A Few Impressions From Last Night's Debate

[The Magistrate]

Sen. Biden gave a very impressive performance, displaying his sound knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs, and the real outlines of the difficulties faced in confrontation with Islamic radicals, state and otherwise. The only weak point of his performance was allowing himself to be drawn into a squabble over experience with Gov. Richardson, but that was partly redeemed by his winning that squabble hands down.

Sen. Clinton performed very well, striking several notes that it will be in her interest to press hard in future. Chief among these was open hostility to the questioners, taking them to task for over-simplification and crude exercises in 'gotcha' tactics. People enjoy attacks on the punditocracy, whom they rate below politicians and pimps in the social scale. She showed an ability to explain simply complicated matters that will stand her in good stead as these events come to the notice of wider audiences. Her call for the Congress to explicitly restrict the administration's hand regarding Iran was very welcome. Overall she projected toughness and fighting spirit, which she must do, and like it or not, must do doubly, owing to her gender.

Sen. Edwards had some good moments, echoings of the old 'Two Americas' line that brought hm to prominence, but he suffered by being forced to back-track on his new signature line of other candidates being more beholden to special interests than he.

Sen. Obama for much of the debate struck me as 'the man who wasn't there', making very little impression at all in the early going. He is reaching the limits of inspiring generalities, and his recurrence to his speech against the invasion of Iraq during his State Senate election in '02 is getting a little thin. My local knowledge may condition this feeling somewhat, though: the district he was running in then is wholly safe for any Democrat, and nothing short of the proverbial eating a baby on live TV could put a Democrat at risk there.

Sens. Edwards and Obama both, to my mind, disgraced themselves towards the end by joining in Russert's nonesense about Gov. Spitzer's proposal for licenses. To do so, each man had to pretend to be stupid and uncomprehending of real world complexities, and since neither man actually is stupid or uncomprehending of real world complexities, the attempt necessarily rang damned hollow, and only revealed their awareness they are doing poorly, and the difficulty they are having in dealing with it. People do not like the stink of certain sweats in a leader, and desperation they particularly abhor.

Gov. Richardson continues his seeming self-destruction: his picking a squabble over foreign policy credentials was particularly poor, and along with his 'people elect governors' line left him looking cheap and petty. The one bright spot of his performance was his reminder to the rest to avoid succumbing to the temptation, that Sens. Edwards and Obama show signs of yielding to, to shift to a line of personal attacks against another Democratic candidate. The 'circular firing squad' is not really very popular with the Party's rank and file, and is destructive of future general election prospects. Primaries really should be the venue for candidates to display how they will conduct their general election campaign, and should showcase attacks on the opposition, not on their rivals within the Party.

Sen. Dodd performed well, though his cause is hopeless. He is a good man, and doubtless would make an excellent President.

Rep. Kucinich gave about his best performance to date. The hostility of the questioners was obvious at the close: trying to hold a man responsible for the writings of Ms. MacLain is a low blow by any standard. But he showed an unexpected prosecutor's flair in forcing Russert to repeat several times what a large proportion of Americans do report having seen some oddity in the skies.

The questioners performed very poorly. The network's coverage was working over-time to set up a story arc that this was the occassion Sen. Clinton would be stopped if she was to be stopped at all, and the questions, as well as the 'post debate coverage after the debate' were all keyed to this theme. But the fact is that we are still months away from anything resembling a decisive moment, and the various candidates are still engaged in perfecting their themes and performances for the real clash, not only of the primaries, but of the general election. Sens. Clinton and Biden showed up best in this sense, both concentrating their comments on matters concerning the general election and reserving their fire for the enemy. Sen. Biden's shots across Giuliani's bow were particularly welcome, and it is to be hoped these become a regular feature of these exercises, with some targeting of Romney thrown in for good measure.

[Clintonista2]

1. I agree 100%

[babylonsister]

2. With all the time Clinton got, I have a difficult time even considering

last night a 'debate'. Russert and/or Williams could have/should have had her on alone to give her as much time as she needed, because that's what she got last night. They did a major disservice to us as viewers and to the other candidates who might have had something further to say if they had had the time and opportunity.

[The Magistrate]

4. They Are Not Debates, Ma'am, But Rather A Sort Of 'Serial Press Conference'

My personal preference would be for simply giving each candidate a block of time to speak, in rotation, with several passes through the lot of them, and no one else but the audience, which of course would include members of the press, in view.

[insanad]

39. Glaring Mistakes

I said MAYBE, and that's my final answer!!!
I think I have a good picture of what Bill Clinton faces daily when he's being a typical naughty boy. Hilary's face was absolutely reflective of her bristling anger and resentful bitterness as she glared at Obama with daggers that would pierce through a steel and concrete bomb shelter. Imagine if she wins the nomination and then faces the onslaught of the Republicans and other people who don't want her there. We'll have that face, that edgy bitch tone, that harsh rebuke and glaring resentment facing us every day on the news. It's hard enough to have the shit flinging chimpanzee of George Bush gesticulating and goofing daily but at least he's easy to dismiss as the buffoon he is. Having Hilary nag and rant and chide would make me cancel my cable.

