Winners, losers, observations?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
43 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Hillary: she did fine. Very professional. Brushed aside difficult questions with ease.
Obama: very strong performance. Smooth as butter.
Edwards: took a moment on the ‘moral leader’ question, but came through. Totally solid.
Richardson: rough. Probably the worst performance. No health care, favorite of the NRA and proud of it, called himself too aggressive, didn’t answer questions addressed to him.
Biden: he did okay, but he is out of touch with the party.
Dodd: he was good, but he needs to make headlines, and he didn’t.
Kucinich: he shows polish from his run in 2004, but he is still Dennis.
Gravel: Dude doesn’t give a shit. He is just pissed off, though, and ranting isn’t going to convince too many people to rethink our common assumptions.
Gravel came across kinda Stockdale-esque, I thought.
I kinda felt for Edwards with that “moral leader” question. The impulse might have been to say “Jesus”, but that would harken back to Bush naming the same as his “favorite philosopher”.
It’s almost as if he wasn’t even prepared to have a stand on issues.
Except for Gonzo…and that’s some dangerous shyt.
Why I asked whether he looks good? Because some clueless centrist to conservative Dems might like him.
We don’t need a Reagan/Lieberman type in Dem clothes in the White House.
What does that mean? Inquiring minds want to know! (See downthread.)
I wondered about the Edwards Religion question…he obviously thought they were looking for a person, then reconsidered.
Richardson toasted himself when he said: “I didn’t want Gonzales to resign because he was Hispanic…” I know what he meant, he didn’t want to believe that the highest Hispanic in public office was a total crook and liar, but it really came out all wrong.
And I think Edwards could have done better. His thoughtful southern conversational style isn’t good in mass debates like this one.
Obama…a real mind there. Too smart to win? We’ll see.
whether it meant religion or a particular person.
Richardson toasted himself when he said: “I didn’t want Gonzales to resign because he was Hispanic…” I know what he meant, he didn’t want to believe that the highest Hispanic in public office was a total crook and liar, but it really came out all wrong.
That kind of talk scares me as another person of color. Because if he acts in this protective, ‘our gang’ way towards fellow Latinos, imagine how this favoritism is going to ricochet on other persons of color and women. If something came up where someone black whistleblew on an erring Latino in his administration, what’s he going to do? Disappear the whistleblower? I’m not impressed. He’s not even vice presidential timber.
It’s always interesting to hear the reviews. I don’t think Hilary was as impressive as BooMan does, but I’ll defer to his greater experience. Obama is obviously very bright and very smooth. Edwards was also good. But…did anyone learn anything of substance from the debate that they didn’t already know?
didn’t catch all of it, and no tv….c-span radio feed, hopefully, they’re replay it in toto.
comments on what l did hear:
top tier:
clinton: same song and dance, she didn’t hurt herself, but imo, she didn’t gain anything either. her rapid retaliation comment l thought was a bit much. l’m still not impressed.
obama: articulate, intelligent, informed…his comments vis a vis israel, as well as those regarding n.korea and iran l still find troubling…not presidential timbre, imo, and did nothing to alter that opinion for me.
edwards: concise, thoughtful, well spoken…and l thought he did, overall, the best job articulating his positions…the morals question, imo, was a cheap shot at the end. becoming more and more my favorite.
everybody else:
richardson: didn’t make any friends tonight among progressives…good in a cabinet position, not presidentil timbre.
dodd: perhaps the poorest showing of all, imo. the roberts answer coupled with the segue of the civil unions question into his anti gay marriage position was a major gaffe. l was hoping for more from him as a dark horse.
kicinich: was kucinich…l’m glad he’s in there, just to stir the pot…still no chance, but keeps it’s interesting.
gravel: made me think of yosemite sam for some reason…looney tunes.
I’m still thinking about Dennis’ tall redheaded wife. I think she’s in her late 20s and he’s nearing 60. When there’s so little substance I dwell on the little things…
nothing wrong with tall redheads…nice combo of sexism and ageism there sn.
