point about Obama that others are also commenting on. I think that he thinks very much "on the spot" spontaneously and improvisationally. He has fantastic oratory skill and unbelievablle potential. But he is not nearly as scripted as Hillary or even Edwards. He needs to work on that. That explains the Uhs, and the occasional mistakes. This is a symptom of him being new to the big game and to his credit, he said early on in his campaign that he is working on detailed proposals. When Edwards did seem more articulate tonight, it is becasue he has had a long time to think and flesh out his proposals.
Hillary did OK...but, for as much time as she spent on the healthcare issue, one has to wonder what is she going to do this time. That she doesn't know suggests that she is going to take the Centrist..."consensus" baby step reforms. She has scars from that battle, but she is being too timid on this becasue the American people probably regret that her plan did not get implemented AT ALL, and things are now much worse. This is a sign of the CLinton governing philosophy. If it gets too controversial on a proposal, you back down or trianguate. The Clintons are best at defence, not offense.
No, I missed the haircut thing. I really wanted Hillary to be shorter and more forceful on the question of the GOP being stronger on national security than Democrats. She said all the right things, but I wanted something snippier than the,"It's more myth than reality" line, which was buried in her other statements.
I wanted her statement to begin with a "Rudy doesn't know what he's talking about."
I agree. The Dems definitely have to start hitting on the narrative that the Republicans are divorced from reality. They are getting into a fight, trying to win over the 9% who still approve of Dick Cheney, and the Dems need to tie each one of them to it.
Amen--Rudy was out of line. Draft dodgers like him (not the conscientious type, mind you) have no business cheerleading for surge tactics and baiting Democrats.
Frankly, Hillary sounded strong, although the MSNBC Hardblogger lovefest is excessive, probably even transparent.
The defense issue hints at another issue--maybe there still is sufficient room for guys like Al Gore and Wes Clark to get in, really hammer on nat'l defense issues, and build up their image on TV. I also think at least one of those guys would have been more assertive in addressing Rudolf Giuliani's asinine diatribe.
I'm a Hillary supporter but I definitely have to agree with you there. She missed a chance to hit one out of the park.
I must also add that Biden gave a big support to Obama when he mentioned the bill the cosponsored.
Mike Gravel for vice-president!!
Well, not really, but given the two pussy performances we've seen from the Democratic standard-bearers in the last two elections in vice-presidential debates, I'd like second place on the ticket to be taken up by someone with a more Agnew-esque attack dog personality.
Richardson clearly lost, any idea of him getting traction in the blogesphere war really shot down I thought.
I agree. I was pretty high on him beforehand, definitely not now. There was nothing specific that did it, but he just came off as sort of authoritarian, which is exactly what we DON'T need.
I posted this in the other thread that is probably over now, so I'll post it here too.
--------------------------------------
Well I guess I"m the odd man out here on how Edwards did on the last question and how Obama did on the repsonse to Kucinich.
I actually appreciated Edwards's long pause because it meant he was actually thinking about the question. That's a pretty deep question and it was nice he didn't have a pat response (like just saying Jesus or Gandhi or something). Because the original question was who was the one person. And he couldn't think of just one person.
As far as Obama. I really didn't like his response about Iran. To me it felt like September 2002 all over again when he said we know that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Do we really know that or are we being fed a line again because a bunch of hawks want to go to war?
Did anybody else have the same impression?
The evidence on Iraq was non-existent and was that they already had a Nuke. Iran's attempt at developing nuclear power and weapons grade nuclear material is well documented, both in the US and abroad. This isn't Bush selling the world, this is pretty well accepted by a lot of the world.
I think your appreciation maybe linked to who you support.... It really came off bad to everyone at my watching party, which included some Edwards supporters. The look on his face was what made it very uncomfortable... But its a nothing question and really won't mean shit in the short or long term. I doubt it will be mentioned in most analysis either.
I did like Edwards answering on Biggest career mistake... he said Iraq vote without hesitating... he gets kudos for that.
Do attend a Scott Ritter speech when he comes to your town. There's no evidence the Iranians are within ten years of developing a nuclear weapon, and very little evidence they are even trying to.
Reminds me of the few people who say global warming doesn't exist.
I've read some of Ritter's stuff. Ritter is just plain wrong. There is much more evidence on the world stage showing his positions and reasonings are incorrect.
Ritter was dead on about Iraq. To say he is plain wrong makes you sound like Imhofe on global warming.
Why? Because the neocons are saying so? This whole "Iran's going to nuke us" is the same crap they were telling us about Iraq. Fool me once and shame on you; do it twice, Im a sucker!
The democrats need to stop parroding right wing talking points.