When I watch these debates I'm in awe of the stamina and grace that any of these candidates must muster. The questions can set one up for a disaster and a cool head, thoughtful but quick and focused answer must be given. Every nuance of a facial gesture or tick is noted and analyzed for signs of honesty or emotional reaction. Then there's the time limits that force the one answering to give in essence, a committed yes or no, even if there's qualifiers.

From a debate standpoint, from a perspective of who can take charge even when they're not in charge, from a measure of one's grace and quick decisiveness, a sense of humor, an ability to stay on message and turn trick questions in their favor BARACK ROCKS!!!! I loved his response to the UFO thing, his response to the Social Security mess, his Halloween response, and the absolute dignified and intelligent demeanor he exudes when he's on stage. God I hope he can win. Not because I'm caught up in his electrifying charisma, but because his ideas, his leadership, his ability to reflect strength and diplomatic reason are all the kinds of things our nation needs to help us heal from the years of George Bush and his disastrous presidency. If anyone can take this bag of broken glass that is our nations economy, military, and reputation and make a virtual stained glass window to illuminate the goodness that is inherent in America, then I believe Barack Obama can.

[Maribelle]

86. Obama gets a free pass on his Iraq pomp- not even one person that I know of has called him on it.

And he mentioned it again last night, that he had taken a stand against the war in Iraq even before the senate voted in October of 2002.

The major fault with his methodology for castigating those that voted yes on the Iraq resolution, is that Obama was not privileged to the secret information given to the Senators. Obama was clueless as to what was contained in the NIE, and he hasn't even had to speculate over this, because of this free pass he keeps receiving.

It baffles my mind as to why Obama keeps getting away with this.

I would imagine there is a relatively good chance that had Obama been given even the summary information the CIA fed the Senate, he would at least understand the vote. The authority I use on this is my former Senator Bob Graham, who voted no on the IWR, and who stated this very fact. Bob is an honest and straightforward man that cautioned against chastising those that voted yes, because they had received purposefully tainted intelligence information. Because of his position on the security counsel he knew this to be bogus stuff.

Obama is taking advantage of his free pass.

[surfermaw]

101. Good Girl Maribell, my thoughts exactly

[goodgd_yall]

112. I agree with you entirely n/t

[The Magistrate]

117. Thank You, Sir

[hedgehog]

119. idn't some of the senators later admit to not reading the NIE

before the vote? I'm thinking of Senator Clinton here.

[Maribelle]

122. Six senators said they read the 96-page NIE. Clinton said she was briefed on it.

In July of 2002 Bush was asked to produce an NIE when members of congress were flabbergasted that he had not done so yet. As the time for voting on the Iraq war resolution neared, the normally mild and easy going Senator Bob Graham of Florida as minority chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, became visibly angry with the Bush administration and the CIA for not providing an intelligence estimate to Congress, to give them needed information for the decision making process. After repeated requests by Senators Bob Graham, Richard Durbin, Diane Feinstein , and Carl Levin in September 2002, the Bush administration finally produced two NIE documents.

The 96-page NIE available to the senate in October 2002;

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

But, also in October 2002, the CIA released a 28-page unclassified version of the NIE "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," with the seal of the Director of Central Intelligence on the cover, which was supposed to interpret what was contained in the higlhly-redacted 96-page NIE - - and was touted as the reliable summary which the Senators were to use in their decision making process:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf


Senator Graham remained incensed with Bush for withholding critical intelligence and for the serious flaws in some of the intelligence that was not withheld.

More links:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7758

[Yael]

102. "bristling anger and resentful bitterness"

Thank you for that. I have been trying to put into words why I am not comfortable with her and now I am just that much closer in being able to articulate it.

[Yael]

104. That is an interesting concept

Of course, you would want to tape them all simultaneously or they would all be fighting to be last and doing nothing but rehashing what the ones who preceeded them had to say.

[ccpup]

5. on the other hand

with as much as the other candidates were referring to her, attacking her, questioning what she did/said/how she voted, it was inevitable that the Moderator would turn to Clinton for a response. Had any other candidate been openly attacked or talked about by another candidate in their answer as she was and then not been given the opportunity to respond, I suspect many on DU would be angry.

[babylonsister]

8. It's now a competition; the other candidates did what they had to do.

But I do think the moderators gave her way more time than necessary. I would have much preferred hearing more from Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, and Biden.

[ddeclue]

3. You were apparently watching the debate from the University of Fantasyland last night..

Stop trying to spin and re-write history..

