Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Performance

John Edwards at the last debate earned much praise for his performance, even it did not really translate into votes  this time, reviews and comments are coming in for Edward's disastrous debate performance last night and it's not good.  

Here are samples- will this finish Edwards for good- only time will tell.  

This could very well be the beginning of the end.

LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL
http://www.lvrj.com/news/11424696.html

Damore thought Clinton made a good recovery from the
previous performance. He said the night's big loser was
Edwards.

"The candidate who needed to break through was Edwards,
and he didn't seem to get much going tonight," he said.
"This is just my view, but Edwards still comes across like a
used-car salesman. Maybe it's the trial lawyer in him coming
through."

SFGate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/16/MNSTTDACP.DTL

Edwards also looked to be straddling when asked if, absent
comprehensive immigration reform, he would back such
licenses. Though in the previous debate he had raised his hand
to say he supported them, this time his answer appeared
different: "No - but I don't accept the proposition that we won't have comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "And anyone who is on a path to citizenship ... should be able to have a driver's license."

TIME
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1684766_1684765_1684761,00.html
The Democratic Candidates
Jae C. Hong / AP
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards
John Edwards
Grade: C+ [Hillary got a B PLUS- the best of the night]

Still high from his victory in the last debate, Edwards tried to
pick up where he left off but soon realized his aggressive
stance was ineffective against Clinton's pushback. Appeared to
lose his mojo and disappeared for long stretches, coming off
more as petulant and irrelevant than strong and tough. Lost
65% of the gains he made in the previous debate. (Again, the
back of the envelope.)

—By Mark Halperin

From NBC's Chuck Todd
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/469442.aspx

As for Edwards, he just wasn't at his best tonight. His attempts
at hitting Clinton early on fell flat. That little "planted question" line was out of place. What's interesting is that Edwards seemed to get it and went back to his comfort zone and ended the debate a lot stronger than he started. Of course, first impressions are everything and Edwards didn't make a strong first impression at this debate.

Washington Post
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/democratic_deba
te_winners_and_2.html

LOSERS
John Edwards: For those pushing the idea that Clinton's
decision to directly respond to Edwards was a sign that the
race is now officially a three-way contest, we say hogwash.

Clinton effectively shot Edwards down in their first exchange
and when Edwards tried to again go at Clinton later in the
debate he was all but booed down by the audience. Make no
mistake: Edwards is an able debater who clearly knows what
he believes and says it. But, for most of last night's debate it
felt as though he were extraneous to the proceedings and
when he did get his speaking time he seemed slightly too
keyed up for the audience.

Yepsen's analysis: That's why the lady is a champ
Desmoines Register
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2
0071115/NEWS/71115045/-1/caucus

John Edwards should have stayed home. Clinton took the wind
out of his sails early in the evening by implying he was
"throwing mud." He never seemed to bounce back from that
slap, and he also got hooted when he talked about her as a
corporate Democrat.

Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the
differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk
now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the
Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste
disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist
rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the
credibility of his message.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

Edwards is toast, in my opinion.

Hallelujah!

by samueldem 2007-11-16 07:15AM | 0 recs
prediction

consider this a place holder.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 08:52AM | 0 recs
Edwards

I don't believe it's constructive to beat a dead horse. Lay him off...

by prisonbreak 2007-11-16 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per

Edwards did not have a good night, particularly when he tried to bring up the failure of Hillarycare and Hillary clobbered him by pointing out he opposed UHC in 2004.

I'm disappointed that some supporters want to blame it all on the rude audience.  God, why not just say the sun was in his eyes.

