MyDD :: Post-Debate Thread

Post-Debate Thread

by Todd Beeton, Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:26:34 PM EST

So that was a fairly uneventful debate. Indeed, the MSNBC headlines use phrases such as "play nice" and "common ground." What do you think is the headline out of the debate?

Clinton was projecting tough, knowledgeable competence rather than trying to charm us and got some nice digs in at the Republicans along the way. She also made some, I think, effective appeals to hispanic voters. She also benefitted from being aggressive with the poorly enforced time constraints, which Edwards and Obama probably should have done more of.

Obama I thought shined during the second half of the debate, showing the charm he exudes on the stump that is often missing from his debate performances. He spoke particularly eloquently about how he would help minority communities as president and Clinton knew it, which is why she jumped in after he answered.

Edwards's strongest moment was when he was drawing distinctions on Iraq. Overall I think he did a good job of projecting himself as the candidate with the clearest views on issues, which can be refreshing when both Clinton and Obama start getting nuanced. Edwards was hurt, however, by twice having to say he regretted votes as Senator.

No clear winner here and I suspect we won't be talking about this debate being pivotal once the results come in on Saturday.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic debate (all tags)

Permalink :: 85 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I felt Edwards did fine but he really didn't have the breakout performance he needed. He was forced into drawing contrasts with Obama on specific issues rather than the overarching narrative of fighting vs. making nice that he was looking for.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I don't know. I bet a lot of people in nevada who are planning to caucus but haven't paid much attention to the campaign up to this point watched the debate tonight. I wonder what they'll take away from it...

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (2.00 / 1)

Can we all agree that it was great to see all the candidates throwing compliments instead of barbs??

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:30:04 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Yes we call all agree on that.

I particularly liked the beating up on the NBC crew.

by NCJim on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (1.00 / 1)

Trippi is so bitter. Get a life, Joe.

by ND1979 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:31:05 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I don't think bitter means what you think it does.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience

by DuvalDem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:32:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Agreed. Trippi is very disagreeable,angry, and vindictive.

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Chris Matthews' take was the most unbelievably shallow punditry I've ever seen. Hillary won because she called Bush "pathetic."

Whatever. I thought both Obama and Clinton did really well. Both had some weak moments (Clinton's were almost all in response to gotcha questions for which there was no great answer--latino reluctance to vote for AAs; using fear of terrorist attacks). Obama stuttered a little too much at times and took a few punches on the energy bill. I give them both an A-. Edwards was treated like a second-class candidate by the moderators, it seemed. His answers were most fine, though not great (except for the Musharaf one--he handled that very well). He gets a B, but he isn't necessarily to blame for the lower grade. Oh, one more thing about Edwards: his greatest weakness is that he cares too much?

by DPW on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Matthews' argument, as you might expect, is ultimately anti-Hillary: It's presumptuous for her to attack Bush and the Republicans because it means she's already acting like she's won the nomination.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

using fear of terrorist attacks

I was a bit surprised when Hillary explained that the attacks that took place in Brittan just after Gordon Brown became PM were clearly the result of a high level decision of Al Qaida to "test" Brown. As proof of this she claimed that they had gotten special training abroad.

It seems a bit odd to me that if the operation really was the result of a strategic decision by the AQ leadership the guys who did it somehow did not have access to high explosives or the knowledge of how to use a cell phone to successfully trigger an explosion.

Is there really some sort of consciences in our intelligence about that attack? Hillary said that she did not think its timing was a "coincidence" and that it shows something about AQ's tactics. I suppose the idea is that bin Laden is saving up his big Sunday punch against the US until there is a new president.

It seems odd that a factor like that can just be injected into our national debate without more support. If those guys really were sent by AQ why were they so ill prepared? If that is really the best they can do, that sort of cuts against the idea that we should pick our next president based upon what AQ may do.

by Fred in Vermont on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AQ terrorist threat (none / 0)

I am a big believer that this issue over overblown HOWEVER here is an interesting tidbit I found this morning.