Hillary got caught in her own web of deceit last night. She got caught weasel wording on multiple occasions (Iran nukes, her First Lady papers, drivers licenses for illegals, etc.) and came off very two faced and untrustworthy.

Edwards busted her on several occasions over her lack of forthright answers.

Apparently she can't manage to simply say "YES" or "NO" without providing weasel word qualifiers to cover her behind.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[The Magistrate]

6. Do You Find, Sir, That Sort Of Thing Actually Convinces Anyone?

Do you really think it makes you look the person with the stronger grasp on, and soundest analysis of, events?

[cuke]

18. Yes

They all do. They say the most ridiculous things, and they do actually believe it

It's a reminder of how good people can be twisted by hate and propoganda

[Yael]

103. I thought it was pretty accurate

but then who am I.

:P

[rinsd]

9. Edwards? Forthright? The guy who pretends nothing before Feb 2007 happened?

:rofl:

[ddeclue]

16. No that would be Hillary that does the "pretending"...

:rofl:

[LSK]

51. you mean like how everyone forgets Edwards career before 1998?

What did he used to do again? Oh yeah, SUE CORPORATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE AVERAGE JOE.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

7. Me thinks you're a Hillary fan

Hillary stumbled all over herself when asked about Spitzer's licensing proposal, continued to stumble when others pointed it out, specifically Dodd. Obama was quite clear in his response and view about licenses so I don't know what in the hell you're talking about. And based on that, I would say your opinion that Hillary did very well is equally biased.

[The Magistrate]

13. Nothing Requires You, Ma'am, To Agree With My Analysis

There is a tremendous difference between expressing the view that a measure might be a good idea, or at least a practical means of dealing with a real problem, and standing behind that idea as a policy to be enacted and supported. In most situations where government policy must be decided, the competion is between several good and workable ideas, and competent leaders never close off options till absolutely necessary. The fact is that the questioner was simply looking to provoke trouble, being quite aware no sitting Senator will ever willigly take sides against the chief official of their party in their home state. It is a fact that a failure of immigration policy at the national level forces local governments to a variety of shrifts and ad hoc measures, and where some of these seem outlandish to the unreflective, the solution is always to be sought in an understanding of the actual local concerns, and in rectifying the national policy to render them unnecessary.

[Ethelk2044]

23. She is

[ElizabethDC]

29. She who? And what is she? Details please? nt

[juajen]

90. And, me thinks you're not!

Bias runs both ways, you know. I do not think Hillary stumbled. She obviously did not want to answer the question, for obvious reasons; catch 22. She did that several times last evening, I believe to her detriment. Overall, I gave her a B+; so, IMHO, she did do very well. Especially so, considering everybody was after her posterior. Unfortunately, the best of candidates cannot be perfect all the time.

[calimary]

10. Good points all around.

I heard some really nice things from a bunch of 'em, too. And Kucinich's call for IMPEACHMENT left me absolutely breathless!

I was also particularly impressed with Biden. That "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" line ought to be repeated EVERYWHERE, around the clock.

[gateley]

11. Thank you. Spot-on observations and very well stated. I enjoyed reading it...

Edit to add I, too, really enjoyed Kucinich's asking Russert to repeat the percentage of Americans who "believe in UFOs". :headbang:

[Frances]

12. Very good analysis, Magistrate

I haven't made up my mind yet and I tried to watch as objectively as I could.

[gateley]

24. I've posted complaints that I feel it was unfair to the American people that

the non-top tier candidates weren't given adequate time. Most of the people i know aren't even aware of who the candidates are, and if they had watched that debate, it might appear as though only those three were truly "in the running". One of the other candidates may have struck a chord with the viewers, and it's their (our) right to get a fair exposure so we can form our own opinions.

Last night I was reading the coverage on CNN.com, and looking for remarks on Biden (of course), and in the two pieces that were posted, he wasn't mentioned ONCE! Richardson and Dodd each received a brief reference, and Kucinich was mentioned only because of that ass nine UFO question.

It was insulting to the candidates and insulting to the viewers. Thank heavens there are so many YouTube videos available to help you come to your decision. Apparently the media isn't going to be assisting you in any meaningful way.

Good luck! :toast:

[Cameron27]

14. Good assessment.

The targeting by Russert made it an unfair fight IMO.

[Alamom]

15. Bravo. We were watching the same show. nm

[Jade Fox]

17. Why isn't there more support for Biden?

I'm liking him more and more.

[Cameron27]

20. That's a good question.

[babylonsister]

22. You need to find a Biden thread; this is a Hillary thread. Here

:D ;-)

is one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3665581&mesg_id=3665581

[gateley]

26. Ha! I'm absolutely giddy that there IS a Biden thread! Been waiting a long time!

Thanks, babylonsister! :hi:

[The Magistrate]

25. The Reason, Ma'am, Is The Self-Fulfiling Nature Of Horse-Race Coverage

Having been percieved as a long-shot at best at the start, commentary on the Gentleman focuses on what a slim chance he has, and so he in fact comes ro have little chance. Commentators in any field are concerned to display their mastery of that field, and the best way to demonstrate one understands a complex endeavor is to predict successfully what its result will be. Thus commentary comes to be a competition in display of educated, or sometimes not so educated, guesses, which those who make them have some vested interest in seeing come true.

