Well, I didn’t really see any of the things I wanted to see in the debate. That wasn’t the fault of the candidates, the CNN crew simply decided to ask different questions. I could go on a tangent about the quality of the questions but I’m just going to let it go. I’d rather talk about my impressions.
I was most impressed with Barack Obama’s performance. He was willing to take courageous stands on the granting of driver’s licenses to undocumented people and on insisting that people that make over $97,000 a year pay more into Social Security. If there was one thing I took away from the debate, it was that Obama is willing to take some positions that are correct, but that are ripe for easy distortion and attacks ads. That’s precisely what it is so hard to get a Clinton to do.
Hillary had a much better debate than two weeks ago in Philadelphia. She didn’t make any obvious gaffes and she probably had the best moment of the night when she talked about the problems women face with glass ceilings. She was also assisted by a very sympathetic audience…her supporters lustily booed every time any other candidate attacked her record. I suspect that is a new strategy, but it could have been spontaneous. Not.
Edwards was the recipient of much of that booing, which caused him to back off a little. Nonetheless, Edwards is an impressive debater and, as usual, had many fine moments. He wanted to plant the idea in the audience’s mind that Hillary Clinton is a ‘corporate Democrat’ that takes lobbyist and PAC money. The booing blunted his effectiveness.
Richardson demonstrated that he is a world class panderer. Asked if we should dump nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, he suggested we create a research facility there instead, to study what to do with nuclear waste. Asked what he would do about income disparity between troops and mercenaries, he said he’d take all the mercenaries out of Iraq. There seems to be nothing Richardson won’t say or promise to provide.
Biden does very well in these debates. He’s funny, he’s confident, and he’s articulate. I just don’t see how can break through.
The same goes for Dodd, who did very well. I’d say he did better than in any prior debate. But he has no angle except for his steadfast support for our civil liberties, and that didn’t come up.
Kucinich did a great job and had many applause lines. His best was when he pointed out all the flip-flops…on the Patriot Act…on NAFTA…on the war…and then said, “Wouldn’t it be great to have a president that gets it right the first time?”
The bottom line is that the Democrats have a very strong field of candidates. My personal favorite, Chris Dodd, is the only one that isn’t a strong debater…and he’s not bad at all.
There wasn’t a whole lot of substance to this debate. It was notable that Hillary Clinton reluctantly admitted that NAFTA was a mistake. Chris Dodd distinguished himself by pointing out that human rights happy talk is all fine and dandy, but Pakistan is a little more complicated than to have or not to have elections. We don’t live in an ideal world. Elections have not improved Iraq, or Palestine, and there is no guarantee that they will improve Pakistan.
Several of the other candidates seemed wrapped up in some Wolfowitizian fantasyland where elections are the solution to every problem.
The post debate analysis/spin was predictably fatuous. They tried to make it out that Obama had tripped up on the drivers’ licenses question, but that was absurd. He had a complicated and courageous explanation. It was his finest moment of the debate.
One last observation: Hillary broke a cardinal rule of the frontrunner. She said the others were not gunning for her because she is a woman, but because she is ahead (in the polls). That is true. But the frontrunner should never refer to the polls before the votes are cast. It’s not only bad ju-ju but it’s arrogant and can really come back to haunt you. Howard Dean was wise enough never to say anything like that. The fatheads on CNN thought it was her best line of the night.
And, uh, CNN didn’t disclose that James Carville is part of TEAM CLINTON. Carville said she won the debate. Go figure.
Good analysis.
I had to change the channel afterwards because the commentators were pissing me off. Par for the course, of course.
yeah, the analysis is so shallow. It’s like watching American Idol.
It’s all about soundbites. That’s why Leslie Blitzer kept pushing for yes or no answers on issues that are more complex than that; it’s a disservice to the country to not allow the candidates to explain themselves.
Yeah, I used the same language.
no wonder that word kept popping up in my head. I had read it here. Quit planting ideas in my psyche! 😉
but, then why am I blogging?
good question. I’ll add that you’re losing your touch
Not one mention of the asbestos pantsuit.