The only time I felt Edwards really connected with the audience was when he was explaining what Bush is up to on Iran.  I think I heard gasps when he said they were playing the "weapons of mass destruction" card again.  More of that John Edwards, please.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per

exactly, that is what people want to hear. They are sick of the circular firing squad. Attack the republicans and talk about the issues,  and if you can't manage to look like the best candidate doing that, too bad,  don't try to destroy the front runner.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per

I agree he didn't have a good night, but I haven't seen any Edwards people blaming the hecklers for it.  My problem is, the media's defining Edwards's night by the booing without analyzing just what he was saying when he was heckled, or what moved them to heckle him.  It's as if the analysis only goes so deep as to say "Hillary's people didn't think he did a good job, so he must not have done a good job."

by Junior Bug 2007-11-16 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per
last might was interesting.  I think the fact that the audience was vocal gave a badly needed message to the candidates.  I am not so sure it wouldn't happen anywhere else.  People are just tired of the circular firing squad.  They do not want to see democrats attacking democrats.  They want to see the candidates attack republicans.
When Obama and particularly Edwards save all of their worst attacks for Clinton and act more like Nader than anyone else, they got the message that it was not appreciated. I think the same thing would have happened anywhere in the country and I don't think it was Clinton supporters only.
On the other hand, the biggest cheers of the night were given for attacking bush and cheney, one was for Biden and I think Obama got a pretty big one too.
So lets all stop the nonsense that Clinton has this all rigged.  It is whining at it's looniest and not only are the Edwards supporters doing it but so are some people in TeeVee media.  Not oddly it is also the same people who where pushing the lie that Clinton was playing the gender card last week.....Tweety Russert, Joe Scarborough.  My God the whine was on big time this morning.
by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re:

All the other stuff is window dressing, but this quote right here hit the nail on the head:

Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk
now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the credibility of his message.

Voting records matter.  They have always mattered a lot in the past.  They usually trump rhetoric, which most people rightfully see as politician's promises that may or may not be kept in the end.  Edwards was trying to get away with his record not being an issue, but that can only last so long.  People need to see everything, and Edwards voting record needs to be on the table, just like Clinton's and Obama's and everybody's.  If it is, he does not come off too well, because it is indeed true that his overall record does not match the rhetoric closely.

by georgep 2007-11-16 08:11AM | 0 recs
not only does it not match his record closely
his rhetoric doesn't match his record distantly.  He had done a complete turn around on almost everything.  That is one problem I have with trusting him.  If he can change so drastically once he can do it over and over.  Will he swerve right for the GE and piss off his most loyal supporters who seem to have no ability for pragmatism? Will that make him an easy mark for the republicans and the inevitable Nader run?
I don't think we can afford to take a chance on him.
by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: not only does it not match his record closely

She was laughing at Ross Perot. Not the first person to do so, I might add.

by hwc 2007-11-16 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: not only does it not match his record closely

Edwards was young when he was in the Senate and he was representing NC. Remember who he beat to be a NC Senator?  

I trust that he has matured a lot and believe his commitment to live his life for others is real.  He has owned up to his mistakes and imperfecdtions.  Hillary has not done that YET!

I thought Dodd, Biden, Obama and Richardson outperformed Edwards, who was really attacked by Clinton.  And Hillary's supporters were primed, but did she really encourage them to boo her main opposition?  And as Ed Schultz asked today on Hardball, did anyone correct Edwards and say he was incorrect when he talked about the corruption in Washington?  Not one person!

by cando 2007-11-16 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re:

Nevada - Edwards loses by a landslide, why

Commercial after commercial on his VOTING record.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-16 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per
Edwards is not toast.
Edwards will be the key to Hillarys big defeat in Iowa.
Hillary is an unacceptable nominee to most of the Edwards and Obama supporters in Iowa.
I predict they will work together come caucus night to engineer a Hillary defeat.
Given i expect Biden, Dodd and Richardson supporters to help out Hillary.
by joachim 2007-11-16 08:34AM | 0 recs
prediction

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: prediction

The debate and post-debate spin was fixed!  Fucking fixed!  Do we even have a choice?

by Todd Bennett 2007-11-16 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: prediction

yawn, like the last debate wasnt? with fat fuck 1 and 2?

give me a fucking break, you loved the post debate spin last time get over yourself

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-16 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: prediction

So much anger. It is very unhealthy.