[Think82]

91. He wins EVERY debate in less time than the others.

[BeyondGeography]

19. You're pro-Clinton, but your post is nonetheless not devoid of insight

I oppose Clinton; here's my summary from an earlier thread:

Obama: Got off to a slow start; he prefers to counter-punch and point out the flaws in others' answers rather than go after them unprovoked. Best moment: Calling BS on Hillary's refusal to release her records. Second best moment: "I know there is life here on earth," as a follow-up to the UFO question. Worst moment: The airline question; caught him off guard, stumbled around and he didn't realize there was a 30-second limit.

Edwards: Who needs to take the gloves off with Hillary when this guy is in attack mode? I started to wonder what it would be like to be up against him in a losing court case (or any case, for that matter). Able to leap tall rhetorical buildings in a single bound. Only problem with an otherwise classic kill-the-frontrunner performance: Not nearly enough time spent saying what he would actually DO as President.

Clinton: Hopeless at answering direct questions. She needs to finally understand how bad this makes her look. Taps into every fear that people have of her fundamental dishonesty. Best moments: Remembering to steer the conversation back to bashing Bush and the Republicans. Worst moment: Not only botching the drivers license question, but raising her voice in the process and looking rattled.

Richardson: Good at playing the experience card and gave some pretty substantial answers. I don't, however, like his tendency to inflate his experience edge, as he did in saying that he was the only person on the stage to negotiate with a foreign government. Best moment: Gave the most complete and substantial answer on energy. Worst moment: Sucking up to Hillary by saying her attackers were "holier than thou." Looked as if all he cared about was the VP nod.

Dodd: I always find him solid in these debates. He was feisty and prepared, and played to win. Best moment: Having the guts to say pot should be decriminalized. Worst moments: Often overheated in his delivery, particularly when arguing about old bills that he has sponsored. He tends to fall into this, "doesn't anyone realize how great I've been in my career?" rut.

Biden: Also did well, particularly on his strong suit (foreign policy); by the time he gets called on you realize how deep the field is in this race. Best moment: Nailing Rudy with the, "Noun, verb and 9/11" line. Worst moment: Saying he would shut down all toy imports from China. A little too inflammatory and over-the-top for me.

Kucinich: More thoughtful and restrained than usual and had much better stage presence as a result. Best moment: Scolding the media for beating the drums for war; I absolutely loved him for that. Worst moment: Banging the impeachment drum too many times. Once would have been enough.

[The Magistrate]

28. I Support No Candidate At This Point, Sir

And will energetically support whoever takes the Party's nomination.

Sen. Clinton at this point offers the shortest odds for wagered money, but that is a different consideration.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Your inability to say one critical thing at all about her subpar performance gives you away

much as you attempt to conceal your true feelings on the matter.

[truedelphi]

44. And no one mentions this:

The "lightning rounds"
The debate moderators announce that for some questions, there will be only 30 seconds.


It was something that my husband and I both watched carefully.
For the MSM candidates, the clock wouldn't even appear until the person had talked for four or five seconds. ANd then if the MSM darling candidates still were talking over the time limit, they just had the clock go away.

The only one that they enforced the lightning round with was Dennis Kucinich. They somewhat scolded him. NAry a raised eyebrow for the others.

All in All, I even hate the idea. The last really decent debate we had in this country was Nixon-Kennedy.

IF you only give someone 30 seconds, they just hit the main talking points - which for each candidate is roughly the same.

The differences between the candidates is in how they would implement the talking points. That is what we need to know.

[Basileus Basileon]

87. Well, they scolded Richardson the worst, IMO,

and they did Obama as well. With everyone, they did "time...time...time...time...thank you, (title), 30 seconds." For the next question, they cut Obama off. The clock disappeared for all candidates after the 30 secs were up.

[truedelphi]

116. It sad that they resort to treating Richardson poorly n/t

[Ethelk2044]

21. Hillary Supporter pushing her agenda. Hillary was way off base. Obama did well in the debate.

[The Magistrate]

27. My Thanks, Ma'am, For The "Kicks' You Have Given My Modest Piece

They are much appreciated.

"What's ten million years in the scheme of the life of one man?"

[Clintonista2]

30. A disaproving response by Ethel is a good thing

It means you're still sane.

