I had the honor of attending the memorial service for a wonderful woman and the mother of two dear friends tonight. It was obviously a sad gathering of mourners, but it was done with the right balance of seriousness, reflection, celebration, and even fun. To me, if you can honestly say you had a good time at a memorial service, then it’s been done well.
I didn’t get a chance to watch the Democratic debate, and I don’t regret that in the slightest. I have had a chance to watch some of the post-debate spin on cable news and also to read a little of the live-blogging that was done.
It seems as if Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee didn’t do much for their respective causes. Martin O’Malley is getting good reviews accompanied by assurances that it won’t make the slightest difference.
Most of the coverage is focused on Clinton and Sanders who both are getting positive feedback. Supposedly, the questions are whether Sanders did anything to expand his base of support and whether Clinton did enough to quench the thirst for a Joe Biden candidacy.
It’s your predictable shallow response that ignores the substance of what the candidates actually said.
But I’ve learned from hard experience that these debates are won after the fact by how the media portrays them. So, these post-debate narratives are probably more important than the actual debates.
This is especially true when the debates are cleverly scheduled to conflict with Major League playoff baseball.
So, I get it. There was a debate. Bernie said that the email scandal is bullshit and enough already.
He gets points for graciousness and honesty and Hillary gets points for getting let off the hook. Call it a tie, and let’s start handicapping the next debate!
Of the parts I saw, Hillary was the strongest. Especially going womano a mano vs Bernie on gun control. Bernie did help himself with the entire party by denouncing the email nonsense as irrelevant. The other three on the stage were irrelevant too.
Solid victory by Hillary, might even give her a slight bump in the polls.
Solid performance overall by Bernie. And I’m not sure he did enough to expand his base to minorities. Also a potential gaffe downside for him in invoking tiny Denmark as a positive example for the giant US for social programs, an opening H exploited.
I know I’m on rather firm ground on my above conclusions for two reasons: 1) the often-wrong Chris Matthews pronounced Bernie the winner tonight, and 2) the heavily pro-Bernie Dkos poll has Hillary as the winner.
Matthews occasionally gets it right. (He didn’t support the Iraq War.) However, on this one, wouldn’t put much weight on his conclusion because too often he can’t clear away his misogynistic impulses.
I gave it to Clinton on style and preparation (which the MSM rewards heavily) and Sanders on content. O’Malley had some good moments and Chafee was the best informed and sanest on FP with Sanders coming in second on that.
Matthews was caught on camera many years ago, during a break in an interview with Tom Delay, offering to give Delay all kinds of anti-Hillary info. He’s part of the hate-Clintons Washington punditry.
He sure was, rather overtly, back during the Bush years. I also recall the sickening sight of him at some event where H spoke last decade, coming up to her post-event for a brief interview — and pinching her condescendingly in the cheek like she was a child.
That was back when he was good buds with his boss at Msnbc (the conservative Repub GE CEO with the whiny high-pitched voice, Jack Welch) and it would have been to his career advantage to go after the Clintons (and drool over Junior in his flight suit …).
Matthews was one piece of work back then. He’s cooled it since, when Welch left and the cable network went to Lean Forward mode.
I am reading in some places that Clinton was too visibly answering her version of the questions, iow, non-answer pablum. With high polish, however.
I was not able to watch it.
Surprised that so many are able to differentiate the “high polish” from the low content. After the debate when I mentally reviewed highs and lows for each of the candidates in my summary overview, I couldn’t recall anything she’d said that I would label a high.
Thanks.
Castle: So, what do you say to a little showdown? Head to head, toe to toe, winner take all, mano a mujer.
Beckett: “Hand to woman”?
Castle: Whatever it takes.
Matthews declared Hillary the winner in less than ten seconds I believe. Not terribly surprising there. Sanders did not do well on foreign policy and I doubt he made any headway for the AA vote. He made a few stabs but not enough. So Hillary did what she had to do and I agree she seemed to be the “winner”.
Someone said (maybe Matthews) that Sanders could never get his programs financed. There is some truth to that, much as it troubles me. Still Sanders got his message out. Now we will wait and see if it makes any difference at all.
Maybe, but later he was saying how he seemed to be the outlier in calling the debate for Bernie, and predicted he would go up 3 points in the polls.
I noticed Bernie agreed to be interviewed by Matthews post-debate. Didn’t see Hillary come by though.
