First, the candidate’s mics didn’t seem to have been well calibrated. There was an echo that at times was distracting and interfered with the candidate’s ability to modulate their voices. Seem not to have been as bad in the second half.
Cooper was reasonable. Could have done better at time management. Some of the questions from others in the second half were weak or superficial but not horrible.
Superficial observations(because like it or not, it is a factor):
Webb — whining about the amount of time he was permitted didn’t serve him well at all. He should have been gracious about being invited to share the stage and not consigned to a kiddie debate stage where he wouldn’t have been seen or heard at all.
Chafee — he wasn’t blessed with a conventionally attractive face. However, his hair style did him no favors.
O’Malley — he got the conventionally attractive face.
Sanders — couldn’t someone have told him to smile more and lighten up just a bit?
Clinton — very expensive professional make-up. Shaved twenty years off her actual appearance.
Preparation:
Sanders does have a day job along with a heavy campaign appearance schedule collecting $30 donations. Still, in the big leagues, debate preparation is vital.
Webb and Chafee also appeared to skip that step. Or availed themselves of amateur debate coaches.
O’Malley was well prepared and coached.
Clinton was prepared and coached by the best. It’s an act but the public can’t see that.
Content:
All of them had a least one decent answer or part of an answer.
Webb isn’t quite a Republican but he’s far outside of Democratic positions mostly to the right. Still in line on corporate control of the government.
Chafee was the best informed on Syria and the ME. His answer on Snowden was too realistic (even if I personally liked it the best). He has long been strong on almost all the issues I care about, but he doesn’t articulate them all that well.
O’Malley was good on domestic issues but not on FP. A bit too much focus on “I did X” and “I did Y” for my taste.
Sanders as expected, went to his money issues. Mediocre on FP. But better than O’Malley on Syria and Snowden (in line with what Snowden himself as requested).
Clinton sounded good through the first half (that’s where her preparation served her well) but some of that isn’t going to hold up to fact checking. Dredging up the “Children’s Defense Fund” when she threw the Edelman’s under the bus seems not to bother anyone but me. Copenhagen COP was successful?
She fell apart on financial regulation — her “I met with Wall Street and told them to cut it out” was at a Carson level of saying “come on guys let’s rush the guy with the gun, he can’t shoot all of us.” Marijuana (she’s evolving, very slowly) should I trust anyone over the age of twenty-one and under the age of eighty that has never inhaled? Snowden, Syria, Iran lame.
Also found it irritating that again and again Clinton violated the time rules and ignored multiple “time” messages from Cooper for a single answer.
None of them had a good answer on guns. Unless I missed it, all failed to point out that the guns used in almost of the shootings that make national news were legally purchased. The audience loved Clinton’s answer, but they’re dreaming if they think she’ll accomplish anything significant on this issue.
Clinton wins the style points and O’Malley comes in second. As for content, Webb was the loser. Each of the others had a weak or poor moment. Chafee didn’t get much time, but he made good use of a few that he had. Sanders and O’Malley were closer to being on the same page than Clinton. Wouldn’t be a bad ticket, with Sanders on top because he really is stronger on all the issue they have in common.
A fact check on Clinton:
This is more significant than O’Malley getting a few dollars from the NRA.
Eric Holhaus at Slate fact checks Clinton on the environment: Hillary Clinton Is Living in a Climate Change Fantasy World
…About midway through the debate, Clinton staked her climate record on what’s widely perceived to have been one of the biggest diplomatic failures in recent history—the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009. After years of anticipation, the meeting of world leaders ended in disarray, with Obama and his aides famously wandering around the convention center, looking for the leaders of China, India, Brazil, and other key nations. The toothless deal struck at the last minute was called a “grudging accord” by the New York Times the next day. Yes, Obama—and Clinton, then his secretary of state—were instrumental to that deal, but it’s hardly something Hillary should be proud of.
…
I want to add a couple of things about TV (video) speech and debate coaching and preparation. Public speaking terrifies most people and most of us aren’t any good at it. Partly because we lack natural talent and mostly manage to avoid it. The skill sets for public speaking and debates differ in several ways from those on video. Sort of like the differences between stage acting and TV acting. The former requires large in voice, gestures, and body language and TV rewards the small and economic.