I was making butternut squash-leek soup when she said that.
We had to turn it off for the analysis too. I can’t abide Skeletor. But I was wondering if there was any mention of him being less than an unbiased observer, (being a member of “Team Clinton” and all) so I appreciate Booman answering that question for me.
I love it.
I would pay money to see him talking to Putin or any of the other world leaders.
IN their faces. Bet on it.
But it ain’t gonna happen.
Not “Presidential” enough. Gotta be a non-entity who acts seriously important.
The rest?
A buncha flat-faced maroons.
Except Edwards, who is a flat-out, smarmy idiot.
And Kucinich, who is a sour-faced, brilliant man who cannot handle the fact that no matter how right he is almost nobody likes his act.
The winner?
Hillary. Just by outlasting the dip of the last two weeks and playing the female card by claiming not to do so. (Brilliant move, by the way.).
The loser?
Obama. (Edwards doesn’t count and none of the others have a snowball’s chance in the CNN studios hell.)
Why?
Not able to allow himself to be “colorful”.
Hillary and Biden in ’08. Watch. They’re hustling one another.
Obama woulda been nice.
But…I don’t think so.
AG
Biden’s already on the record as categorically ruling out VP if Hillary’s the nominee – no desire to be the Assistant Vice President.
Obama/Biden ’08, however, makes a whole lot of sense, phonetically and otherwise.
Y’mean…if she asks REAL NICE he’ll still say no?
Maybe.
He is obviously not afraid to fuck up,
AG
I mean, really sucks. The phat one. Bad, bad, bad. Cosmetic politics. I wish one of the candidates had said to the Beard or Malveaux during one of the (few) Iraq questions – “Well, what would you assholes do now to clean up George W. Bush’s diaper, since you were part and parcel of this fantastic voyage pumping up the need for War with your ‘Showdown Iraq’ Coverage?’
Might as well ask for the Nottingham fairy to make me an omelette.
The only one who questioned Blitzer was Obama, who refused to play along with “given x is likely not to happen…..” One of Obama’s better moments was to turn this into a positive view of the future (even if he really just didn’t want to get pinned down).
Biden – Dodd is my choice as the strongest ticket that the Democratic Party can offer. It doesn’t have geographic appeal but it has candidates that have experience and knowledge and guts. I’ll vote them despite polls.
aren’t quatlities the American electorate values.
hey Boo- off topic but no open thread this AM so here goes. Not One Single word on Caseys’ comments yesterday regarding US Military Readiness for a spreading war! NOT A WORD! Not even in the sphere. I may be wrong but so far I can’t find anything. This man sat there and said that the US Military does not have the capacity to take on an additional war situation! We hear the drum beat but where the hell is the discussion?
Maybe we should ask for a Netroots debate with Duncan Black or Juan Cole mediating.
Or maybe the Iowa or NH League of Women voters.
anyone who cares about the country.
Blitzer opened the debates like he was the announcer for a prize-fight – now that’s infotainment!!!
And what’s this with these bizarre, to my mind highly inappropriate bursts of laughter from Hillary (see the shot over at TPM Cafe)? It seems scripted, or calculated – certainly forced. And it is waaaay out of place. Any ideas?
Here’s a good summary of the debate (I didn’t watch it):
David Swanson, Wolf Blitzer Loses Democratic Debate
Boo, I’m and Obama guy, but I have to admit I think she won, and we knew the post debate spin about 15 minutes into it “Hillary regains her footing, or strikes back” etc. That audience really screwed it up, preventing a real give and take between the big three (at least preventing criticisms in one direction). She’s leading big in Nevada, so maybe it’s to be expected, but wow.
I think we knew what the post-debate spin was going to be before the debate even started. The media is trying to entertain itself with creating the illusion of a “horse-race”, when they have no intention of allowing any sort of competitive race to take hold, and if one does, they’ll immediately run stories to quell it (think Edwards haircut, Dean scream, Gore singlehandedly inventing the internet, etc.).
Yes, I’m feeling cynical this week.