Even if they had a nuke, and in Europe at least (where our intelligence services are less politicised) the intelligence community's consensus is that they don't, aren't near to it and are overstating their abilities for propaganda purposes, they still couldn't nuke America.
At a pinch, their missiles could just about hit Israel, although if I remember their range correctly they're more likely to run out of fuel and hit Nablus instead. And since it's not Ahmadinejad but the Khamenei who actually has power in Iran and Khamenei doesn't appear suicidal, I don't see him nuking Israel any time soon.
yeah I give credit to Edwards on the mistake, it's getting painful to watch Hillary explain her war vote, she probably should just say any president deserves the authoriy to speak for the united states or something,everyone knew what the vote meant back in 2002.
Well like I said, maybe I'm odd man out. I doubt we'll see polling on this so I guess there won't be a definitive answer.
As far as Iran. I've been following this on talkingpointsmemo.com somewhat. And it still seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions as to just what Iran is doing. Yes they want nuclear power and apparently reports show they may be 8 or 10 years away from making a bomb, but are they REALLY trying to make a bomb?
Remember how sure we all were that Sadaam had WMDs and biological weapons? I mean, that was all pretty "well documented" at one time as well wasn't it?
No it was based off of a few iraq memos... The evidence on Saddam was not there... Iran is closer than 8-10 years... it won't be tommorrow but in the next 4-6 years.
I thought the pause was great -- I know I was yelling at my teevee: DON'T SAY JESUS!
I think he got lots of attention for the pause, and I think the answers he gave were the best.
I have no problem with Edwards's pause and saying he couldn't think of one person, but then his response was "My Lord" and with a shrug.
I think it was a bad question, but it was a softball, and he could have knocked it out of the park and said his wife for the courage and conviction she has shown in absolutely tragic times.
As for Obama, I think we do know that Iran is TRYING to build a nuke (not saying they'll build it soon), but in Sept 2002 we were being scared that a nuclear Iraq was an imminent threat. Edwards has also said similar things about Iran, but I think we all know that neither will act in any manner close to Bush.
The 'inspirational person' question was a trap. If he answered too quickly he would have been called a phony. If he didn't answer with 'god' he would have been called an apostate. I didn't catch the Iran answer but that would be a nod to AIPAC, no?
Yeah, I thought that he went overboard there a little, but overall it was one of the most lively points of the debate. He was being a little emotional, spontaneous, and true to his beliefs there. He needs to focus his campaign on defining in more detail his plans for healthcare, international security (Iraq/Iran), immigration and economy, and he needs to make his speaking style a little more disciplined in the Presidential setting. But as for his speaking style, there is something of a MLK potential in him.
Winner is Gravel. Winning for him is relative, of course, since he is struggling to break into the third tier. He might have been able to do so tonite. We'll see if he breaks out of the 0% margin of error.
Loser is Clinton. She appeared to be just one of many candidates, and did not bring the awe of inevitability to the debate. This was expected, but as these fora increase through the season, her lead will continue to drop.
I am interested to know how many people actually watched the debate. Next state or national poll of likely primary voters should include the question "Did you watch the candidate debate" and I would like to see crosstabs for just this group of likely voters.
I'd never seen Gravel before... he got my fucking attention.
He's my pony for now...
I'll be interested to see the ratings too. Remember, the local broadcast switched away after an hour South Carolina voters might have missed alot of the exchanges near the end- particularly two of the questions Edwards shined on, Clinton's answer to the Rudy question and the Obama-Kucinich-Gravel response.
Wow, is there anything more ridiculous than these interviews on MSNBC with Wolfson, Axelrod, et al.?
I wish Edwards had been stronger, but perhaps his strategy is to stay right where he is while the bottom tier drops out and it becomes a three-way race with the top two doggin each other. He better watch out for Dennis, though -- betcha lotsa Democrats liked what they heard from him today.
Who watched this debate, anyway?
Tweety needs to stop with the sexist talk about Hill's voice, tone, and modulation. It's really stupid.
It is not sexist to point out that she can't speak on a microphone without screeching.
Other women candidates like Elaine Marshall in NC, or Senator Feinstein, can project without hurting the ears of their audience.
That's about the only thing Tweety has said that had any sense whatsoever.
The pearls and stuff though, I grant you, that was ridiculous
I was surprised: Clinton was sharp, crisp, clear, loud voice, prepared, calm. Dodd was forceful, confident, consistent, an old hand at it. Obama's voice shook a little at first but then he got more comfortable and was smooth and forceful, complete answers.
Edwards voice was slow and soft southern and he didn't look as keyed up as the others, not loud and forceful. Good answers, but very abreviated, but more interesting than last campaigns.