Those that are good to excellent and experienced public speakers, such as Bernie Sanders, generally do okay in TV debates. Particularly if their public speaking style communicates authenticity which is the gold standard for politicians in all forums. However, it hardly never plays as well in a TV debate format as it does on a stage. One important reason is the camera is an intermediary.
Video cameras do love and hate different people (and love/hate for still cameras differ from video cameras). I’m going to guess, and could be wrong, that in-person Chafee doesn’t look as strange as he does on camera. And TV make-up professionals know how to boost a camera’s love quotient for an individual.
A serious consideration for team Sanders is if he should go through TV presentation training/coaching. It’s not without risk because a little bit of it can make an individual more self-conscious and awkward and that can take a lot of time and work to extinguish and once accomplished may not have improved the individual’s TV presentation style from where it was originally. The other risk is that such training can diminish the person’s authenticity quotient. Slick instead of ragged and authentic isn’t a good trade-off.
Not many politicians that need work in this area begin the process nearly soon enough. It takes time to modify one’s facial expressions, gestures, and body language to the point of appearing natural and fluid. To do so in the midst of a campaign is probably ill advised. And yet I’m inclined to think that Sanders could benefit from a few tweaks over the next month.
Bernie had to do the debate because it gives a side-by-side comparison of stature with the other candidates, and particularly Hillary Clinton. But Sanders needs to avoid converting to a media marketing campaign purely for the ability to use his funds more effectively in getting voters to the polls through other methods. What those methods are is a matter of invention if Sanders is a transformative candidate.
Media mass marketing has become an addiction in politics that has enriched the very media that comment on the campaign; the amount of false commentary on Democratic candidates has grown over the past two decades to the point that starving the media is as practical strategy as the GOP’s attempts to starve public unions and Planned Parenthood.
The real-time responses to Bernie Sanders seemed overwhelmingly positive, but they could have been loaded with Bernie campaign ringers. Sanders works best directly with voters. Expanding that experience and the personal network effects of it are more important than media appearance and changing just for a campaign raises suspicions that undercut the campaign.
Clinton is very much a media marketing campaign that has to remind folks why exactly there was enthusiasm in November 1992. And why the dual Presidency idea appealed to so many before it got demonized. For some, it had to do with the women’s movement finally transforming the role of the First Lady — but the then it was back to baking cookies. The second media role that Clinton has to fill is that of commander-in-chief. That is a dicey tightrope for a Democrat after a decade and a half of continuous war. She really has to come off as Eleanor Roosevelt and Maggie Thatcher at the same time.
O’Malley was drafting on Sanders’s positions but has a huge difficulty on discussing #blacklivesmatter because it was his zero-tolerance policies that set up the Baltimore Police Force with the practices that resulting in upping the number of abuses. His liberal image as governor of Maryland is offset by his hardnose attitude on law enforcement. No amount of personal style engineering can get him around those issues should they come up. And candor could undercut him from multiple directions. He would be much better off in an election year that was not so historically critical.
Chafee is having problems adapting to running for Democratic votes. Adopting a position of candor makes sense only if the audience has the context to understand the situation. “I didn’t know what I was voting for.” demanded an explanation of what Phil Gramm did to the bill between its passage and the President’s signature. Language no one voted for was mysteriously inserted into the bill.
Webb’s candidacy is a test of whether there is a constituency left for old-time Southern politicians who are tough on defense and moderately racist. Webb will have to develop his own geographic base on that one. He’s another one for whom media is a bit irrelevant. Webb should have gone full Trump instead of his mild whining. First to see if there is the possibility of a grumpy old man attracting the saner of the GOP crazies, just to lower the GOP vote. Second to see how Democrats would handle a Trump-like character.
Having all five on the stage showed more diversity of ideology than the GOP by far. Figuring out where the unity is in that big tent is the Democrats’ problem. And figuring out where they can be geographically effective with that collection of candidates.
Politically, Webb reminds me of Ike but with a greater love of war and a thinner executive experience resume. Pockets of America may long for a return to their fantasy of the 1950s. Not remembering that it wasn’t great nor acknowledging that they too are different from who they and/or their parents and grandparents were back then.
Chafee was so under-prepared that he missed several opportunity to make good points. He’s a good guy and someone I think should be in government, but electoral politics isn’t his forte. I suspect that he has a rational reason for being in the race, but beats me what that is.