[phen43]

37. I suppose you would say the same about me

so I won't even try to disagree. You, my lords, are the supreme masters of the political opinion, the rest of us, just commoners, who know nothing about anything. This DU is an just an "old boys club". You do not treat the men who differ with your opinion with such disrespect, only the women. I find that strange, considering your seemingly high opinion of Hillary Clinton. Oh I get it, it's just the "stupid" women you don't like. On that note, I will leave this "artificial" world, there are better places to be. Happy to "R & K" this post for you!!

[Clintonista2]

40. Your analysis is innacurate

I "do not treat the men" any differently? Ask Zulchzulu, or BigDarryl about that one. Ethel just so happens to be one of the "Obama is God" people, who even went so low as to attack the GLBT community for being angry with Obama over the McClurkin mess. It has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with blatant stupidity.

[cuke]

96. I agree

You're pretty good, but you are no "supreme master of political opinion"

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

45. Oh come of it

That's not true

[Forkboy]

With that kind of idiocy leaving this artificial world may be for the best.

[ronnykmarshall]

93. psst! pssst!

Check ol' Eth's profile!

:bounce:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=184755

[cuke]

97. Finally

I think the mods do a good job, but sometimes I wish they'd invoke the stupidity clause more often

[ronnykmarshall]

107. Ding! DONG! ..... well y'all know the rest!

[ronnykmarshall]

33. and another kick!

:kick:

Great job Mag!

[NMMNG]

67. Obama supporter pushing her agenda.

How often are you going to infiltrate others' threads with your snotty smears?

[Clintonista2]

74. Shh don't be mean to poor old Ethel!

It means you hate women: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3667687&mesg_id=3668015

[NMMNG]

81. I guess I do

Which, for a lesbian, is really strange. But this election I've found out lots of things. I hate women, religion/religious people, ex-gays, blacks and probably a whole host of others I'm not yet aware of. :silly:

[ronnykmarshall]

32. WOW! A refreshing honest review.

Great job.

[opihimoimoi]

34. Well Done, excellent observation......

Polls will reveal the results soon enough. My wager is not much will change. Obama in not making a dent after much masticating...bombed....leaving the Hill intact....

Sir, ya did good.

K&R

[The Magistrate]

83. Thank You, Old Friend

Come, we roast pig and drink much rum....

[Tellurian]

35. K&R

Thanks, Magistrate...

[Perry Logan]

36. It was as if there was no one but Hillary up there. The other candidates looked like little bugs.

[Basileus Basileon]

38. I have a few disagreements, but otherwise I find your analysis extraordinarily

level-headed.

I believe Sen. Clinton's performance, like much of her candidacy, will be remembered differently depending on the viewer's predispositions towards her. To those inclined to view her favorably (as most Democrats are), she came off as cool and collected, and showed a necessary toughness in her dismissal of Russert. To those who dislike her, she was extraordinarily frustrating--she danced around pitfalls, seemingly acknowledging the issues her critics have with her while at the same time saying little about them. This serves her well among undecideds, but I feel it may turn off those who harbor doubts about her. Of course, given the record of success enjoyed by both Clintons, polarization is perhaps not a significant issue.

I believe her response to the Spitzer question was less than adroit; while it was indeed a set-up, those are to be expected in debates. While she did not change her position, she altered her emphasis from one side to the other, in a particularly (there is no other word) Clintonian fashion. That has been a successful strategy so far, as it allows her to explain why her complex stands are in the interests of any particular group she finds herself speaking to. When she shifts emphasis within two minutes in front of one audience--especially after having her initial emphasis attacked--it comes across as less than genuine.

Romney was targeted a few times, but attacks of "flip-flopper" really aren't going to stick in the general. While Republicans may fear he's a closet moderate, that is not exactly a concern for most Americans--and given the smearing of Kerry in 2004, it looks uncreative. The attacks on Giuliani, on the other hand, were well aimed.

I do not believe Kucinich handled the UFO question nearly well as you seem to. While it was a set-up, he willingly provided the punchline. Obama had a much better answer to a similar question. Kucinich acknowledged it and then said that many people have as well; Obama dismissed the whole segment as nonsense that takes away from real issues. Judging by the reaction, Obama's response was among the audience's favorite moments.

I liked Edwards' performance more than you did, but I agree his "no special interests" platform is not one that is particularly compelling. His weakest moments were similar to Richardson's: stating you are the only candidate who is qualified (for whatever reason) does not ring true with any audience. The average Democrat watching likes most of the people on stage; "I'm the only option" plays well only to zealots.

[The Magistrate]

84. Thank You, Sir

Regarding the matter of Gov. Spitzer's program....

Sen. Clinton's answer struck me then, and still strikes me now, as the right tack for the long haul: it is important for no Democratic candidate to say anything that can be ranged alongside the Dobbesian perseuction of immigrants in the general election. The enemy is in the process of driving the Hispanic vote into the arms of our Party for generations to come, and our leading figures should do nothing to interfere with this in the slightest degree. Far-seeing Republican strategists have for some years harbored hopes of seriously competing for this segment of the electorate with us, but the roots of Republican electoral strength are too firmly planted in racism to allow this. It is vital that we heighten the contrasts here to the maximum degree possible. Sen. Clinton said nothing that could be later isolated and used to cloud this matter, and that was the chief consideration guiding her response.

[AdamAbeles]

41. MIKE GRAVEL did the Best at the MSNBC debate

Mike Gravel did the best at the MSNBC debate last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAyrvbD3NTE

Are you as outraged as I am by the likes of Chuck Todd and GE?

[Clintonista2]

42. Umm, that wasn't last nights debate

MSNBC didn't allow Gravel to be at the debate last night, due to him raising less than 1million$, and having less than 5% support in Iowa.

[AdamAbeles]

57. NOT TRUE

Totally NOT TRUE. Gregory Chase offered 1 million in cash alone and MSNBC would NOT TAKE IT!

Plus he polled Equal to Dodd.

Tell me your source of information?

MSNBC, GE and Hillary Clinton are playing you like a puppet. The sad thing is, you are letting it happen.

[Clintonista2]

59. Are you telling me that Gravel WAS at the debate last night?

I was simply giving you the reasons MSNBC gave for not allowing Gravel to participate. You seem to believe that Gravel was there last night. He wasn't.

[AdamAbeles]

64. He held a debate Across the street.

He held his own debate actually right across the street.

Its a shame the MSM wants to shut him out.

I will post a link as soon as its available.

It would do a lot of people good to see the truth spoken and not rehearsed nonsense that people falsely call a "debate".

[leftchick]

94. he was great

I loved listening to him cut through all of the horse shit I was hearing. Here is a follow up from NPR...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15799863

[William769]

43. I missed the debate last night, due to being admitted to the Hospital yesterday morning via

The emergency room (I will be here for awhile(THANK GOD FOR LAPTOPS!)).

So I honestly cannot say who or what happened in the debate last night. I can only hope that by reading through all that has been posted, I get some semblance of what happened.

From what I have heard so far from friends, it was a good debate.

[Clintonista2]

46. I'll sum it up:

Every response to every question by JE/Obama came back to how horrible Hillary is. Hillary responded calmly to each attack, and held her composure throughout. IMO, Obama and Edwards came off as trying their best to dent Hillary's armor, but it never seemed to happen.

[William769]

53. I knew before hand the attacks would happen (just like everyone else).

And I will wager any amount of money that in the coming days those attacks will have backfired.

[Alamom]

60. I think you are right. nm

[Ninga]

68. I think this is an more objective summary.

REVIEWS PILE ON: EDWARDS MOST EFFECTIVE AND ARTICULATE CHALLENGER TO CLINTON

TIME's Mark Halperin Gave Edwards' Debate Performance an "A"; Edwards "Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner." "Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner." http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,... , 10/31/07

David Yepsen: "John Edwards Emerged As the Evening's Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton." In a blog post titled, "Johnny Be Good," Yepsen wrote, "John Edwards emerged as the evening's most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance…Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy." Des Moines Register, 10/30/07 http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=33

New York Times: Obama "Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards." "But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton's credentials and credibility. 'Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C.,' Mr. Edwards said. 'She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's not ending the war; that's the continuation of the war.' He added, 'I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time.'" New York Times, 10/31/07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31debate....

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far." George Stephanopoulos: "I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn't back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again , that she can't bring about change." ABC, "Good Morning America," 10/31/07

CQ's Craig Crawford: "I Thought It Was Edwards' Best Performance So Far." On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: "Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?"… Craig Crawford: "I thought it was Edwards' best performance so far." Crawford later wrote, ""John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as 'doubletalk' and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish 'neo-conservatives' on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator's most forceful debate performance so far." MSNBC, 10/30/07; http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2007/10/clinton-as... , 10/31/07

The Nation's Ari Melber: "John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing." "John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. 'If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq ,' he said, 'then Senator Clinton is your candidate.' Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible 'change' candidate." http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=2473... , "Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate..." 10/30/07

Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, "Who do you think won the debate," John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/30/224542/32 , accessed 9:04 a.m. on 10/31/07

CBS's Jeff Greenfield: "It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language" On Iran. "But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president." "The Early Show," CBS, 10/31/07

The Nation's John Nichols: Edwards "Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton." "It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. 'If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.' That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton." http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15 ; http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071031/cm_thenation... 10/30/07

The Nation's John Nichols: "Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest." "It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander…Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that 'it's fair' to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. '(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,' argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...'… It was a smart, at times intense dialogue…But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was 'written literally by the neo-cons,' the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, 'We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.'" http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15 ; http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071031/cm_thenation... 10/30/07

NBC's Tim Russert: "Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama."
Meredith Viera: "So did Edwards emerge?" Tim Russert: "I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton…But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama."