</snark> :{)
I was a kid in Cleveland when he was mayor – I just can’t believe he’s still around and still looks like he’s 15.
ok, I’ll give you ageism, but my comment about substance meant the debate, not the wife.
Her bio is here.
Honey, she’s way out of diapers.
winning the debate with Obama a close second.
I’ve been wondering something — Can someone please tell me, who watches little TV and missed the debate (no cable), why is Dennis Kucinich so often dismissed out of hand? I have no idea what he looks or sounds like in action but I gather it has something to do with his appearance or voice –? And I’ve read a lot of criticism of his move to impeachment — is it that he’s too impractical to win a national election? In 2004 his positions were the closest to mine of any Dem and I voted for him in my state primary, which was worth exactly nothing as the nomination was already a done deal by the time California voted.
Number two, he’s a small man, not imposing or tall.
It’s easy for the punditocracy and even bloggers to dog him.
Thanks blksista — is that all? So many diss him, I thought there was more to it. According to BooMan “he shows polish … but he is still Dennis.” Still short?
Kucinich is great. He is probably too “liberal” whatever that is… I think he tells the truth consistently so people are afraid of him…
Thank you for asking this – it is something I have wondered for the same reasons.
What do you have against Vulcans anyway?
nothing, but you asked what the problem is and said you don’t know what he looks like or sounds like.
There are other issues with Kucinich, too. But I am not in the business of bashing him. He’s fine by me if he wants to bring his perspective to the table and hold some people’s feet to the fire. He isn’t going to win any delegates though, so I don’t spend any time thinking about him.
Fair enough. Thanks for the video. I’ll have to wait til tomorrow to watch it though — darn computer. All my YouTube videos are silent here.
Maybe it’s because the theme here brought me back to old sf television shows, but for whatever reason, when I read —
He isn’t going to win any delegates though, so I don’t spend any time thinking about him.
I thought —
“Danger! Danger! Danger!”
This is positively inviting “meta” assaults of a familiar kind.
same pathetic logic that gave us Casey and Heath Ledger.
It’s all just inside baseball.
whatever. You WANTED BIGGER REPUBLICAN majorities and ACTUALLY PREDICTED THEM. Why should we listen to your prognostication or take your advice?
I warned you. Here it comes.
Maybe all of the candidates should be given up to ten minutes to speak on a predetermined topic each week; then the viewers could text message their preference and the lowest on the pole gets removed from being a contender.
It works for American Idol…
a pathetic bunch of Donks, and yet another example of how utterly lacking in brains, passion or anything remotely like beliefs they all are. Rehearsed within an inch of their lives (fuck, a dead Justice and Ruth Bader Ginsburg?!?! … how about Jonathan Turley you fucking morons), and you guys take the usual shots at Gravel. Shit, at least he fucking believes in something, is fighting for something. He did good for this country against Vietnam, and he’s trying to at least say some things that need saying, and yet all you supposed liberals can do is make fun of him.
Really, this isn’t baseball. It’s not trivia, or some kind of soap opera. People are dying, our way of life is being sucked dry by greed and corruption, both parties are rattling nuclear sabres at Iran, and yet all we are stuck with is a bunch of Hallmark-card-slogan hacks …
That sorry bunch doesn’t piss you off or scare the shit out of you? Every single fucking one of them is every bit as feckless and pathetic as Kerry was, only with fewer beliefs.
Jesus.
Liberals?
I saw at most 1 and a half liberals
you can’t blame the media for the fact that they are a bunch of warmongering soul-less hacks (except for Gravel and Kucinich). That’s all anybody wants to do, though, blame the media or the mean Republicans or the conjunction of the planets … anything except for the fact that they are cowards who stand for nothing, will endorse war to make AIPAC love them and will happily cash the same checks from the same Hedge Fund managers (nice non-answer, Edwards) and Pharma companies and HMOs and defense contractors.
Nope, blame the media and make fun of Gravel, then blame him instead of Nader when they fucking stink up the campaign again.