'First, what Clinton said is absolutely true, but not in the way Clinton framed it. It's not just a "new prime minister." It's any newly elected candidate in the era we face today. The same thing happened when Bill Clinton took over, which she witnessed as first lady. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened in February 1993 just after Bill Clinton took over from George H. W. Bush. The same thing happened to George W. Bush in 2001. I don't see this as a small point. The changing of parties and presidents (or prime ministers) is a very vulnerable time for any incoming leader. It's not the fact that he was inexperienced or "new" that got Britain hit. It's that our enemies thinking strategically can obviously figure out that's when a country is most vulnerable. In addition, I also believe that all of the Democratic candidates should be talking about this issue, though slightly different than Clinton framed it.'

Something I would add is when 'W' took over he basically ignored what the previous administration told him about terrorist threat and we got 9/11

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AQ terrorist threat (none / 0)

I think it's important to get this possibility into the heads of the American people, not to scare them, but simply because if it happens we know the Republicans will have no qualms about using it for partisan purposes.

When 9/11 happened you didn't see any kind of concerted effort by Democrats to blame it all on Bush. Instead what you saw was statesmanship and unity. But reverse the roles, and it's easy to imagine the Republicans screeching about how we had no attacks for all those years under Bush, and now President Obama (or whoever) has utterly failed to keep us safe and should resign, blah blah blah.

I hope it never happens but I don't think we do anybody any favors by sweeping it under the rug.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Obama lied about his sponsor/donors, and on energy -Exelon a nuclear power plant operator is large donor [$74,350].

voted against the bill that would cap credit card interest to 30%. Hillary voted against it.

Obama remains teflon on his background which as often been conservative, inspite of his evasions.

Donated $4200 to Joe Lieberman's run for senate against Lamont in Conn.

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

OMG...I just realized-- how many more of these are we going to have to suffer through if this thing goes all the way to the convention???

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

We don't have to watch them :P.

I thought the debate was refreshingly calm after some of the charged stuff that's been blowing around the past week or so. Really a big contrast between this one and the Republican debate a couple days ago.

by Korha on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

The first six or seven questions were completely idiotic. It was like the moderators decided, screw what the public needs to know, lets get them to answer the questions the journalists want answered.

by animated on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:41:09 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

if they had to ask though, it's sort of nice that they got it out of the way at the beginning...

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Nevada: (none / 0)

yuck

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

oh who cares about the dems in michigan? it means nothing...

by bluedavid on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:51 PM EST

The Debate Itself vs. Post Debate Opportunities (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I think it is very important to distinguish between the actual debate which, as a spectacle, was less than compelling...AND...the opportunities for each of the campaigns to use the flashpoints that were exposed in the debate to set the debate in Nevada, and in the Nevada media, in the days ahead.

That latter could be quite significant. Let's see how the Nevada media covers this going forward...

Flashpoints exposed:

1)More nuclear power plants and waste?
2)Using fear in politics...four more years of it?
3)National gun registration? Unexpected...
4)The Pakistan crisis...who performed the best?

by Demo37 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54:26 PM EST

Clinton Punked Obama on Energy (none / 0)

Obama voted for the Dick Cheney Energy bill, Clinton voted against it.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:59:01 PM EST

Re: Clinton Punked Obama on Energy (none / 0)

This is an Obama vulnerability.

Hillary has hers as well.

Obama attempted to call her out for manipulating the American people through the expedient use of fear...as Republicans have done for so many years. Did Obama succeed with this attack?

FWIW...I found Hillary's effort to distinguish her playing the fear card from Republicans playing the fear card...fake and utterly unpersuasive.

She essentially said she is playing the fear card with sobriety. Yuck. No more of this stuff please.

by Demo37 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

blah blah blah (1.00 / 1)

Do you have a point?

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Punked Obama on Energy (none / 0)

I don't know about you guys, but I think having a President who is ready to handle a national security emergency with authority and confidence is one of, if not the most important qualifications as a job.

I hope they don't hand Obama the nuclear codes before he needs them.

by hwc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Punked Obama on Energy (none / 0)

not the point and you know it. no one is questioning the need to have a strong commander in chief. the question is do we want a(nother) one who uses his position to rule our lives with fear.