Instead of trying to blame others for your candidate's sub par performance, why don't you try helping him get back on track.

by RJEvans 2007-11-16 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

My goodness.  I wish there could be some sort of accountability for all the bold predictions I see on this site.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

I think I will start all of mine now on with the word prediction in the title.  I don't mind being held accountable.

On the other hand, I might answer all other people's with a response titled "prediction" because it would be fun to see who was right and who was wrong.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

But there's no real accountability.  You'd just be an anonymous person on the Internet who happened to be wrong (or right) about something.

What I'm envisioning is a big red stamp on people's foreheads that says "DO NOT LISTEN TO ME ABOUT POLITICS... EVER."  Or maybe you'd have to wear a clown nose for the next four years or something.  I'm open to suggestions.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

The only thing that is truly effective is the prospect of losing real hard cash.  For all the bold talk, nobody seems willing to "put up or sit down."  I have a $50 steak dinner bet going with Shaun Appleby, who, to his full credit, is willing to put his money where his mouth is, although I suggested a larger bet with the proceeds to go to a worthy cause, like a progressive candidate's campaign or a humanitarian cause (i.e. earthquake victims.)   Something like that would show the true conviction behind the bluster.  

by georgep 2007-11-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

I made a bet on the 2004 election with a wingnut friend.  I wound up having to read Zell Miller's fucking book.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 09:04AM | 0 recs
Oh God, lol

that was painful! = )

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

Steve, I don't really know you but you have my sympathies.

Things I will bet on already:  Democrats making gains in both House and Senate in 2008.

I'm cautious and not quite willing to call the nomination for Hillary though if I had $1,000 I had to wager, I'd do so and then give her the winnings for the general election.  Iowa is about the only thing I don't see clearly and I don't think a narrow loss in Iowa hurts her because I think she pretty much runs the table from New Hampshire on out.

I'm also not quite willing to say that Obama's reliance on the youth vote is going to metaphorically resemble the Hindenburg in New Jersey...but that's the way I'd bet.

What truly mystifies me is who is going to win the GOP nomination and I can't make a prediction on the General Election until I know that.

by InigoMontoya 2007-11-16 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

How about a sig line that says "I am dumber than Tucker Carlson".  Do you think we can get Admin to go along with that?

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

Great idea. I swear I see that stamp on Andrew Sullivan's forehead every time he's on TV. Is it just me?

by LakersFan 2007-11-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

The "accounting" will come via the big disappearing act we'll see come February 5 on this board (provided Clinton wins,) but I predict that it will not be without a bunch of "Dear John" letters about how badly this site sucks, how dumb Democrats are, how we are all doomed.  

by georgep 2007-11-16 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

It's all because the media has a pro-Clinton agenda, just as they had throughout the 90s.  Anyway, I'm pretty much from the SYFPH school myself.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

Stop Your F#@$ing Predictions Here?

by frankies 2007-11-16 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's

SYFPH.

by Steve M 2007-11-16 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's
I expect a lot of new user names with people who are now Clinton supporters.  The same thing will happen on dkos.
Those people who were never democrats will try to hang around and bash democrats for awhile but they will get bored or booted soon enough when every one else starts to pull together. That is if Clinton wins.
by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Reviews coming in for Edward's Poor Debate Per

Like I said the last debate, people don't like the negitive tone that was done at the last debate. That has come true by the polls that have come out after the debate and the audience reacion to all the negative attacks.

Im sure you JRE and BO supporters think they were "plants" but would you think that if YOUR guy was being cheered and Hillary was being booed? I don't think so!

Another thing I said that came true lastnight was this, "they got her once, she WASN'T going to lt it happen again!" That also became reality! Face it guys, JRE and BO sucked and were no match for Hillary!

Its nice to know you guys are scared! LOL

by boxer4hrc 2007-11-16 02:18PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads