Okay, we're off. Wolf Blitzer invites the candidates to introduce themselves with a quick one liner. John Edwards wins this round by saying "I'm John Edwards." The others are all tagging on the fact that they are "running for President." Yeah, it would be weird if you weren't. Bill Richardson is "the proud governor of the state of New Mexico."
1. 14 minutes into this, I think John Edwards is making the strongest showing. Obama seems nervous and rushed, and Hillary Clinton seems flat. Obviously, this is a subjective opinion, but Edwards seems to have put the others on the defensive.
2. Bill Richardson bumbles the question about genocide in Iraq. [ADDED: That is, he evades the question with one desperate move after another. Anyone paying attention must conclude: He is prepared to accept genocide in Iraq. I wish all the candidates were pinned down with this question.]
3. Kucinich is asked whether the entire war was a complete waste, and instead of harshly saying yes, he uses the occasion to say -- quite rousingly -- that this war is the Democrats' war too, and he's not buying Hillary Clinton's repeated (already!) refrain that this is George Bush's war. The Democrats have the majority: cut off funding!
4. Biden keeps yelling. Hillary Clinton tries to deflect the question about her failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate before the original Iraq war vote. Edwards compliments Obama: "He was right. I was wrong." Obama is settling down now, and he magnanimously says that voting for the war shouldn't be seen as "a disqualifier." We see Hillary in the background as he's speaking and she looks intense, determined, and scared. When she gets a chance to speak, it's back to her refrain: It's all Bush's fault.
5. Immigration. I have to admit that I have no patience for the posturing on this issue. Blitzer does a show-of-hands for the question whether English should be the official language of the U.S. Only Gravel raises his hand. There's a lot of blather about the importance of English and of other languages.
6. Health care. They all seem to have plans to cover everyone with quality health care.
7. Hillary Clinton is asked whether Bill Clinton's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy was a mistake. It was a transition, she says. And she asserts that it's been applied in a discriminatory way -- which is odd, since the whole idea is discriminatory. But she opposes the policy in the end, even as she won't say Bill made a mistake. It was a "first step."
8. Blitzer is going through the list of issues. They are on energy now. I don't think this is an effective way to do a debate, because each candidate just lays out his or her official policy, which we could see by looking at their websites and which is always a bit unreal, given that a President will have to work with Congress. But just as I'm sick of it, Wolf says we're going into "Part 2" of the debate. Questions from citizens. Okay. Good. Anything for a change. There's 3 minute break. I fast-forward. Looks like hands are being shaken. And those weird lecterns are carted off and replaced by modernistic swivel chairs of that seem to have time traveled in from a 1970s talk show.
9. The first 2 audience questions are from women with family members involved in the military. The responses here are nondescript, and I'm sorry to say, my attention wanes.
10. At about 1:20, Hillary Clinton heats up, talking about diplomacy and Iran. It's still the same theme that it's all Bush's fault: "We've had an administration that doesn't believe in diplomacy." But there's some style here as she talks about how "every so often" Condi Rice shows up somewhere and "occasionally they even send Dick Cheney, which is hardly diplomatic, in my view." She sounds very strong at this point. I just wish she'd shown this spirit in the first half hour. Is anyone watching as she catches fire?
11. Confession: I'm in a bit of a TiVo lag, and "The Sopranos" is about to start. So... I'm bailing! Keep talking. I'll get back to this. But I don't TiVo "The Sopranos." I'm on HDTV here. Sorry!
12. Blah! I'm trying to get back to this after watching "The Sopranos." Is anyone watching now? Does this matter? They all look like they want to leave. Edwards is shaking his foot impatiently. Various issues come up in the end, but nothing impresses me to the point where I feel like writing. Sorry.
June 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
Bill Richardson bumbles the question about genocide in Iraq.
Incredible analysis zzzzzzzzzzz
Well, Heywood, it's hard to blog in real time, but the fact is he went every which way avoiding talking about a direct question that was asked at least twice. Are you going to accept genocide in Iraq? I interpret his evasion to mean: YES! Let them all kill each other! What do I care!