We live in frightening times. As a NYer, i don' t need anybody to try and scare me into voting a certain way. it's an easy campaign tactic, but obama had a very good point in saying it is not so useful in creating an environment for sound policy-making.

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:15:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is an interesting point (none / 0)

I believe the AP is picking up this as part of the story of the debate.

I know many Democrats who are tired of politicians using the fear card, particularly because it has been used to push through boneheaded laws.

Of course, Obama said in the debate that the fear card was used to push through a trillion dollar mistake, the Iraq war...that was WRONG. I suppose that counts as a pretty big negative effect from the fear card.

Can this argument work for Obama? Or, does talking it up help Hillary? Simply put: does fear work? Hillary is banking on yes. Obama is suggesting we turn the page on that kind of politicking. Hmmm...

by Demo37 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I liked her answer on that question (none / 0)

I had been somewhat troubled by the actual statement she was asked about. Having seen her handle it a bit less provacatively live than how it was reported makes me wonder if there wasn't some context missing in the news story I read about it.

She said we need to have a calm conversation about what we need to do, but frame it in a way that doesn't provoke needless fear, which I think is exactly right. The fact that we ridiculously over-reacted as a nation to 9/11 doesn't change the fact that we were under-prepared for terrorist attacks before 9/11. We need to think about this stuff, not freak out about it, think about it, do the right things about it, then otherwise go on with our lives and with making smart governance decisions.

I also like it that she started out the answer by saying no, this is not an attempt to draw a contrast with Senator Obama. Of course that was hogwash, but it was NICE hogwash of the sort that doesn't alienate the in-party opponents and doesn't provide ammo that the Pubs can use in the fall.

by Trickster on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fear (none / 0)

I think this line of attack scores few points for Obama. I think middle America sees a threat and wants a President that sees it and will combat it. Not combat it like Bush, but combat it.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Punked Obama on Energy (none / 0)

Absolutely true, and Clinton for the bill that would cap credit card interest at 30%. Obama voted against it.

There's more of this stuff in Washington Post online in plitics/congress section. Entire congressional voting records, bills, etc.

Also Obama lied about "small" donors on Medical,Drugs,Energy. Exelon, nuclear energy plant operators donated $74,350 to Obama, and he voted down the amendment to kill loan guarantees to energy companies[new energy---nuclear].

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Todd, Obama shined? (none / 0)

You have to be a real rose colored glasses friend of Obama to see that.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:01:12 AM EST

Re: Todd, Obama shined? (2.00 / 2)

you know, i like your candidate more than i used to, but i still hate your posts...

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama surrendered tonight (none / 0)

... And then he waffled, and then he floundered.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama surrendered tonight (none / 0)

still annoying...

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd, Obama shined? (none / 0)

Everytime I start to like Hillary, I come here and see the kind of people who support her.

That's all it takes.

by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd, Obama shined? (none / 0)

Obama was not comfortable, and he fudged about real positions that he has voted on. His followers don't ask, don't dig, and don't know.

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fact is (none / 0)

Obama and Edwards slapped Michigan in the face. They looked towards and pandered to Iowal. They pulled their names from MI, but not Fl. Why?

Why because Obama and Edwards took Michigan for granted. Clinton and Kucinich did not.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST

Re: Fact is (none / 0)

They couldn't withdraw from Florida. It wasn't allowed. Check this out.
The Flint Journal smackdown editorial :

Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden "apparently are all but conceding" the Dem nomination to HRC. Otherwise, "they wouldn't have made such a shortsighted and cowardly decision" to remove their names from MI's primary ballot. Only a "desperate longshot would deliberately offend residents of a state crucial to electing the next" POTUS. HRC "notably wasn't too intimidated" by the DNC or "afraid of upsetting the voters" in NH, IA, SC or NV. Conversely, the decisions of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden "suggests that they know it's nearly over for them".

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact is (none / 0)

Fact is, I believe that Michigan delegates will not be counted at convention, and likewise Florida.