Chris also managed to snag the always difficult interview, one Wayne Newton of Las Vegas (yes, apparently he is still alive, still performing, though he looked rather wax-like).
Sanders may have been hurt appealing to AAs over the gun control issue, something which probably resonates with them more than talk about Wall St and the 1%.
I didn’t see it but someone said that Bernie came out as a draft dodger. Did anyone else hear that? I would really love to avoid the Bill Clinton nonsense on the Vietnam issue if possible.
I watched with a liberal, Brooklyn Jewish co-worker (who almost sounds like Bernie when he gets pissed lol) — the guy supporting Sanders who has given points to Ron Paul in the past — and a few libertarians and Republicans. It was ridiculous how simple minded these people are (the Republican guys). Like, there is literally no other way to describe it. I felt like I was arguing with a child when gun control came up. They couldn’t even formulate an argument for me to argue with. It was just a bunch of buzz words thrown in with “studies!”
As far as the debate itself, Sanders got points from the RWNJ’s in attendance just by virtue of who he is and how he kept rifling through the bullshit. However, if I had to say who “won”, I’d give it to Clinton. Webb and Chafee, why are they still there? Webb clearly belongs on stage right next to John Kasich. And Chafee’s answer on financial deregulation was beyond amateurish, like what the hell, man.
Hopefully Sanders wins some points and we can move on from Biden speculation because what does he even add to this?
Also, to any reasonable person, being a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War should win huge points. of course, the people in attendance at my watch party (the GOP’ers) had to get up and walk away before they had a stroke arguing that point with me. But one of them is a sniper for the USMC, so what do I really expect?
The question for them, “Your wallet or the glory of your time in service to the man’s war?”
Of course. Military people have to believe, for their self worth, that the world needs constant warfare.
Kind of similar to how petroleum engineers tend to disbelieve climate change.
Maybe Biden was the big loser. He has no room now. Hillary cut him off.
I’d say that Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley cut him off. Where Sanders and O’Malley were strong in comparison to Clinton, Biden is also weak. Sanders also shot down the e-mail questions as legitimate for the DEM POTUS debate.
Clinton took this one. Bernie said better things, but Hillary looked experienced and prepared in a way that he couldn’t. The men talked about what they would theoretically do, if given the chance. Hillary talked about what she actually did in the real world. I think they will both benefit, but Hillary has reinforced her lead.
All of them spoke about what they had done. On that measure, Clinton wasn’t at all at the top of the heap. (And at least two of her accomplishment claims don’t stand up to fact checks.)
Yeah, I actually burst out laughing at her claim that as a NY senator in 2007, regarding predatory practices, “I told them (Wall Street execs) to knock it off!” Even if it was somehow, implausibly, true, that’d just mean that they completely ignored her as posturing, irrelevant, and/or toothless.
I keep reading that Sanders did nothing to expand his base. I disagree (and I’m not a Sanders supporter – I’m agnostic so far). If the rise of Trump has taught us anything, it’s that people are responding to passion. Clinton occasionally flashed it (as in her answer on maternity leave). Sanders exuded it. Regardless of content, that will win him some fans that never seriously considered him before. It’s not just the political right that’s hungry for something other than business as usual.
I almost made a DXM crack here. Well I hope youre right but the thread about social v economic fairness probably does have a real problem. Not really sure how that changed.
Confess that I too laughed out loud at that statement by Clinton. Couldn’t have been any worse, funnier, or less believable than if she’d said she flung poo at them.
What I’m picking up so far is that the MSM pundits were blown away by Clinton’s slickness (and it was an exceedingly well prepared and rehearsed performance for TV), but that a large portion of the public saw through the slickness to the shallowness. That somehow authenticity was perceived in Sanders’ somewhat ragged presentation. Reminds me of the initial “Wow!” responses to The Butler that faded quickly after other people saw it. A shallow mess of a movie with one exception, Forest Whitaker’s fine performance. (There was potentially a great movie in the story — sad that that’s not the one that was made.)
yes slickness and shallowness – she never really answered the questions but whatever the question, segueed to a let’s rally against Republicans shtick, i.e. essentially arguing she’s the one who can win. Bernie answered the questions concisely and head on. I know that doesn’t count for much in “debates” but by contrast she appeared ignorant and shallow; hoping the audiences pick up on her shallowness and his sharpness. Other point, however, Hillary appeared tired, especially in the beginning, and her face had that puffiness derFarm mentioned some years back. Her response re: wall street was ridiculous, as noted. she was definitely reaching. and the focus group I saw briefly, despite extensive coaching by the moderator, didn’t buy what she was selling, just her womanness.