Timing in politics can be as important as whatever a candidate has to offer. O’Malley made a few calculations. Ended up rejecting the option to hold off and wait for Mikulski to retire. Went with the POTUS option with a fallback of being Clinton’s VP nominee which he had positioned himself for. And for all we know they have made such an agreement and his attacks on her in the debate were nothing but rounding out the ticket for her GE campaign. A cynical take perhaps, but her team has been more in GE mode and not expecting any challenge for the nomination.
In 1992 I didn’t take that “dual Presidency idea,” along with “eight years for Bill; then eight years for Hill” seriously. It should have horrified liberals and Democrats. Her run for that NY Senate seat did horrify and disgust me. Not demonized enough IMO. While I didn’t like the outcome of the 2000 election, I was glad to see Clinton go — not that he had this class to recognize that his time on the national stage was up.
Not sure what you mean by Sanders needs to avoid a “media marketing campaign.” No candidate has the time or money to build a national retail campaign operation in thirty-five or more states. Edwards started the day after the 2004 election and didn’t get much further than Iowa and SC, and neither were all that robust. Team Sanders has publicly stated that they’re building all the ground forces they can afford to take him through SuperTuesday. However, regardless of how well they do on that, they can’t pass on ad buys. We’ve already seen that Clinton’s large Iowa and NH ad buys have made a difference for her in those two states. With luck they will be less effective between now and the next debate and Sanders will get a boost from the first debate.
Here’s the contradiction that progressives and Democrats face. Conducting a media marketing campaign finances their opponents.
I was not looking at the practicality of alternatives; the imperative on progressive candidates is to find an alternative that is practical. I’m looking at that fact that without owning our own major media outlets with sufficient audience, policy never gets an honest hearing, and progressive candidates are subject to the sort of bullshit that Anderson Cooper pulled to delegitimize them as “real Americans”. Pouring millions into media marketing is a suckers’ game.
The persistence of the Planned Parenthood lies are a case in point. It could as well be a candidate being lied about.
Candidates have to have enough retail politics in which people can guage them in unscripted settings and make personal judgements to have the grapevine offset the media lies. Otherwise the media dominates and you have the Kenyan muslim socialist being the “reality” that almost half the white people in the country believe.
Until there is a change in how people get information about issues and candidates, we in the US are screwed.
In the history of this country, progressives have found alternatives to the status quo and elite stranglehold on political communications time and time again. And in short, narrow time frames it was practical and effective. But “the beast” quickly enough finds ways to roar back.
One example is that churches were once bastions of populism. Never quite a majority at the national level, but populists did enjoy some power at the local and state level. Then came national income taxes. So, “naturally,” churches had to cut out all that politically talk — either overtly or in obvious code talk — or be subject to income taxes and that would also trip the local authorities to withdraw the property tax exemptions as well. Progressives/populists couldn’t denounce that without disrespecting separation of church and state. Alternatives had also emerged by then. Progressive, suffrage, and union movements. They could avail themselves of tech/economic changes that had made print easier and cheaper to produce. The time frame on that era was extended by New Deal legislation on media ownership rules and unionization protection. Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 cut into the latter, but the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 struck back in the communication arena.
Since then the rightwing has destroyed most of the rules that allowed for more democratic communication and didn’t even bother to change the rule wrt churches, they simply invaded and occupy them, converting that space from non-political to conservative power houses (and bought off some AA churches as well).
By the late 1960s the progressive left had megaphones and mimeograph machines. No wonder we lost. And lost badly. As puny as we were, decency and fairness always has a chance of wiggling through — so, Cointelpro (an updated version of pre-existing various forms of commie witch-hunters that began decades earlier to put breaks on democratic efforts) took care of some of that.
The economic, social, and cultural changes over the past sixty odd years have also favored a “conservative” (in reality a corporate and elite) mindset — well primed for talk-con radio and faux news. The only potential breakthrough has been the internet. (Does make it more obvious why Gore had to be demonized.) Once again, the corporations moved in to claim this space and have been working diligently to rid us of that pesky net neutrality rule.