I have heard this repeatedly, and if true, it's of no importance that they engage in Mi. But why Florida? I must be missing something. Help.

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Todd, be real (none / 0)

Hillary Rodham Clinton schooled Barry and John. They were left agreeing with her on most issues and stuttering and stammering on the rest of the issues.

Even Christy Matthrews, who hates all things Clinton, had to agree Hillary Clinton won and scored big tonight.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:08:06 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Pretty amazing the moderators glossed over immigration almost entirely. I've been calling Nevada voters all week and it's a huge issue there. What are the moderators scared of?

by Piuma on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:08:51 AM EST

Actually... (none / 0)

I was also surprised that this issue was not brought up...though...in truth...it is very rocky...politically. Edwards handled it very well.

by Demo37 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (none / 0)

He handled it well by not going into much depth and then they moved on. I understand why the candidates don't want to deal with it unless they're forced, but the moderators shouldn't back off. As far as this being a vetting process, none of them have been vetted so far in a way which goes beyond the initial scratch the surface questions. Drivers' licenses is not really the heart of the issue.

by Piuma on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:14:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Pretty surprising, since it's the kind of question Russert loves to zing Democrats on. I do seem to recall an earlier debate, maybe the other one in Las Vegas, where the candidates got out all the standard talking points about comprehensive immigration reform and such.

What sort of things have you been hearing from voters about immigration?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Hillary's very strong when she talks policy details.

She should quit trying to be like Bill and just keep talking about micro-level stuff.

The voters will never fall in love with her but they might decide to hire her.

She's not going to charm anybody anyway.

by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:09:56 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

My college daughter watched Hillary on Meet the Press Sunday and, at the end, said: "I'm so inspired by her."

by hwc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (2.00 / 0)

with the harshness of your rhetoric, she'd probably be afraid not to...

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Hilary came of as obnoxious

by orin76 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:10:21 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (2.00 / 1)

Before I comment on framecop's post I want to ask Todd what in the world are you thinking. Edwards did himself great by admitting he was wrong on that bankruptcy vote. Clinton did so much as the same when it was her turn. But here is the deal, this gave Edwards an opening to tie the odious 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act with people who are forced into financial insovlency through catastophic medical illnesses. Studies continue to show catastrophic medical illnesses are the core of these bankruptcies.

Framecop was sharp to pick out the reason Edwards really voted for that bill, the minimum wage, which by the way is what killed the damn thing in committee. Hillary seemed confused why it died. Edwards and Hillary missed an opportunity here to bring that up and tie in support for a raise in the minimum wage.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience

by DuvalDem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Clinton voted against this. Go to congressional records on Washington Post online. Google.

Wait until Obama is asked to defend the sweetheart real estate deal he made with his neighbor, Tony Rezko. Reza, a fundraiser who had raised $60,000 for Obama of which Obama had to return $11,500. But Rezko sold Obama some backyard property for $165,000 which was worth $300,00, and both Rita Rezko and Obama closed on this "transfer and sale" on the same day.

Obama knew at this tine that Tony Rezko was being investigated by Fitzgerald [ that one...Libby] for $6 million dollar kickback scheme ]Pritzker].
Nevertheless he got his property under the radar.
Rezko has been recently indicted, and two others involved [Goldman Sachs] were indicted, but have died.

Obama's Financial Director for campaign is Penny Pritzker of the Chicago billionaire Pritzkers.

Hyatt Hotels, Financial Institutions [several closed by the feds]. Nursing Homes, Medical Equipment, Travel Co's,etc etc.....all and more owned by Pritzker billions.

It strikes me as so inconsistent with the uber pure image Obama has carefully created, and how his followers question nothing, or rationalize and avoid hearing the whole story. He may not have much experience, but he's got a lot of baggage.
ed

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Well none of them will be headlining a card at Ceasar's Palace in the near future. But, the race issue is out there, I don't think it is "resolved" in any fashion. Remember, the incendiary comments and responses came mostly from surrogates. I don't think the campaigns have nearly as much control over their supporters as most people seem to assume. It won't be the last time someone goes off who is identified with one side or the other.