Richardson was better, so was Biden, in the post-show.
60-second sound bytes are good for senators. The senators were all loud, crisp, points one-two-three. It felt like a spelling bee.
That cranky old man was exactly on point. I never realized that I needed a pissed off old man who doesn't give a fuck to voice my opinion on MSNBC... but I love him now.
If Gore doesn't hop in, and he's still around when primaries are here, Gravel won my primary vote tonight.
Plus, he's down for single-payer universal healthcare...
I posted this on the thread at Michigan Liberal. These are just the impressions I got.
___
This is by no means how I rate the candidates overall-- right now, I'm undecided between Obama and Edwards, with the outside chance that Richardson could win me over. But here's how I thought they performed in the debate (Note-- I'm not commenting on the substance so much as the style):
Winners:
Chris Dodd, Joe Biden -- Both of them managed to show why they were in the race. They made good, solid points, didn't say anything too stupid (a problem for Biden), and showed themselves to be skillful senators and politicians. Neither of them were overly-verbose, which seems to be a problem for some folks.
No Change:
Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton -- The three leaders seemed to play it safe, and very rarely said anything to "rock the boat" or ruffle any feathers. None of them had to be noticed. Instead, they seemed to go in showing that they could hold their own in a debate setting, and each seemed to speak with the general election in mind. That doesn't mean they didn't take solid, progressive stances or have good lines. It means no break-away performances, and no catastrophes either.
Losers:
Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich -- Kucinich, first: whenever he gets attention, it seems like he loses. I really do agree with some of the things he says, but half the game is framing, and he can't present himself as a serious contender. He might drive the field to the left a little. More likely, he'll end up attacking Edwards and Clinton on their Iraq votes while stressing the importance of having someone that was right from the start... and inadvertently helping Barack Obama.
Bill Richardson disappointed me tonight. I still like him a lot, and he's got the best resume in America. But with his experience and his knowledge, I honestly expected him to run circles around everyone else with policy questions. Maybe it was the format, maybe it was my unreasonable expectations, but I didn't see anything there tonight. At some point, he'll need to have a really good night to move into the top tier. This wasn't it.
Other:
Mike Gravel -- He needed to get noticed, and he did. But, while I agreed with a lot of what he said, he came across as a progressive Zell Miller. I think he'll get a little bit of a boost, especially in terms of free media (whether he intended it or not, he provided some instant soundbites for tomorrow morning's news broadcasts). But for calling himself an "elder statesman," he came across more like the old lady that writes long, rambling letters to the editor every day.
Biggest Loser:
Brian Williams and MSNBC. Brian Williams was whining about time way too much, and I hated the format. Concise is one thing, but 20 seconds? Ga! Like one commenter on DKos or MyDD said, when did presidential debates become gameshows? That's how it felt to me.
It wasn't the format that did Richardson in, it was his right-wing ideology.
This was a really cogent summation of the evening.
Plus-- Chris Matthews was a loser because of his constant discussion of Hillary Clinton's "modulation" and "not-shrillness" in her voice.
Fitzy, good to see you here! I like seeing what the old Feingold supporters think about things.
Your impression of the debate is pretty similar to what I posted on the previous post-debate thread, right down to labelling Brian Williams the biggest loser and comparing it to a game show (I suggest they just go all the way and model it after the old kids game show "Double Dare": candidates could either answer the question or take the physical challenge!)
The only difference, is I was really positive about Kucinich, up until the point where had the exchange with Obama. I really thought that he'd refined his style so that he could be compelling and get his points across without seeming shrill or flaky; if he hadn't gotten into that thing with Obama, he might my current choice right now. As it stands, I'm torn between Obama and Edwards, but am not very excited about either. I still wish Russ had run.
"he came across as a progressive Zell Miller."
Completely agree. Gravel was on with Matthews afterwards and I swear to god I thought he was about to have a Zell Miller moment but barely kept it together. It was actually quite amusing. Gravel will add entertainment value.
Also agree about Kucinich. The guy is completely deluded if he thinks he is going to get elected President. I am not sure he even adds entertainment value.
The msnbc panel is declaring Clinton as a knockout winner. Did they see something that I didn't see? My most vivid memory is seeing Clinton fidgeting and twisting in the wind in the background while others were speaking.
Chris Matthews, from what I heard, thought Obama did very well...sophisticated was his word.
