Jump to content

Last night's dem debate on MSNBC


Recommended Posts

I know it's early and I know there were 8 candidates on stage :stunned, but I was excited for last night's debate. To see if Obama is ready for prime time, to see if Hillary would set herself apart, to see if anyone else could step up to the plate.

 

I haven't seen the media's take on who won/lost, but watching it, I thought that Clinton separated herself from the pack as someone that could be our next president. Obama seemed mostly rhetoric to me. And stumbled over himself a couple of times. I thought Edwards did a good job, as did Dodd. Richardson made a fool out of himself, as did Ravel (?) the former senator from Alaska. Biden is clearly looking for a seat in the next president's cabinet as Sec of Defense.

 

One thing that pisses me off to no end (and shouldn't because its always been this way) is that no one answers the question asked of them. No one.

 

Alas, let the games begin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that pisses me off to no end (and shouldn't because its always been this way) is that no one answers the question asked of them. No one.

 

"Never answer the questions that you're asked; only answer the ones you wish you had been asked." -- Robert MacNamara

Link to post
Share on other sites
didn't get to see it, but why did Richardson bomb ?

 

He had nothing substantive to say. If he is president tomorrow, he gets us out of Iraq immediately by "diplomacy". Really?

 

And he admitted that he cut Gonzalez some slack because he was hispanic. "I am just being honest" he said. Jeezus. The guy basically admitted to favoring hispanics. In a presidential debate?

 

He's not ready for prime time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Richardson was the big loser for the night, but didn't have a problem with the Gonzales answer. My problem was that he seemed uncomfortable and unpresidential. He was leaning over at one point, struggling to hear a question (he was among the closest to Brian Williams). He also bumbled a couple of times at the start of question.

 

I thought Clinton started the strongest and Obama finished the strongest. I thought it was interesting how those two didn't go after each other in the slightest way, even indirectly. They each, at one point, referred to the other by their first name in a complimentary statement. Edwards did attack the two of them but not by name and not overly harsh. I thought he flubbed the "moral leader" question (an awful question by the way). I thought they all flubbed the Giuliani "safer with a Republican president" question. No one bothered to explain why the statement was false.

 

I would say Clinton, Obama, and Dodd were winners. Richardson was a clear loser for me, but I would also say that Edwards was a loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say Clinton, Obama, and Dodd were winners. Richardson was a clear loser for me, but I would also say that Edwards was a loser.

 

I was thoroughly unimpressed with Obama. For the guy who is supposed to be the most charismatic guy up there, he was far from it. He stumbled over himself in several answers. Accidentally referred to the unethical behavior of a contributor as ethical (e.g., "I have criticized such ethical behavior.") And more importantly, he totally botched the "what if we were attacked" question. He's got a long way to go. Substantive off the cuff issues are not his strong suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also thought he was underwhelming relative to expectations but he did look extremely presidential and did have several good answers. I thought he started very cold and got better. I agree that he botched the "attacked" question but Edwards' answer was worse on that. That was another bad question - "what if two cities were simultaneously attacked and he were sure that it was Al Qaeda?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I disagreed with all of them on almost everything, but Edwards is the biggest sleazeball of them all. He made his fortune suing obstetricians for supposedly causing cerebral palsy by delivering babies instead of doing C-sections yet he comes out against outlawing a procedure where the doctor mostly delivers the fetus (i.e. premature baby) and sucks its brain out (apparently there are cases where delivering the baby and its brain separately are necessary to protect the mother's health). I guess Edwards can't make any money suing doctors for intentionally killing babies. Other than that, Gravel was funny. And I like how about half of them, when asked what they would do if the U.S. was attacked by and we knew it was by Al Qaeda, said they would start off by finding out who did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
didn't get to see it, but why did Richardson bomb ?

he looked nervous, used ridiculously large hand gestures and his answers were lacking. he does much better as a talking head on a cable news show. he's just not someone that convey's confidence to a voter imo. if horatio sanz hadn't been axed from SNL, he would have a heyday with richardson tomorrow night.

 

poodle boy...i mean edwards is a smug little brat. i like how he over-emphasized his carolina accent for the home crowd. i can't stand his pandering ass. i know i'm not the only one who feels that way. his defense of the $400 haircut using campaign funds was shrugged off and basically he said "many of us have the means to get such a haircut...so what?"...not an exact quote, but close. btw: his hair last night looked like he visited a local snip and clip.

 

clinton actually came out pretty good. she's a professional and knows how to do a sell job when the spotlight is on. i still don't like her from past history and still don't believe she will get the nod. too many people despise her outside the democratic party. time will tell.

 

obama is still my guy out of this group. it was just the first of many debates for him and although he needs to work a bit on his delivery in this format, he did nothing to lose his momentum. if anything, he's going to be more polished as the campaign goes on.

 

gravel was good for comic relief, but not much else. anyone can point a finger especially when they've been out of washington for 35 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there's no way around it with 8 candidates, but the 1-minute answer format is pretty useless, IMO. Candidates are either forced to try to speak in soundbytes the entire time, or they start an answer that there's no chance of getting to the end of before time runs out. I find it hard to learn anything about any of them in that format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though Bill Richardson completely blew last night, he's still the best thing the Democrats have (outside of monetary concerns, with which he is way far behind in that regard).

 

Republicans don't fear Obama or Clinton, because they know they can smear them and find ways to take the "middle" vote from them. They can't do that with Richardson. Richardson is of the more moderate type, and will generally win the middle vote - which is why he is feared among Republicans.

 

I don't mind Obama in the vice, but I'm not sure that's practical, as there's no "South bastion" votes there (outside of the whole Southern white women digging him thing). Edwards may be the smarter choice in that case, but then you'd most likely be losing more of the inner city votes, especially the minority votes (though we all know Bill Clinton was their poster president). However, I'm going to side with Obama, mostly because my AP Government class mailed him some Valentines and he personally wrote a letter back saying thanks, signed by hand and the whole bit.

 

Granted, I'm talking about what's more practical than anything else. I guess if you care more about the ideals, then go ahead and put Clinton or Obama on the front of the ticket, but I can't guarantee that doing something like that will do any good for the Democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a lifelong NH democrat, I have seen a lot of politicians in my life. I have no confidence in any of the front runners: I believe Hillary is unelectable, Obama does not have the experience, and Edwards has already lost a national election. I want a candidate who will WIN, fight back against the GOP smear tactics, and bring us back in the right direction as a nation. Is there anyone of these "contenders" who fits that description. I don't know, yet. Dodd seems fine, but I am wary of the national appeal of a New Englander. My late grandfather was a state supreme court justice in CT, and thought very highly of him (and not at all Liebermann). Candidates like Kucinich and Gravel on national TV hurt the appeal of the party to the average American, much as I respect their courage and opinions.

 

Should be an interesting next 18 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the guy, I just don't think he can win.

 

I'm not convinced that any of the Dems can win as of right now. The only thing going for them is that they aren't in any way tied to Bush. The good news is that most of the Republicans are tied to Bush somehow. The "leading" contender for the GOP would be McCain and he has turned into a bit of a patsy.

 

Here's to hoping that someone steps up as a human being that can actually run this country - :cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...