So, did these debates change anything? What do you think?
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.
37 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 45: I Explain Trumpism to Justin Trudeau
- Day 43: The #TrumpRussia Conspiracy Goes Mainstream At Last
- Day 40: Republicans Contemplate Giving Up On Deficit Control Forever
- Progress Pondcast Episode 22 With Bill Hangley Jr, on DOGE and U.S. Alliance With Russia
- Day 37: The Last Bulwarks Protecting the Merit-Based Civil Service
Recent Comments
Yes, my opinion of C. Gibson is even lower.
No kidding. I despise him more than I do Sawyer. I just cannot stand him. His quip about “2 professors make $200K” showed his ignorance.
Oh, Happy New Year to you! I’m always glad when I see you post here!
Is it me or did Gibson interject more in the Democratic debate. It seems he let the GOP candidates spout their lies, but called on the Democratic candidates to “clarify” a lot.
Fuck Gibson.
Edwards won the debate. And lost the nomination because of the intangibles. Can anyone tell me what they are and why this closest to Kusinich Democrat is losing his shirt?
Hillary went negative and lost big. Does Bill have poor judgment or does he have poor judgment? And I don’t care if he does NYT crossword puzzles. The era of BIG CLINTON is over. The pact with Hillary will only lead to divorce, after the primaries and the big loss. So too bad for Obama as well. The country is still too racist to elect a Black president. Does that mean that Obama should run on his white genes?
Who knows. All I know is that Obama is presently the best Democratic candidate, and even if he loses, he will have helped the party. How? By reminding us of our fucking hypocracy.
Bill ran on “change” so Hillary lost it. Everything is changing eh?
Obama’s going to win NH.
God, I hope so.
I missed all but the end. You think he won Mary?
I think he won mostly because everyone else lost. Especially Clinton. Unlike many people at this site I don’t hate Clinton although I’m not supporting her. I like Edwards the best. But I’ve always thought Clinton did very well in debates. Not tonight.
But it looked to me like Edwards has given up and his only purpose tonight was to be a spoiler for Clinton. His vehemence and his attacks on Clinton allowed Obama to look the most presidential.
And Richardson was’nt even in the game.
That’s how I saw it.
I don’t hate her either. during the 92 campaign my wife and I went to Chanbersburg Pa. to see the Clinton – Gore bus tour. She let me come over the restraining line and get my picture taken with her. Secret Service agent hanging over my shoulder everybody applauded. So its hard to hate someone that was that cool to me.
I like Edwards but sort of don’t trust him. I’m going with Obama glad you thought he did well. I think all these guys are dodging the fact the country is going broke.
I don’t hate her…like I’ve never understood how the people at DK would get completely unhinged about her even when she did what was good.
BUT…
Man, these last 6 weeks of the campaign, I’ve come to despise her tactics. Yes, I understand how the Clinton campaign machine works and I don’t mind it…it’s politics, but her surrogates racist comments towards Obama have completely turned me off of her. A few weeks ago, I blogged that if she was the nominee, I’d still vote for her. Now, if she’s the nominee I’d withhold my vote like I whenever Feinstein’s on the ballot.
Hopefully she’ll fade and we won’t have to make that choice.
Good reflections, Mary. That is also as I saw it. At this point in the game, Edwards, who I have come to respect immensely because I think he is really in it to help ordinary people and the poor, is probably the best candidate, given that Kusinich is folding. Interestingly he supported Obama. Hillary foolishly went negative. Obama didn’t buy in. He looked fatigued, as did the others (Stephanopoulos’ observation), but he looked presidential, describing the peoples’ frustration to a tee.
Obama wins NH by 8 points.
… really supported Senator Obama. In part, he was attacking Senator Clinton for going negative … and the only way to do that and sound positive is to rise to someone’s defense. Richardson did the same in a number of previous debate, but was not good enough delivering on his feet to both pull it off and generate any benefit from it.
And in part he was working within the confined strategic space that he finds himself in. Senator Clinton is vulnerable, far more so than Senator Obama, and Edwards only gets a substantial crack at free media if he can put another knock on Senator Clinton.
That is, Obama-Edwards-Clinton, and Edwards has beaten Clinton twice and, given her long “I’m in it to win” framing, she is in a world of hurt.
Clinton-Edwards-Obama, and Obama has won one, Clinton has won one, and Edwards is an also-ran.
This was the second act of how he came out firing on caucus night, when he claimed a 67% victory for change and a personal silver medal victory over Senator Clinton.
Any voter he shakes loose from Senator Clinton, or that he helps persuade not to return to Senator Clinton, is a win for him. Any voter he shakes loose and pulls into his camp is a double win, but a NH voter that switches from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama is still a partial victory.
And, of course, running against Senator Clinton as the agent of the status quo goes right down the middle of the framing, messaging, and policy platform that he long ago adopted for his campaign, which is one reason why he could throw himself right into it right on caucus night.
Me too. I was out with my 9 year old.
Sounds like we missed a bunch of tired candidates.
Yep.
since this is the first one l watched, my impression is sans any historic context; but l think [s]hillary did extremely poorly…perhaps fatally so as far as recovering from iowa…she does’t handle being the underdog very well…ugly, ugly, ugly, in all respects..this could well be her swan song, as far as viablity.
interesting that obama and edwards didn’t lock horns…l expected much more of an attack strategy from both of them towards one another.
aside from the moderator, l really liked the format.
lTMF’sA
If she’s crowned the frontrunner, he knows he doesn’t have a chance. All the pundits will just say “game over.”