MSNBC'S MATTHEWS - HILLARY 'DID VERY WELL.HER PRESENTATION WAS VERY SOLID.VERY IMPRESSIVE': -- "I thought Hillary Clinton did really well tonight. As a frontrunner, I think she held her place. I think her voice, her manner, her presentation was very solid.I thought she held herself as a frontrunner and kept her status.I think that she kept her voice, and she was very controlled, and very professional and very impressive." [Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 4/26/07]
MSNBC'S SCARBOROUGH - HILLARY 'SOLID.HER ANSWERS.WERE STRONG.': "Hillary Clinton.Not flashy but solid. Her answers on health care and government competence were strong." [Joe Scarborough, MSNBC.com, 4/26/07]
BOB SHRUM - HILLARY WAS 'SUPERB': "Clinton was superb.Winner: Hillary Clinton." [MSNBC.com, 4/26/07]
WASHINGTON POST'S CHRIS CILLIZZA - HILLARY 'CRISP AND CONCISE,' 'HELPED HER CAUSE BY FLASHING HER EXPERIENCE AND THE BREADTH OF HER KNOWLEDGE': "[I]n Clinton's case, she may well have helped her cause by flashing her experience and the breadth of her knowledge on the issues. Clinton was crisp and concise, rarely going over her allotted time and keeping to her message of experience and leadership." [Chris Cillizza, The Fix, 4/26/07]
MICHAEL CROWLEY - HILLARY 'SMOOTH AND STEADY': "Smooth and steady--she's disciplined and it shows." [TNR.com, 4/26/07]
TUCKER CARLSON - HILLARY 'RELATES TO THE CROWD,' SHOWED 'NOBODY IS BETTER IN THIS FORM THAN SHE IS': "Clinton came out and immediately got specific and earthy. There is a gospel band, voices of Christ up on the stage. She comes out and immediately says the music here world-renowned, terrific, I love South Carolina, your ROTC program has boosted all these generals, details about the school itself, the crowd loved her.Hillary Clinton always goes for the specifics, and always goes for the specifics that relates to the crowd that she is speaking to. Nobody is better in this form than she is." [Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 4/26/07]
Such stupid and obvious questions that elicited what? Anything profound? controversial? Sincere?
Who I'd rather have making & asking the questions:
Bill Clinton
Howard Dean
Helen Thomas
Chair of local Dem party
Chair of local Republican party!
Markos
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Al Gore
Howard Zinn
Rachael Maddow
Alec Baldwin
wow the political establishment pushing Clinton----couldn't help Obama more.
I wish you were right, but my sense is a lot of african american support is waiting to see how Obama does before dropping Clinton.
Sadly, for anyone who watched moyers show the MSM controls a lot.
Yeah! I have that feeling, too. But we are talking about only a certain % of the African American vote. Obama is definitely going to be a power broker, if not the nominee. That is why we need people like Kucinich and Gravel, even Biden and Dodd to lively up the show. Its going to be interesting as to whom is going to start throwing the arrows first. Obviously, Richardson jumped tonight and it seems in the interest of teaming with Hillary. Nobody will beat up on Obama, unless he really slips somehow. Edwards is going to get alot of arrows thrown at him, except from Obama and possibly Dodd, or Biden...because these guys are shootin for the VP. I think that Biden may have interests in a position with Obama. Dodd will act the elderstatesman to be anybodies possible VP or cabinet pick. Obama has an interesting game to play. He is IN for the Prez. But if it seems that he is slipping, whose boat will he help sail? Hillary or Edwards. That is a close call and we need more time and debate.
How to make lemonade from lemons. :-)
Seriously, how could some in the media declaring Clinton the winner possibly help Obama?
I can't rate any of the candidates as harshly as I rate the vacuous b.s. commentary of the hardbloggers. Am I hallucintating, or did one of them compare Hillary to Ronald Reagan in a positive fashion??
I thought most of the candidates did, well, normally. This shows me though, that there was room for Al Gore & Wes Clark, especially on national defense issues--that would have truly been a treat. I really wish that somebody used the opportunity to respond to Rudy Giuliani's comment much more harshly. A draft-dodging chickenhawk who would dare aspire to the highest office in our country deserves the worst.
Richardson was the net loser because he was positioned to gain and did not. Had been picking up in the polls, in a tier of his own above the 1%ers.
But tonight he seemed flustered. Not composed and presidential. The short answer format was handled poorly. He should have taken my advice and linked each answer to one simple story about his experience. Instead he tried to cram too much in to the confined space and appeared frustrated.
Obama and Hillary solidified existing support.
Through no fault of his own, Edwards was lost in the shuffle.
Will be lots more in the coming days at my site and will welcome your calls on blogtalkradio tonight at midnight EDT.
Good job on the "radio" by the MyDDers tonight!