The old model of “from the ground up” — take over the school boards and then the local governments — doesn’t work so well either. Local school boards have been disempowered by their dependency on state and federal monies and the rules that come attached. Same with local governments — and buying off those guys is easier than ever: Former Chicago Public Schools chief to plead guilty to bribery scheme
She accomplished this in less than three years. As if the Chicago Schools don’t have enough other problems. (Was she an able an honest administrator before she got to Chicago?) A reason to be harsher in judging corrupt Democrats that have held themselves out as being liberals or progressives is that its more difficult to get them into office in the first place and the forces that make it difficult gain more power when such corruption is exposed. (Individual corrupt Republicans are expendable because they are easily replaced.)
Today there’s not enough glue available for an effective “bubble-up” political movement to succeed. They can’t do more then be short bursts of demonstrations and are easily demonized. Nor can a single individual command enough attention to effectively mount an exclusively trickle down operation. Synergy between the two can increase the power of both, but not enough to win if other forms of communication are shunned. Sanders is far from the ideal person to lead the effort — due mostly to his age — but there isn’t anyone else currently available and at least he’s authentic and has rejected corporate monies to enhance his electability (unlike Obama — and we’ve seen how well that turned out). Win or lose in 2016, progressives will have to heed all the lessons this latest effort has to offer instead of giving up because it’s too hard — it’s difficult by design and not going to get any easier and no reason to believe that it will get easier or alternative, easier modes of succeeding exist or can be constructed.
Yes, I agree. At this moment we are totally screwed politically.
The media analysis nonetheless is still true; it doesn’t make sense to give your enemies almost a billion dollars.
“The enemies” don’t care who they get if from, friend or foe, as long as the get the moolah and as much of it as possible. Trump 24/7 has opened Jeb’s pocketbook sooner and with more money than originally planned.
On a positive note, Clinton’s coffers have also been opened wider and sooner than planned — and that in spite of the media non-attention given to Sanders.
I’ll admit not watching it. Watching the commentary. Went as I assume it would. Its going to be HRC and Bernie and this was just the 1st round. His comment about email was equal or trumps her comments about guns against Bernie.
I think Sanders came out on top as he will gain the most from his performance. He didn’t walk out in a field jacket with a beard and a bowling ball bomb. He pointed out the facts known to every American not with a trust fund or working in a DC think tank. Hillary’s point is that she is the one who can get any reforms done. Is she? I’m not convinced due to previous performance but whoever the Dem candidate is, they will have to have BIG coat tails to carry at least one house of Congress and be popular enough to overcome gerrymandering.
That is why I supported Obama. He could win by enough margins to overcome the vote count rigging in Ohio and other states. And he could carry enough members to Congress with him.
So while we like to vote personalities, we really have to think about getting things done past the margins.
R
Recommend watching it. The commentaries blunt too much of what took place and edit out moments or impressions that linger.
You’ve raised so many points that I don’t know where to begin.
wrt coattails in 2008, that was already baked in with the 2006 election. I couldn’t project during the primary process that Democratic enthusiasm as of election day would be higher with Obama as the nominee instead of Clinton which is what was required for realizing the Congressional wave. Never doubted for a moment that either one would win if nominated. (Unlike 2004 when I never thought Kerry could win by a large enough margin in Ohio to overcome the foreseeable vote rigging there.)
As for 2016, it’s difficult for me to project a DEM Congressional wave. Yes, the GOP Congress is horrid and their POTUS candidates are horrible. However, the Democratic Party is poorly positioned in the down ticket races because of it’s under management by the DWS types. Obama won re-election cleanly in 2012, but Congressional Democrats merely held onto what they had. On either side of that election was 2010 and 2014 and that’s where the DSCC, DCCC, DNC, and like minded state parties demonstrated the quality of candidate selection and election campaigns, and frankly they aren’t good at that and haven’t seen any evidence that it will improve in 2016.
I can see a Clinton GE win, but at best no better than Obama’s 2012 win. My head tells me that Sanders may be a somewhat higher risk, and loses the GE. My gut says that his floor is near what Clinton will deliver but his ceiling is much higher. The question for me is if elected in 2016, which one would be more likely to advance DEM Congressional prospects in 2018. That’s a good reason to go with Sanders.