I hope Gravel stays in for a while. He doesn’t worry about nuance, and some of what he says needs to be discussed.
Chris Matthews sounded disappointed that it wasn’t more exciting with yelling and insults.
I thought he won easily on a progressive theme, but being a progressive, I WOULD think like this.
Now if a progressive cannot win the next/any election, then I guess he has to lose because we can’t commit suicide. However, he surely was the real progressive along with Kucinich in the debate. How about a ticket of Gravel-Kucinich or Kucinich-Gravel for 2008. My current dream ticket, and boy would it keep progressive lawyers busy for a long time!
Didn’t see the debate, but I saw Kucinich’s response to the health care question on cspan a few weeks ago. He was very strong on universal health care. He’s strong on most things I believe in. He’s one of those guys that when we’re all dead, and perhaps the planet as well, we’ll be asking ourselves why we didn’t support this man.
I’m troubled, as well, by the casual dismissiveness by some here in regards to Kucinich.
I’ve always liked Kucinich(even voted for him in the primaries) and don’t really get why so many people seem dismissive of him apparently mostly based on his looks to them? He’s given some excellent even stirring speeches that made him seem ten feet tall to me.
…is that Hillary did the best of them all, with consistently good responses that answered the question posed, for the most part. Obama did well overall, but
seemed to botch one or two questions, in my humble opinion.
Edwards “grew” on me during the debate, with his tendency to engage each question thoughtfully. He and Hillary came across to me as truly among the most intelligent and knowledgeable of all of the candidates.
Hillary is not my current presidential preference (though she is one of my Senators). However, having said that, and having watched the debate last night, Hillary is much more palatable to me as a possible president than before.
One of her biggest assets seems to be her opponents’ penchant for…underestimating her at every turn. She seems, again, to have taken advantage of that advantage last night.
but to be ladylike, i.e., quieter even in a fight.
Not dissing her performance…I hardly focused on her, ya know? I was checking Edwards, Kucinich, Obama and Gravel and Richardson closely. But everyone has their strategy, and for Hill, this is one of them.
Just don’t get fooled.
The GE Presidential Debate, by David Swanson, co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.
Thanks for the link Alexander…nice summary. As for that twit Brian Williams, I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya that that blow-dryed ‘newsman’ couldn’t really conjure up any questions relating to real Americans about their jobs, the economy, wages, etc then again I’m sure that isn’t even on his radar screen with his salary lifting him out of regular working American stiffs lifestyles.
Damn, I’d like to see Jon Stewart as a moderator asking the questions, now that might just turn into a real debate with some real questioning.
I don’t think that the powers that be would ever let that happen. It is very important for them to control the parameters of the “debate”.
As for Williams, I don’t think it’s so much a question of his making such a high salary that he can’t imagine what it’s like to be an ordinary American. Maybe he can and maybe he can’t. It’s more a question of the range of issues to be discussed being set by the corporations. The orthodoxy today is neoliberalism, and according to liberalism, it is counter-productive and illegitimate for the state to do anything about low wages. Hence there is no point in asking presidential candidates about wages.
I’m sure Stewart would never be considered, that was just wishful thinking on my part. As for Williams, I’m sure he’s aware of what questions he can or can not ask ….I just don’t care for him starting with the interview I read where he said he listens to Rush Limbaugh every day and thinks he’s a pretty smart guy..ok Brian if you say so. That was the start of my thinking him a blow-dryed twit.
I had expected more of Williams. I didn’t know he said that about Rush Limbaugh. My opinion of him has fallen accordingly. (Anyway, I don’t have a TV now, so I never see him anymore.)
My personal feelings about Williams-who I refuse to watch on his nightly news show(as I do all news shows except Olberman)are pretty much zilch…what I think is more scary is that many people feel he is a legitimate news person thus accord him more respect and believe what he has to say when he’s not much better than Faux news in my opinion. He just doesn’t seem to be so obviously pushing WH propaganda yet most of the time he is. In that way he’s more dangerous than anyone at Faux news-he’s considered legit.