(what i learned tonight)
1. Dodd was the only senator to vote to confirm Roberts
2. Richardson -
favorite candidate of the NRA
thinks dems raise taxes to much
would appoint justices who would be swing votes on the supreme court
And Richardson said the other night that he would appoint Baker as the ME envoy - that the Republican Baker who stole the 2000 election.
He supported Gonsalez also.
Does Richardson know what party he is in. <snark>
He has totally lost my vote for any position. And he was moving up for a while.
I'm in Texas and the soundbite that I heard on AM radio was that Richardson delivered the most "devasting" criticsm of the Bush administration yet, and then they repeated his call for troops to get out of Iraq NOW! That was significant. Clearly, he got the most out of this debate.
Richardson really hurt himself tonight otherwise nothing really happened.
I thought his back-handed way of praising himself in response to the "worst mistake" question was really really annoying.
It sounded like a job interview response "I push myself too hard!" or "I'm a workaholic!"
I preferred the Homer Simpson honest answers,
"Well little stuff tends to start disappearing from the office...."
0 for 6 Shrum is really the best person to judge a democrats electablity along with Buchanon and Carlson, I think this hurts Hillary among the base.
I think it doesn't matter how these commentators rate a debate performance especially on their criteria which is very different than the average voter.
When Kennedy debated Nixon he was not trying to score debating points but was projectiong apersona or vision to the future.
I think this is what Obama does and if the live vote on MSNBC is any indication, it seems to be working for he is the clear winner on the live vote.
I think this widened the gap between Hillary and Obama - she beat expectations and he didn't meet his. She was clear and he skirted his questions. Edwards had a good showing, wish I'd been able to hear mord of Chris Dodd, because I thought he nailed what few questions he was asked. Hopefully Richardson and Gravel (any maybe Biden) will throw in the towel (kucinich never will) and we'll be able to see a good debate with a more managable number of participants. This was way too many.
The widening gap does not show up on the live vote on MSNBC. OBAMA BEATS CLINTON BY AROUND 15 POINTS 35-20 PTS WITH OVER 37,000 VOTES IN AT THIS TIME.
ok. when the presidency is decided by gratuitous use of capital letters and unscientific web polls, let me know...
ok. when the presidency is decided by gratuitous use of capital letters and unscientific web polls, let me know...
Interesting cross-tabs there.
Hillary once again brings out the most haters. Republicans generally liked Edwards the best (shouldn't that start to tell us something about his map-changing ability? especially since he's producing a full-throated populist/progressive message?). Independents like Obama the best and hard-core Dems still love Hillary.
This survey is probably itching for further analysis in a diary.
Interesting cross-tabs there.
Hillary once again brings out the most haters. Republicans generally liked Edwards the best (shouldn't that start to tell us something about his map-changing ability? especially since he's producing a full-throated populist/progressive message?). Independents like Obama the best and hard-core Dems still love Hillary.
This survey is probably itching for further analysis in a diary.
BDM, Internet polls are worthless. They can be easily manipulated, voted on by the same person over and over and over.
I have seen an AOL Internet poll right before the 2006 election, and from the lopsided results in the GOP's favor you would have sworn that the GOP would pick up a couple of Senate seats and hold a clear majority in the House.
As usual, the media driven by the political correctness that plagues the US culture presented again a weak show of the same polished rhetoric that does not promote any significant engagement from the voting public.
The losers, as expected, were all candidates with a lot to lose. Edwards was unnoticeable. Obama and Hillary were dodging the chance to really make a difference. Too early for risky moves perhaps.
The winners were the Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Both relaxed and clearly articulating their position with less regard to excelling in political correctness.
Mike Gravel did a good job replacing Al Sharpton, doing an even better job. He was a good contrast and really made evident the others are just representatives of the political establishment.
Governor Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich pretty poorly tried to present their resumes as their platforms.
By the way, that thing about Bill Richardson giving Alberto Gonzales a little more time because he is also Hispanic did not fit well. This is not a "good old boy" election for a club president. Favoring someone just because of ethnicity affinity is not a positive political record for a president. I wonder what Bill Richardson would say if Bush were to think a little more about firing someone because he/she was white (very hypothetical situation to make my point :-)).
Senator Edwards is the most electable candidate and tonight showed that he is the leader we need to put a Democrat in the White House and to bring about real change. Democrats cannot afford to lose the next election - there is too much at stake for our country and the world.
Posted this on the last thread before seeing this one.
No winners. Edwards was strong in a number of places, but the long pause was definitely weird if not necessarily "bad." Obama didn't do anything amazing, but I thought he was fine. I liked him best during the argument with Kucinich.
I thought Biden was pretty good, actually. Dodd was fine, though I honestly can't remember anything in particular he said. And Gravel was just a distraction - how is it productive or interesting for him to be involved?