>I can see a Clinton GE win, but at best no better than Obama’s 2012 win. My head tells me that Sanders may be a somewhat higher risk, and loses the GE. My gut says that his floor is near what Clinton will deliver but his ceiling is much higher. The question for me is if elected in 2016, which one would be more likely to advance DEM Congressional prospects in 2018. That’s a good reason to go with Sanders.<
This is the way I see it. HRC is the past. Because of baggage, any enthusiasm generated as a possible woman President could be off set by many rural/ conservative women’s cultural antipathy to her positions. To me its a wash and I really think she could lose to a 1/2 way sane GOP nominee (if one rises to the top). Add to it her reluctance for economic reform and her big corporate/Wall Street donors and the message is even more blunted.
Bernie is a risk but he has shown an ability (for now) to generate the enthusiasm necessary to carry more into Congress. I don’t see it with HRC (for now).
Personally, I think waiting until the convention to name a VP is crazy. Pick one now, start naming a “shadow govt” of Secretaries and put them all throughout the country. Double, triple the appearances. Start acting like a winner and put the opponents on the defensive. Start writing legislation now and run a slate of candidates on that legislation. That way, there can be no question as to what will happen after Jan. 2016.
R
Whether serendipitous or by designed political strategy, Sanders is going where Clinton can’t. Working class white people whether antipathetic, alienated, or GOP voters. Clinton might be able to pick up some women in each of those groups, but that will be more by default than design. Her target voter base in the primary is what it was eight years ago plus POC. In the GE, the enthusiasm for her candidacy will come from women. But, except for the AA voters at this time, half the Democratic base is rejecting having the establishment candidate choice shoved down their throats. The GOP base is balking more, but they are also more likely to show up and vote for the GOP turkey come election day than the potential liberal voters. And those GOP numbers may be bolstered by middle and working class men that viscerally dislike candidate Clinton.
btw — your question:
Hillary’s point is that she is the one who can get any reforms done. Is she?
History is usually a good guide to such questions. Therefore, the answer is no. Unless you meant getting more reforms favorable to Wall St. and the MIC, then probably yes.
Bill Curry at Salon weighs in This is still Bernie Sanders’ moment: He’s right on the big issues, now he must communicate it. He does define some of where I thought Sanders fell down in the debate.
Disagree with his dismissal of the other three candidates, but will save that for later.
On socialism as articulated by Sanders, I agree with Curry. And Bill Maher is similarly concerned about this aspect of Sanders’ campaign. It’s all well and good to point to areas in the lives of ordinary people that could be made much better by specific public programs. However, simply saying that it’s what some European countries do and it can be affordable fails to knit them together as all of one piece and within the whole of what has been successfully done in the past.
What Curry underestimates is the difficulty for Sanders in challenging Clinton when she lies, dissembles, etc. She’s extremely well prepared for such challenges and especially so if she can make the challenger appear to be a bully or unfair to her. She knows how to play that card well. In addition to that, Sanders is an authentically decent and nice man and that’s one reason why he’s attractive to many people. That reputation worked in his favor in the debate when he quite passionately and spontaneously said, “Enough with the e-mails.” Did he go there to spare Clinton unfair attacks on this issue? Would be consistent with his personality. Or in that moment when Cooper began to ask a question about e-mails, did he see the debate devolving into more time for Clinton and as she was well-prepared, she would have scored more points for herself in the process?
What we do know is that he demonstrated a healthy impulse in the here and now. Win-win. One that Clinton doesn’t display — letting her opponents twist uncomfortably in the wind is more than fine with her. And she’s not above sticking a knife in whenever convenient.
Sanders is capable of engaging in a win-lose debate contest, but not if it requires a cheap shot from him. Practice, practice, practice because the opponent has been and continues to do that a lot.
William Rivers Pitt penned a worthy critique of the debate – CNN, the Democratic Candidates and a Condensation of Farce
I watched it live and didn’t use notes or review any clips before writing my impressions. Thus, while I had a sense that Clinton was given several passes and softballs that fed into what she would have prepped for, I couldn’t recall examples of that. (Should add that while she was given more time to speak during the event, it was only a couple minutes more than Sanders. The others were shortchanged, and while a case could be made that they hadn’t earned more time with their campaigns, once on that debate stage, it was probably more appropriate for all of them to be given somewhat close to the same amount of time. Not an easy task because some of them answered some questions succinctly and Clinton went on and on for several.
Agree on this one that Pitt highlights:
Chafee did nail her on that one (one of the reasons I appreciated his participation). Her response IMO was as cringe-inducing as her comment about telling Wall St. guys to “cut it out.”