Marc Ambinder: "John Edwards's Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder." "In this discordant symphony – 'A Clintonian Lament' -- John Edwards's instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama's were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, 'It's the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.'" http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/ob... , 10/30/07

ABC's Rick Klein: "Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart." "11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. And other surprises -- how about Joe Biden taking on Rudy Giuliani? Is he the new George W. Bush, in terms of punching-bag status?" <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/live-bl... , 10/30/07>

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: "Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses… Edwards Called Her on It." "Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of 'double talk.' Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?" http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/30/43965... "Clinton having it both ways... again?" 10/30/07

The Politico's Ben Smith: "John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton… Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports" Spitzer's Plan. "John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator … Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6633.html, 10/31/07

ABC's Rick Klein: "It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration." "10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: 'Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.' Obama: 'I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.' And Obama calls the Spitzer plan 'the right idea.'" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/live-bl... 10/30/07

CNN's Candy Crowley: Edwards "Stepped Up His Game." Appearing on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, "John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor." CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 10/30/07

CQ's Craig Crawford: "I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you." MSNBC, 10/31/07

[Clintonista2]

70. Copy and pasted right off JE's website

Yep, that's some objective summary. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[William769]

72. Thanks for pointing that out.

[superkia]

100. Why are they attacks? This is a debate so we can see who is...

best for our children's future. If someone points out that a candidate is having trouble being honest and straightforward with the American public in their campaign, why is that an attack? We need to know who the ones are that are being completely fake to hide their true agendas before we make the Bush mistake and put them in office. People need to stop defending all of this shit like we are watching a sports game and you are defending your team. We are all on the American team and need the best head coach to help us win, not just some peoples favorite head coach. I don't understand the lack of caring of some about our children's future, I am sick of all the defending of ones favorite, let the facts speak for themselves with out all the bullshit comments defending the facts.

If your candidate stumbles and sits the fence, so be it, that is who your candidate is. Defend your candidate but don't ignore who they are, you just look like a child not seeing reality, only your favorite cartoon character that is your hero.

I support Kucinich and he admits he saw something in the sky that he didn't know what it was, he didn't try and bullshit around the question and it was a jackass of a question only to discredit him. They should have pointed out in their question that Carter, Reagan and other presidents had seen things also but they didn't. I am still proud that my candidate is the only one speaking out about impeachment and did so again on a national stage. Clinton debates Bush enough in the democratic debates but wont actually speak out about impeachment? I thought she has been telling us how she will stand and fight them for the American people? Where is she or is she only talking out of one side of her face.

[Alamom]

47. It was a good one, William and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Keep us updated on your health when you can.

[William769]

54. Thank you.

[BootinUp]

48. get well soon

sorry to hear about this. Don't let DU get your blood pressure up. ;)

[William769]

56. Funny you should say that the charge nurse on my floor is a personal friend

And when she saw that I was on DU, she threatened to take my laptop away before my blood pressure or anything else went up. LOL

[Cameron27]

50. I'm so sorry William,

I hope it's nothing too serious.

[William769]

58. Thank you.

Lets just say Im at my home away from home right now.

[ElizabethDC]

52. I'm sorry to hear that you're in the hospital.

That's no fun! I hope you get well soon. :hug:

[William769]

61. Thank you, me too!

I have already threatened to take my bed sheet and make a costume for tonight. No matter what, I still have my sense of humor. :)

[Forkboy]

55. Don't know what's wrong but I hope you're well soon.

:toast:

[William769]

62. Thank you, that means a lot coming from you.

Drink one of those for me, will you?

[Forkboy]

66. I did all my drinking Sunday night after the Pats and during the Sox.

I'm good until next month. :)

I know we have our differences, but those are actually pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and your health easily outweighs them all.

Take care.

[ronnykmarshall]

73. Oh crap!

You ok?

Need a sponge bath?

[William769]

75. Theres a male nurse I have been trying to convince that I do.

I will be with a little of love and attention and a whole lot of drugs!

[ronnykmarshall]

76. That's the Billy I know and love!

Go get him!

[William769]

77. Well you know I am a ardent supporter of the Gay agenda.

[The Magistrate]

88. Best Wishes For A Speedy Recovery, Sir!

[Sparkly]

106. Get well and out of there soon!!

:hi:

[smoogatz]

49. Excellent recap. Thanks.

I didn't see the debate, so this is very helpful. And though neither's my first choice (Run, Al, etc.), I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a Clinton/Biden ticket in '08.

[wyldwolf]

63. I can just imagine the reactions here when/if Hillary debates the GOP nominee

Woohoo! Did you see Rudy slap her down!

Finally! The world see's the real Hillary! Go Mitt!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

71. Hillary's a big girl, she can take it as she has proven many times.

And if you catch my drift defeatism is not in our vocabulary.