If there was a loser, it was Richardson, which is a shame because I do like him, but he just looked awkward and had a few weird answers. Unlike some people I thought his answer on the Gonzales/Hispanic issue was totally fine and his interjection about a military response was fine, too. I don't mean that I agree with him, I just thought it was a perfectly good way of describing his role and stance, communicated well, and potentially helpful to his campaign.
Not really relevant to winning and losing, but kind of funny - he did trip himself up a couple times "noose lukes" and "a post-democratic Cuba."
It also drives me nuts that the only person anyone ever makes any comment about in terms of their voice is Clinton. We get it. She's a woman. Women sound different than men. We're not used to them being in power so the way they talk sounds wrong. It just makes me crazy that this is considered a viable subject for discussion. If you find her voice annoying, frankly, I think it's a problem that you need to deal with, not something worthy of broadcasting to the rest of the world.
I don't mean that it's off-grounds to talk about mannerisms, presentation, etc. Obviously, that's a huge part of the discussion. But there's a difference between that and the simple "her voice is grating" type of comments I've heard over and over (not here, but out in the "real world" mostly) which could equally be applied to any woman in the world.
Wow, I totally disagree. There's definitely something about Hillary's voice in particular that got in the way of me being able to easily listen to her point. If you want to seize on every possible negative adjective or negative opinion as sexism by definition, then that's actually you being sexist by being so gender-focused that you can't consider the possible truth.
Edwards is not electable. He is too pretty and does not have enough substance. Too bad when he could not bring a tear to his eye when he told the story about his father leaving the resturaunt... because they couldn't pay for the meal. In my world that's called Tuesday. He shouldn't be getting $400 haircuts. The Democrats will lose if they are foolish enough to nominate him. Richardson on the other hand is down to earth and electable. The best of all worlds.
You obviously did not hear or see his speech at the organization tha Al Sharpton hosted last week. Thsi guy is all substance and has the most detaile policy proposals on the issues of our day. I am an Edwards supporter, but to say that Edwards does not have substance, makes me believe that you have bought into his charming looks and the MSM attacks upon him.
Is there a transcript or video posted online somewhere for the Sharpton event? Would like to see what Edwards had to say.
Sorry, but I left the house for awhile. It is John Edwards speech from the National Action Network. I guess it is Al Sharptons organization, at least in part, if not whole. But, Edwards, Obama, and then Hillary all made speeches there in the last week or so. I beleive it was a Utube production. Can anyone else help me out here? I'll look a little for the link and get back to you. It is worth listening to, if not a little long. One thing about Edwards is that he ofetn starts out a little slow and edgy, but he gets into a flow and it really seems that it is coming from his beliefs. Believe me, at this point, i am a strong Edwards supporter. But I might go see an Obama event too if it were convenient, as I would like to hear more from him, and i think i could offer support for many of his positions. Same goes for Hillary, but my main beef with her is that, if the CLinton administration was that good, then why are we down so fast! Also, why would America want a potential reign of Bush and Clintons for 28 years. That concept just seems anti-democratic. We need fresh blood.
Heres' the link. Like I said, it is long. I only heard the audio version, but this one is video. I bet it shows his authenticity, and i will watch it after this email, as I am listening right now to it again. Give him a chance, check it out. The Northeast needs to get to know him more. He got co-opted too quickly as a VP candidate with Kerry...when he had more potential even then.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5yorXxfIg
If this doesn't work, then just google Sharpton Edwards National Action Network and you should find it. Good Luck Amigo. If you like this message, then please get involved. It is too important.
In case i posted to the wrong post, here is the short and skinny.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5yorXxfIg.
If not google Edwards Sharpton NAtional Action Network
Peace Bro'
Please, he never said that. Don't resort to distortions it makes you look weak. He waited to hear his testimony and seeks his resignation. How is that support? Seeking someone's resignation is not support, and waiting to seek that resignation until you hear his side of things... well jeez that's not support either. So where do you get that he ever supported Gonzales?
he said it tonight.
everyone else was pretty clear on Gonzales the FIRST time he tried to explain himself and failed. The creator of the Bush torture policy, I mean, what exactly was Richardson waiting for him to say?
He did not. He never said he supported Richardson. But I forgot, your guy started calling for Gonzales' resignation after he found out the US was torturing people... No, he didn't. Don't get me wrong I don't mind John Edwards. Of the top three he's my favorite. But he can't win. The American people have seen John Edwards. The know him. And they prefer a Republican. That is terrifynig. So. a new face (enter Bill Richardson) is what we need, and is our only hope!