Plus the pollsters and the pundits will be all over racial vote analysis from here on in. To the extent that blacks rally behind Obama, there will be consequent backlash from non black voters. The issue is out of the hands of the candidates, or even their surrogates at this point and squarely in the realm of public domain. Unless the ban on polling preference by race is effected between now and early February, that is going to be the most highlighted and controversial aspect of the contest.

by robert ethan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:15:43 AM EST

Your Prediction (none / 0)

An interesting and ominous prediction. I am not sure "we" want to go there. Hmmmm...

by Demo37 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

What Michigan proved is that Hilary can't get men to vote for her,even when she is running against nobody

by orin76 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Or does it prove that women vote in large number for her therefor skewing the percentages?

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I agree entirely with Todd Beeton's assessment. Huh, that never happens.

by commoncents on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:20:19 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Well, I just read the Jonathan Singer post on the Michigan results and the stratification of the vote by race has already begun apparently. That is a death knell for Obama unless he can reverse it in some fashion. For every extra black vote he gets he loses 2 or 3 non black votes somewhere down the line.

by robert ethan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:22:54 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

i disagree with this. just because blacks are voting for him does not mean that he will come to be seen as a "black candidate" in the mold of jackson or sharpton. i think most americans now consider him to be a frontrunner for the nomination and it would take a big shift in the dynamic for them to demote him to "token-black-candidate" status.

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton still holds about a 15% lead over Obama in the National Polls. Pretty well where it was most of the past year. So I don't think you can accurately say that "most think Obama will win". The shares are trading on RCP at 60-40 for Hillary.

It won't be up to Obama at this point, whether or not he gets marginalized as a representative of blacks. The poll numbers will be out there, then the media coverage of the poll numbers, then the media minions "crunching" of all the poll numbers...ya..da..yada..

by robert ethan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

if you read the original comment again, you'll notice i said a frontrunner, not the frontrunner. Basically, i think he's now considered a top-tier candidate by the general public. With this acceptance comes a higher level of scrutiny, but also a little leeway in the sense that people won't be ready to totally cast him aside for trivial reasons-- it's the bandwagon effect: all these people support him, they can't be crazy...

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

total garbage! how can you blame obama for his surrogates saying stupid shit and not blame hillary's?? OBVIOUSLY being labeled as a sharpton-esque candidate would doom obama's campaign, so why would he position himself like that??? You just always jump to think the absolute worst about him, regardless of whether it makes any sense. You're blinded by hillary-devotion.

by bluedavid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:45:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm reminded of Allan Iverson's comment (2.00 / 1)

From 5 or 6 years ago. Sheer befuddlement at priority level. "We're talking about practice. We're not talking about a game. We're talking about practice."

That's all Michigan was tonight on the Democratic side. Not even a scrimmage. Pure irrelevant practice. It's roaring hilarity to read diaries and comments pretending otherwise, and suggesting changes and coalitions altering the state of the race.

No wonder Iowa residue was so poorly analyzed, if we've got multiple threads looking at a non-event like Michigan, worried about higher or lower than 60%, like a Price is Right game. Sorry, but it's inane.

Hillary will have a hell of a time winning nationally in a general election, at least by any kind of margin, but she's damn impressive and she dominated tonight. I'm an Edwards supporter but my sports analysis background allows real world impressions and not suffocation toward what I want to unfold. On progressive blogs most of the posts can be written hours beforehand. They'll never change based on reality.

And you can always tell when Hillary won a debate, because it's greeted with tame instant analysis on progressive blogs; "not much happened" or "fairly interesting" or "uneventful." It's virtually a concession. Passive words dominate. If the favored son(s) prevails, that's replaced by high energy euphoria. Unfortunately, Hillary has only stumbled once.

Hillary can vary her game and master subtle points, always with big picture focus. Edwards is much better than 4 years ago but too often he defaults to stump speech tendencies and simplistic angles. Obama is more and more capable in debate format but the likability can only take him so far. When you look at the debates in text format one candidate stands out, and it's Hillary. I'm beginning to appreciate her more and more.