[Ninga]

79. Defeatism is losing without a putting up a fight.

That is not the case with any candidate in our party....

[wyldwolf]

80. the operative phrase in your post "some won't.."

[Ninga]

98. Yes I know. If 100 people are invited to a party "some won't" attend.

Rarely does a party have 100% attendance.

:shrug:

[truedelphi]

111. It's A little known secret is that Hillary is Mitt's twin - separated at birth

They share the intensity of each response - powerful people with always their entitlement issues, yet neither can really relax.

Something slightly off about them - Mitt will be talking about something happy while frowning (and vice versa)

Hillary possesses the same incongruence. She wants it so badly. I think of her and her values as being Nixon-era Republcian values and then it clicks in - Nixon wanted it so very badly also.

You think of Reagan or Bill Clinton - they each came across with being so self-assured and pleased about life and Oh by the way, did they mention they were running for President and could they have your vote? But that intensity factor never showed itself.

I don't know how an individual arrives at that place but both Reagan and Bill CLinton were brought up in the middle class while Hillary was brought up one social station higher. Yet she is the one whose self esteem needs work.

[Alamom]

69. k

[Lerkfish]

78. "owing to her gender"

I find that comment odd.

"owing to his race"

or

"owing to his height"

would be equally odd observations.

I think a great many people do not concern themselves with her "gender", or if they do, its in a more positive light.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

85. Odd In What way, Sir?

Sen. Clinton's gender is one of the most important factors in this race: no serious analyst ignores it. You will have to make explicit what you seem to believe is slighting in my observation touching the matter.

"Welcome to the graveyard of good intentions."

[Lerkfish]

89. as I said:

"I think a great many people do not concern themselves with her "gender", or if they do, its in a more positive light."

:shrug:

a slight is perceived on your part but not intended on mine.

[The Magistrate]

95. Clear As Mud, Sir

But should you ever wish to join in a discussion concerning factors of gender, race, or even height, in U.S. politics, it would be my pleasure to engage....

"Action is shouded in evil as is fire by smoke."

[uppityperson]

109. "Welcome to the graveyard of good intentions." ?????????

[Rowdyboy]

82. Apparently you and I watched the same debate.....

Excellent analysis

[liberalnurse]

92. Edwards deflected the poor doctor question

to the serious health care issue, Nursing! I was beeming. Edwards
was on his game! Now Hillary....she held off the entire gang of testosterone pumping lot....and did not bust a nail.

[starmaker]

99. Gravel's analysis was better

seeing through the talking points and hidden language
as the debate progressed

[Sparkly]

105. I rec'd this before I read it

Because a post, let alone an OP, by The Magistrate is always well worth reading!

And I agree!! Absolutely. I'm glad somebody besides Stinky saw the same debate I did.

I posted the same sentiments last night about Edwards and Obama, although I said I was "disappointed" at their pretense of confusion over Clinton's answer on driver's licenses. And all the spin today has me thinking the same thing -- all these poor pundits holding their heads as if their brains hurt TRYing to figure out the oh-so confusing array of different answers Clinton gave! It's ridiculous. The answer was clear several times over, and the criticism is disingenuous.

I agree on the other points, too.

[The Magistrate]

108. Thank You, Ma'am

Always a pleasure ti see you and your 'political insultant' about the place....

"If you could see tomorrow as it looks to us today, you'd say,'Incredible!'"

[Major Hogwash]

110. I do some impressions of the candidates too!

Kucinich - Nah noo nah noo! I was speaking to aliens from space before Mork was! No, seriously, I was at the convention in '78.

Biden - Funny thing happened to me on the way to this debate tonight, but it's too dirty to tell in front of mixed company.

Dodd - I'm glad they asked me to come here and answer some tough questions tonight. Not like that other old guy they didn't ask to come here and answer some tough questions.

Hillary - Everyone up here agrees with me, I'm the bestest.

Obama - I have nothing against standing up here and rambling on for an hour, or for 2 hours, or for 3 hours, or even for 4 hours, if that's what it takes.

Edwards - America is a great country with a lot of different states. But, not all of those states are the same size. However, the skies over those states are just as blue over each state as they are in my state.

Richardson - I knew I was going to be ignored again, so I chose to wear this party hat. But, the people who sponsored this debate wouldn't let me wear it.

[goodgd_yall]

113. I agree completely with your observation of Kucinich's performance

I thought it his best too.

[eridani]

114. The questioners sucked, big time. I say bring back the LWV. n/t

[Colobo]

115. Edwards and Obama won. Hillary lost.

[JerseygirlCT]

118. I think that's a good analysis

As it pretty much concurs with my own!

[Karmadillo]

120. Excellent analysis. Thanks for posting it.

nt

[The Magistrate]

121. Glad You Got A Chance To see It, Old Friend

Always a pleasure to see you about the place, Sir!