Did you watch the same debate we did? I mean you are obviously a fan of Richardson, but the general consensus is that this was NOT his night. He has plenty of time to regroup, but I hope his advisors aren't telling him what you are telling us, because they, like you, would be wrong.
Funny. Edwards is the one who has laid out the most specifics (substance) thus far in the campaign and was quite specific tonight during the debate also.
Richardson would be an awful choice and that was on display tonight. His foreign policy experience is top knotch, but his domestic side is awful. Supports NAFTA, federal balanced budget amendment, TABOR, previously school vouchers, tonight was pushing the right-wing meme that democrats always raise your taxes when the context was repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making over 200k. Said that he cut the AG slack because he's hispanic. I mean, c'mon.
Missed all but about 5-10 minutes, had evening office hours after soccer practice. Is the video anywhere?
i am copy pasting from kos..
NEW! SurveyUsa Poll... Obama won the debate!
by manqilla
Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:56:03 PM PDT
31% of debate watchers say Obama won
* manqilla's diary :: ::
*
U.S. Senator Barack Obama emerged a clear winner in Thursday night's debate among 8 Democratic candidates for President of the United States, according to a SurveyUSA poll of 403 South Carolina debate watchers.
1,250 SC adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA immediately following tonight's 04/26/07 Presidential Debate among 8 candidates for the Democratic nomination. Of the 1,250 SC adults interviewed, 403 said they had listened to the debate and were included in this survey. Margin of sampling error among the 403 debate watchers is + / - 5.0%
31% of debate watchers say Obama won. Obama, the only black candidate, was the overwhelming favorite of black debate watchers.
U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished in 2nd place........24% of viewers.
Former U.S. Senator John Edwards finished 3rd.........14%.
Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina's Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. 60% of debate viewers were white. 36% of debate viewers were black.
MSNBC needs to get NEW and more DIVERSE commentators. They were all Hillary supporters, their commentary of the debate was absolutely horrible.
I don't care who "won" the debate. That's not why I watched. I wanted to see how the candidates would perform when given the chance to speak. I look forward to a debate which would actually give the candidates such an opportunity. Raise your hand?!
Pre-debate pick: Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Clinton, Gravel.
Post-debate winners: Clinton, Biden, Gravel, Kucinich.
Losers: Edwards, Obama. Edwards looked tired & Obama was nervous & hyper.
Winner Obama from the USA Survey poll of SC viewers. He projected a strong presidential personna on the screen.The internals of the poll showed he won strong with African Americans.
Now others may dis-agree in looking at his answers to certain questions or his debating points, but it is his projected image that is most important to voters and not issue minuate.
i have a strange feeling Clinton is not sincere when she says she will bring the troops home if elected president.
Ignore my signature line and clear pro-Edwards-ness...
Edwards missed an opportunity to really bust out. I still think (objectively) that he did the best tonight and presented himself as authentic, someone with a real set of core values that drive him, and able to communicate a progressive vision in a way that people understand.
But there was no winner tonight. Nothing even approaching that. We won't see a 'winner' until the field is narrowed. Howard Dean needs to have a sit-down with Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich. The former 2 might be able to be persuaded to drop out and save face. The latter will not, but someone needs to try.
I think Hillary was the big loser because the inevitability sheen has now completely worn off. She had to come out very strongly to prove that she is indeed the superior candidate that everyone has made her out to be. She was maybe among the top three performers tonight. Not good enough for the person who was the presumed nominee for the past two years.
I thought Obama was supposed to be such an amazing rhetorician, but he was flat-footed, rambling, and unable to communicate anything resembling a unified vision. I've seen him before, and I have been impressed at times, underwhelmed at times. I could live with him being the nominee and he's still my second choice (a distant #2 at that though) - but he did nothing to impress me at all tonight. Again, like Hillary, I think he took a net loss not only for the content of what he said, but also how he said it.
Edwards missed a golden opportunity in some ways, but in others, I think he has clearly staked out a place in the field of the Top Three and his continued driving of the campaign narrative by setting the standards and frames of conversation means he's in a good place to continue to capitalize upon a great grassroots operation and truly resonant message and campaign style.
Looking at the survey USA poll, I think Obama did well in that African-Americans that watched and were unsure of Obama before saw him and feel better now about him being president (in that they think he could be elected). If you look at the cross-tabs Obama actually won a majority of their votes (as opposed to a plurality).
This I think means that SC is going to be very hard for HRC or Edwards to win. I think Obama will eventually have a huge majority of African-Americans on his side in the primary, so Edwards is basically going to have to get a huge majority of everyone else to come out for him. That might happen if he wins IA, NH, and NV. We'll see.