The progressive blogosphere needs to understand it is only as good and as influential as the situations it inherits in a given cycle. This is no longer a 2nd term midterm, where everything is swell. Nor is it '04, always uphill trying to evict an incumbent with his party only in power 1 term. Hillary has had a substantial base of support toward the nomination long before the netroots started trying to take it away from her.

by Gary Kilbride on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:32:01 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Most of Obama's supporters are white. If you saw were Obama's support came from in Nh and Iowa it was White and male ranging from liberal to conserative, as well as youth

by orin76 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:32:10 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Huh? Clinton's and Edwards' support in Iowa and NH were also white--because there aren't many minorities in those states.

by Korha on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

why are you still here ... and you even get to keep on talking about the race card?

I thought you'd be chasing Shaun Appleby around somewhere calling him names. Funny that you write this at the same time that you try and run off posters who put a lot of time and thought into comments and diaries .... wouldn't you know what your modus operandi is ... saying the most detestable racial slurs ... ohhhh am I playing the race card too?

and you are still here. Go write a diary or something for your self righteous world dicators and truthtellers and their more "resepectable front pagers."

I cannot believe that Jerome has not banned you. It is regrettable and unacceptable.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Just Edwards...Science and Congress (2.00 / 1)

That was a gotcha moment that Hillary spun on both Obama and Edwards regarding Yucca mountain. But the reality of the science is...most were saying it was safe to store waste in Yucca mountain. I read Science magazine every week and I remember the debates. As things are now, the nuclear power plants are storing their waste on site...which is not a permanent solution. In fact it makes the situation more dangerous for an accident or terrorism incident. Our country must find a long term safe solution to the storage of this radioactive waste. The science once said...bury it deep within a mountain and they spent 100s of millions of dollars studying Yucca for this. The problem is that Yucca sits near a newly discovered fault zone and further, there was some scientific fraud regarding the ability of the waste to seep into the ground water. When these issues became clear, John Edwards retracted his support of this issue...which then became the subject of re-newed debate. Hillary knows this...so it was a good cheap shot. I mean John said that there was some fraud in the science that changed his mind. It changed the Science community and the Congresses mind too. But it wasn't just that...scientists discovered a hidden fault zone that would become a radioactive disaster should an earthquake occur. The problem with radiaoactive storage is that almost everywhere on earth has a chance of having an earthquake at some point in time. If it happens where there is radioactivity stored...then thyroid cancer and leukemia will kill many people.

John Edwards knows this now, and this is why he is against nuclear power period!

by msnstd on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:41:10 AM EST

Re: Not Just Edwards...Science and Congress (none / 0)

Yucca Mountain is now Yucky! Mountain.

by robert ethan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuclear waste (none / 0)

Interesting tidbit I saw. France is worldwide leader on nuclear poser--they RECYCLE the waste. Bad news is, it comes out of a process that is five miles long but is usable for weapons. We are researching researching this but trying to figure out how to have it NOT usable for weapons. (from CBS)

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (2.00 / 0)

After Matthews spent the better part of a segment a while ago hilariously defending himself against Buchanan/Maddow ('I don't need Pat Buchanan to translate for me'), I heard the cry, "LEAVE CHRIS MATTHEWS ALONE!!! HE"S ONLY TRYING TO PUT ON A SHOW!!!"

Now, Maddow is finally getting some road of her own, and it's quite refreshing to see her develop her own content, rather than just respond to the jerks.

It also struck me how instantly after the debate Matthews critiqued the round-table format for being, in so many words, none too exciting. And then, not only did Keith rejoin with 'well, but we heard a lot more substance', but Russert agreed with Keith on that point a few minutes later.

I don't know why it took me so many years to realize this - but this is merely sport for Matthews. Pin the button on him that says, "I'm sorry, you've obviously mistaken me for someone who cares."

I know our friend will remind me I should read the Daily Howler (I've started) and that I shouldn't care a fig about MSNBC's trajectory - but I do - and it does seem to me that they will continue to fine tune their election coverage, reducing the bloviation and upping the thoughtful reflection. Our continuing input in that regard may help speed the plow.

by Rob McC again on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:06:52 AM EST

Re: Maddow vs. Matthews (none / 0)

It kinda show that she was a Rhodes scholar and he wasn't.