I didn’t think Bern answered quite so concisely and adequately on the gun control Qs — not his finest moment to keep repeating like a mantra “But I come from a rural state!” Doesn’t cut it with me, especially on the liability matter.
He also looked a bit haggard, like his wife has been underfeeding him. While he showed good energy at times, at other times he looked all of his 74 years. Hillary however looked the best I’ve seen her in years — easily 5-10 years younger than her actual age.
If we’re going to be honest and mature, “gun control” is pablum for DEM voters. Guns are simply too prevalent in the US and our society is too violent and too ready for quick solutions to personal problems. Once a DEM political candidate concedes that “we’re not going to take your guns away,” everything that follows is band-aids with limited sticking ability.
Sanders call for full access to mental health services for this in distress sounds good. But few people in a murderous rage or a mental state that leads them to construct a murderous plot with access to a gun are interested in seeking help to prevent them from acting. Something like half of US gun deaths are suicides and suicide prevention hotlines have existed for decades.
Take away the guns and gun deaths drop immediately. The culture changes more slowly but it does change. Maybe a century without guns would make the reappearance as non-problematical as guns are in a few industrialized countries with high gun ownership rates and low gun shootings.
Systematic, continuous, and massive anti-gun and anti-violence messaging throughout the country would have a positive impact.
Fair, I missed part of the debates, including that question.
Hell of a policy towards Wall Street, eh? Clinton tells them to “knock it off”. Great, we needed that.
Who knew the solution was so easy?
Do wonder if she said “knock it off” before or after she collected big campaign donations from the guys.
Sorry Gov, Satch really didn’t have a standout moment where he made a direct heartfelt appeal to the minority base that is in Hillary’s camp, the people he needs to overcome her lead.
Passion? Both H and Satch showed it frequently, H on gun control and family leave, Sanders on economic inequality. Both showed good energy and charisma. Walter O’Malley was vigorous on going after Sanders on gun control, but apart from that, and maybe a point on FP, he was a nonfactor.
‘We came, we saw, he died.’ Now, that’s what I call a real zinger. Right up there with her SoS predecessor’s remark about the worthwhileness of the deaths of upwards of 500,000 Iraqi babies and children caused by US led sanctions. No, I’m not mixing things up here. Remember Libya (not only Benghazi, before ‘he’ died}!
Said by her about her Libyan war adventure: “smart power at its best”. Go and figure what that means, considering the pitiful state of Libya today
Webb is the Democratic McCain, a grumpy hawk.
Except about 100% less well known, outside of his immediate family. How he registered enough to qualify for the debate is a mystery. He was a one-termer in the senate, and has been out of office, and not making any news, for a while now.
Lawrence Lessig should have been on stage if they allowed the barely-registering Jimmy Webb and Link Appleyard.
Cooper apparently used a Sister Cities program with Yaroslavl during the Soviet period to demonize Sanders’s taking his honeymoon there as a part of an official mayoral trip from Sister City Burlington VT.
Sanders on guns set off some liberal reactions.
Sanders on foreign policy set off some pacifist reactions.
Clinton reported as prepped. Sanders spontaneous.
The test of the mainstream media spin is how much it affects Sanders’s prospects or whether it can be made irrelevant. De-fanging the bullshit of the media is one of the major changes in political culture required to move forward. Can it be done within a campaign?
I thought Hillary and Bernie did pretty well, although I’m not sure how Bernie plays outside of his current supporters. O’Malley was fine. Webb was a downer and Chafee was a little goofy.
This might be the first time I’ve heard Bernie speak at length. I like him, though his voice reminds me of Larry David playing George Steinbrenner. “Everyone’s sick of hearing about your damn emails. Big Stein wants a calzone!”
Everyone seemed nervous at the start. They got better, but if you need an argument for more debates as preparation for the debates in the general election, this was it. I didn’t think any of them were all that compelling.
Clinton did well enough to possibly dampen the Biden boomlet, which may be the biggest result.