Most memorable line: John Edwards answering the question about his biggest mistake. He said it was Iraq and not listening to his instinct (or something to that effect). It looks like that story about a high $$$ consultant telling Edwards to vote for the war to give him future capital in foreign affairs was right on.
Ranking the candidates ....my humble opinion.
1. Biden - increased his likability with me and was knowledgeable. I agree with his plan for Iraq, dividing the country. Yugoslavia Redux.
2. Hillary - came across as strong even though she was trigulating too much. Weak on Wal Mart question. Overall did what she had to do.
3. Gravel - even though he came across as unhinged he probably doubled his base of support, the Lyndon LaRouche crowd. He probably did more for his campaign from this one debate than any of the others.
4. Edwards - came across as genuine. Seemed honest in his answers. Handled the haircut question well, but overall was low key tonight. My guy was a little tentative tonight. Maybe that was because of all the "gotcha" questions thrown at him.
5. Obama - came across as presidential, but it felt like I was watching John Kerry debate. The expectations were way too high for him. People were expecting magic. He didn't deliver ...tonight...maybe next time, since he has got one under his belt.
6. Kucinich - the only guy with the balls to hold others accountable, though I think he has got a little Napoleon complex.
7. Richardson - I like his stance about Iraq, but overall he didn't impress me much. Didn't really like his answer to the "biggest mistake" question. Ran over his time too much. Seemed more long winded than Biden usually is. I've liked him in other venues.
8. Dodd - somebody had to be last. Dodd really made no impression on me at all.
Edwards reminded me of Bush in the Bush-Kerry debates. He took about 25 secs. to answer "who is your moral leader" when the political answer is obvious. If that was a presidential debate, he would have walked out of it down 15%. God is the answer the Indies have to hear in about 2.5 sec. and if you have to think for 18 sec., you are not to be taken seriously.
HRC and Biden were the clear winners, with Obama and Richardson coming on at the end. Obama made a few gramatical errors that I would make fun of Bushg for making so Barrack doesn't get a pass.
Have you been participating in any of the "globalization" WALMART blogs lately?
Of course, Americans used to like and shop at Walmart; that is at least in part how it got to be so giant and why in many areas it has become the only game in town. Are you aware that Hillary Clinton used to be a board mamber of WalMart?
But people are DEFINITELY beginning to see the Walmart monster for what it is. How do I know? Because in spite of the ubiquity of WALMART, they are now on the defensive in the PR war. Have you seen their BS commercials talking about how much they contribute to their communities? How they are moving to be a green company? All of this is schtick and BS.
More importantly, they are losing market share BIG TIME. For the first time ever, same store sales actually decreased for Walmart during the last holiday season and were totally flat if not negative for the entire year. This is in a context where Target and traditional Malls had a booming Xmas season and year. While K-Mart and Sears might be dead, other companies like Costco and Target (which treat their employess much better than Walmart) are cleaning Walmarts clock. The only people shopping for food at Walmart these days tend to be poor ill informed people, whom should consider what kind of crap they are puitting in their bodies. In some locations a Walmart store looks like a second-third world country.
The labor and living wage movements are beginning to show life. People see what is happening to our country through the Walmart experience and are beginning to reject it. This is a huge part of the anti-illegal immigrant and anti-globalization movements that are growing in strength as we speak.
I can't believe that Hillary isn't being called on the carpet by every liberal blogger for attempting to wrap herself in the false garb of someone who has been calling for legislation to end the war for "years" as she said last night.
MSNBC had a reality check portion of the show which clearly pointed out that she supported the war and when she finally started moving against the war, she opposed legislation with any timetables until just recently.
If we let her go on this, what next? Are we going to let her claim that she actually opposed the war right after she voted for it. Oh, hold it, she has already claimed that she never voted for war, just for the President to be able to go to war.
A few knocks on MSNBC:
Why was the debate limited to 90 minutes with 8 candidates? They had three and a half hours of spin/analysis afterward -- couldn't the debate have been 2 hours? 3 hours?
Instead of talking about what just happened all night, how about showing it again in its entirety, for people who were still at work (it was over by 5:30 on the west coast.) Political junkies like us probably recorded it, but most people probably forgot it was today until it was already over.
Why so much coverage of the top 3 candidates in the post-game? This was the first real chance for the other 5 to be seen and heard, and MSNBC (and the other networks) made sure they weren't seen again afterward. In all the hours of post-debate coverage, I saw zero clips of Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, or Gravel, and only a few of Richardson.
There is some really fascinating feedback on some clips from the debate at www.messagejury.com, they used dial testing with votes in IA, and came up with some great stuff. Check it out.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
217 Comments