Of course, if Obama’s the frontrunner, I don’t know that he has a chance, either. But maybe he does? I dunno.
Personally, I’d love to see her come in 3rd. Or 4th. I’d like to see the March of the Clinton Restoration stopped in its tracks, thankyaverymuch. 🙂
l’m no fan of hillary, but the dynamic, or lack of, of her presentation tonight was rather obvious.
l think edwards, who l support, does better with clinton marginalized. l wouldn’t mind seeing an edwards v. obama contest for the balance of the primary season, tho l think it unlikely that clinton will go quietly into the night.
lTMF’sA
… to be finished, then a lot of her investment in her front-runner status through 2007 goes up in smoke. And a lot of the calculations about how Super Tuesday would go also go up in smoke … it seems highly likely that Senator Obama’s camp has not yet put a lot of attention into the strategic terrain on Super Tuesday if Senator Obama is the front-runner and John Edwards the challenger, with Senator Clinton playing a spoiler role.
ARG, which was consistently the most Clinton-biased poll in Iowa, but of course is based in NH and has a much stronger reputation there, has it Obama-Clinton-Edwards, 38-26-20. That would suggest that minor party candidates, undecideds, and Clinton-bandwagon-jumpers have broken to both Obama and Edwards. OTOH, other polls have Clinton and Obama neck and neck and Edwards, at just under 20, lagging far behind.
I suspect there’s an understanding between Edwards and Obama. It appears rooted in Hillary’s attempt to co-opt she’s the agent of change as she did Fired Up! Ready to go!
She sported a tired, unhappy, image. Post Iowa very negative press – supporters and foes alike speculating on how does she retool, tension inside her camp, donors in panic. She’s pissed at Penn.
How sweet it is.
I’m rooting she comes in a distant 3rd in N.H. put an end to Bush-Clintonism. Not likely.
Really she is definitely not change. We have known her intimately for 16 years.
Definitely.
Hillary is the DLC candidate, which means theme and variations on “changing welfare as we know it” and announcing again that “the era of big government is over.” They say that this position from a Democrat is Republcan Lite, but I’m convinced that this is a just another Republican position, and at this stage, it is no longer needed.
Definitely.
Hillary is the DLC candidate, which means theme and variations on “changing welfare as we know it” and announcing again that “the era of big government is over.” They say that this position from a Democrat is Republican Lite, but I’m convinced that this is a just another Republican position, and at this stage, it is no longer needed.
Definitely.
Hillary is the DLC candidate, which means theme and variations on “changing welfare as we know it” and announcing again that “the era of big government is over.” They say that this position from a Democrat is Republican Lite, but I’m convinced that this is a just another Republican position, and at this stage, it is no longer needed.
Yeah Reagan’s successes made the Dems pretty much sell out. A winning is everything mentality. I want the Great Society back.
I liked the free flowing style of both debates, the lack of time limits, having them sit down.
I think there’s a 99% chance Obama wins NH. Hillary had to gain on him, and all she did was lose her cool at one point.
Regarding the whole Change meme, I think it will ultimately help Obama the most. Edwards is very sharp, but he will still be the guy that was Kerry’s running mate last go-around. I like them both, and couldn’t help but smile to see them both go after statusquo Hillary.
If the country is looking for a fresh face, Obama is the one. The average person wants “change” when he senses something is seriously wrong but doesn’t want to pay attention or is too busy with job and family.
agreed. i just worry that too many people will take a cursory look at the positions during the general and elect another Neanderthal.
Ditto the country cannot take four more years of insanity.
It seems the debates were delayed for me here in Nevada. I’m still watching the Republicans debate. Looking forward to the Democrats starting. I’ve read all the comments here and I think a theory I have is coming true.
It seems that Obama and Edwards have a truce going where Edwards will be Obama’s attack dog for a while and ride this out until Hillary is through. Perhaps he is looking to run for Vice President again, with Obama.
Last night Edwards did not attend the “must attend” NH Democratic Party’s “100 Club Dinner.” He did not speak, but sent his wife. Hillary got a leukwarm reception and was actually booed by some. Obama was the star of the evening, even had a new speech.
Also, yesterday on Olbermann’s show, Edwards allied with Obama as the “change candidates” and called Hillary the “Establishment Candidate” which was rejected in Iowa.
I see a truce as I mentioned upthread. A cabinet post as Attorney General, a Spitzer.
Someone suggested Edwards for Secretary of Labor. My initial thought was, “That’s good.”, but when I thought about it, I realized that I really have no idea with the SoL does. HA!
.
So he moulded Hillary as DLC poster girl … enough said.
(NYT) July 29, 2003 – Mark J. Penn, a Democratic pollster who worked for Mr. Clinton and is now advising Senator Lieberman, offered polling data to show that Mr. Bush was vulnerable but that the Democratic Party was also in a politically perilous position. ”We’re at a postwar historic low of Democratic Party membership.”
Mr. Penn said that the Democratic Party now trailed the Republicans among people who earn more than $20,000, and that just 22 percent of white men called themselves Democrats. ”Among middle-class voters, the Democratic Party is a shadow of its former self,” Mr. Penn said.
The perception, he said, is that Democrats ”stand for big government, want to raise taxes too high, are too liberal and are beholden to special interest groups.”
Most important, Mr. Penn said, the party has to prove itself credible on the issue of national security — something that many Democrats attending the conference here said would be impossible to do if the party were perceived as opposed to the war on Iraq.
● ARG poll: Obama takes double digit lead over HRC in NH.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."