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton Spin Room (none / 0)

It wasn't just Bob Johnson, it was Al Sharpton again today. The totality of all of the racial aspects brought up recently were a clear ploy by the Clinton campaign...and it is something that is geared to attracting Latino support. If it wasn't a campaign tactic, then she should have put a lid on it with a clear public statement. Even Bill Clinton went on and on about it. Well lets see what happens from here. They are going to stop it because it is hurting them. Also, why in the hell is Hillarys' union trying to stop the caucuses in Nevada casinos with a law suit. This is simply trying to dis-enfranchise the SEIU which has endorsed Obama. paradoxically, this will hurt the Latino vote that Hillary has been courting. These are simply out of control un-explainable tactics. The results out of Michigan are an embarrassment. The results in Nevada will be a surprise. And the results in South Carolina will probably be a landslide against Hillary. There is a clear chaos in the CLinton campaign.

by msnstd on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:16:45 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I'm only in 30 minutes into the repeat that I'm watching- so far-
okay- Hillary says 'day one' and '35 years' alot- I've heard 'mill town' too much already- I can't believe that John Edwards said his one weakness is that he CARES too much- can't he answer one thing honestly instead of giving his stump speech?
Obama looked bad when he was showed the 4 pages of notes of his campaign trying to inject race into the things the Clintons say- and he looked bad about the 'losing papers' bit but I don't think anyone will care- he's in a win/win situation- if he wins, he wins the nomination- if he doesn't, he gets the VP spot- Hillary does not come off as warm as Obama- I don't think the rest of the country will watch this at all- Nevada might though I don't think it may make a difference- but interesting. It's a bit of a joke that Edwards is still pretending he has a chance.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:39:38 AM EST

obama will not be the vp (none / 0)

if it's hillary, she will choose an ultra-safe white guy (Wes Clark or a governor).

if it's Edwards, he will choose someone with foreign policy cred.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: obama will not be the vp (none / 0)

If it is close, and it looks like it will be, even Hillary Clinton will not be able to choose who she wants- democrats will pressure who to pick who they think is best- at least that's how they say it is.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: obama will not be the vp (none / 0)

Whoever gets our nomination will pick a VP based substantially on who the republicans are choosing.

by del on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I'm a bit skeptical that Hillary would pick Obama as her V.P. candidate. I think the Clinton's are genuine when they say that they don't feel Obama has been vetted enough, and that his candidacy has a "storybook" aspect to it. That would remain the case, largely,in the G.E., and he is much more open to right wing attacks than Wesley Clark would be. Plus Hillary has the comfort level of knowing Wes for many years and having worked with him extensively in the past.

by robert ethan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I was of the same opinion but after the hoopla that was made over Clark, Bill and Madeleine Albright standing behind a defeated Hillary in Iowa (it being seen as representative of the past) I'm now not so sure. From a governing standpoint Clark would probably be better but in terms of the VP helping the ticket win I have become more open to the view that she will need Obama to make up her problems with indies, young voters, and perhaps, after this last week, African Americans. Together with her appeal to single women and latinos it would be close to an unbeatable electoral team IMO.

by conspiracy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Obama and Clinton make a great team- it is nice when they are friendly with each other.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:08:22 AM EST

NH Recount (none / 0)

I won't make this a separate diary but the recount is on, at least on the Dem side. From bradblog:

Dennis Kucinich's campaign did in fact get their money in on time. The recount will be starting tomorrow. However, on the Republican side, though the money was wired to the bank for candidate Albert Howard, something at the bank delayed release of the funds in time to meet Secretary of State Gardner's 3:00 p.m. deadline. As I wrote last night, Gardner's demand for full up-front payment does not seem to be in accordance with the law, which requires only a written guarantee that payment will be made.

by Piuma on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:25:16 AM EST

Re: NH Recount (none / 0)

If Kucinich displayed the same gusto in trying to campaign as he does trying to get recounts and forcing himself in debates, he might actually have stood a chance.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

You'd have to be stupid or insane to not admit Clinton cleaned house.

I don't know who's going to get burnt out sooner, the candidates or the bloggers, it's a tight race.

by egunn6 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:31:25 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

I did think Obama did well tonight- though he still seems unprepared to be President. But he came across genuine- Hillary came across as passionate for her policies and what she believes- they both had good moments- and they both had bad moments. Obama seemed the less scripted one- John Edwards was a distant third- he also looked the most tired and the lighting was not good for his face, it seemed "droopy"- he needs another hit of botox. Hillary whacked him hard on his voting twice for Yucca mountain- that 'new science' excuse I think fooled no one. He really wanted to make an issue out of being the one who says no to nuclear power but I have to be honest, it's obviously an issue there, but I don't think Americans really care that much about that. And he made strange faces when listening to the others- though I'm sure he couldn't believe what they were saying- I mean, his question to Barack about the drug companies- Obama said nothing new- in fact, he has said parts of what he said many times and John had to sit there acting like he was listening as if he was hearing it for the first time- Hell, I'VE heard it twice already. People say Clinton fights dirty, Obama admitting regretting pushing the 'race' card- that's pretty bad doing that- he could give her a few lessons in dirty campaigning. That and the "I'm disorganized" were his worst moments- but he came out pretty good.

Hillary saying she was glad the bill she voted on "didn't pass" was a bad moment for her- luckily she was not pressed on it- I thought her other really bad moment was mentioning her campaign said 'hispanics don't vote for African-Americans'- it seemed she was plainly embarrassed by that and didn't blunt it too well. The 'fear-mongering' also was not good for her. But she had more good moments than bad and better moments than the rest though Obama got the laughs tonight- in a good way.

Edwards comes across as a phony politician- he votes yes on these bills, then gives big sermons how awful things are after apologizing for them. I think he has turned away voters tonight.

I don't know how it will end up, but it seems Obama has the edge to win. I hope it's Hillary, of course- we'll see.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:45:38 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

After being punched to the mat and then kicked when she was down, Clinton has gotten up and has her mojo back. Barack better reconcile himself to eight years as VP.

by Bob H on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:20:46 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

NO Hilary showed the Hilary at the Debate that lost her Iowa.

by orin76 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:15:19 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

There is NO WAY Hillary or Barack for that matter will pick the other for the VP. Are you kidding?

Obama will pick someone with Foreign Affiars Experience, maybe even Lugar! Ha! I'd vote for that as a third party even!

Clinton will pick Richardson.

by shoeshine boy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thread (none / 0)

Obama's biggest donors are Exelon, nuclear power plant operators who donated $74,350 to Obama as well as many Financial lenders and Institutions
who have donated heavily to Obama along with Humana and Drug companies. Obama was devious in saying these donations are from small amts of employees from drug co's, etc. This is untrue, as it can be seen on MANY websites. Google.

He backed Joe Lieberman in his senate bid in Connecticut against Lamont. Donated $4200 to Lieberman's campaign. ooops.

Voted down the amendment to kill loan guarantees to power plant operators....oooops.

Penny Pritzker of the Chicago Billionaire real estate and nursing home dynasty is his Campaign Finance Director and refuses to disclose his donors at next 3 fundraisers...oooops again.

He received a sweetheart real estate deal from neighbor and fundraiser Tony Rezko in Chicago. They shared backlots, while Tony's was worth $300,000 he sold to Obama for $165,000. Even as Rezko was being investigated for $6,million kickback scheme by Fitzgerald [Libby's Fitzgerald], Obama continued to close this deal on the same day with Rita Rezko. Rezko has recently been indicted for corruption. Obama had to return $11,500 of the $60,000 donated by Rezko for him.

Pritzker money [and Crown] is all over the place. Pritzkers have been involved in Federally closed Savings and loans, own Hyatt chain, nursing homes,financial institutions, and more...

there's so much more I can't go on. Go to WashPost online and see how congress voted and votes...rest is on Google if you really want the truth.

by morris1030 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:52:28 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.