So, I hope you are happy. I'll try to be more direct. These people are ready to accept genocide. Awake now?
I interpret his evasion to mean: YES! Let them all kill each other! What do I care!
Sounds fair and balanced.
Heywood: Do you dispute it? Obviously, that is the position.
Do you dispute it? Obviously, that is the position.
I don’t have a TV so I’ll guess I’ll have to take your words and twist them whatever way I want. That’s what you’re doing isn’t it?
I like the Brave New Media. It’s much more imaginative.
How do you keep a blog commentary like this from becoming a personal soapbox for a troll like Heywood?
You lower gas prices by raising taxes and repealing gas subsidies?!? Did noone on the stage take Econ 101?
Sounds to me like she's just cutting through the B.S. Maybe you should try that too, heywood. Assuming that would leave you with anything to say, that is.
How do you keep a blog commentary like this from becoming a personal soapbox for a troll like Heywood?
It’s interactive media. It’s the future Eric.
Heywood is not watching, but he knows that the hostess's analysis is "incredible...zzzzzzzzzz".
Snide comments ensue from Heywood when he is called on it.
Heywood, ole buddy, you are waisting bandwidth.
Why not just watch the debate?
Nice coverage.
BIDEN KEEPS YELLING!
Excellent campaign slogan.
Aha, there’s the link from the Perfesser. This should really get exciting now.
Sadly, I missed the immigration question. I'm sure it was hard-hitting, pointing out illegal immigration's relationship to massive PoliticalCorruption, pointing out how the MexicanGovernment constantly meddles in our internal politics, and so forth.
I'm sure it wasn't just a chance for the candidates to be asked follow-up questions rather than being allowed to recite their stump speeches.
Ayup.
Maxine...On Beauty:
A woman has the obligation to be beautiful so that she will attract a man that will let her take care of him for the rest of his life.
--Maxine Weiss
Heywood said he doesn't have a TV....
When I hear someone say that, I automatically think the person is either lying and/or a wannabe culure snob. Am I wrong to think that?
watching now as well....
what is clear that a lightweight commentator/questioner/master of ceremonies can do these candidates a lot more harm than they can inflict on themselves.
this is silly. i'm ready to vote for bloomberg ..
Btw, we are doomed if one of these lightweights gets into the White House. How is that for analysis Heywood?
Wouldn't it be great, if in the middle of the debate, the moderator's job was outsourced to a newsman in Bombay and his phone connection was poor and he claimed his name was "Joe" and he put the American candidates on hold while he moderated a debate in Norway?
Mandatory Volunteer Service???
Here is how I would answer this little twerp:
How about you buy a dictionary kid and look up mandatory and volunteer- they are antonyms. Didn't you learn that in school? Means opposite - they conflict with each other.
P.S. Please don't ask any of us if we ever volunteered to serve a charity, etc cause we were way too busy telling everyone else to do that. And none of our kids did much either - too busy making the big bucks with firms like McKinsey & Co.
Except for Chris Matthews- he did a year in the Peace Corps and he has never let us or his nine or ten viewers forget it.
The reporter in the audience is doing a reach-around...
This debate is pointless... Wolf is asking puffball questions that could better be obtained from the candidates' websites. He should instead be asking follow-up questions based on their previous statements and actions and putting them on the spot.
I'm sure there were tougher debates in the Duma.
If you want real debates, sign one of these and tell your friends:
petitiononline.com/talk2lou
petitiononline.com/debateit
Dennis Kucinich is giving a speech... just watch! Wolf is going to step in and call him on all his statements and ask him tough questions... Oops, Wolf didn't do that.
Hillary's desire for socialist approaches to problems like health care will probably keep me from actively campaigning for her.
However, she won lots of respect from me on her answers about the war on terror. Depending on who the Republicans nominate, she might get my vote or get me to decide not to vote.
Would I end the use of earmarks:
That is a good question but most agree they are just small potatoes or as as we say on the Hill "small body parts".
What we have to get rid of are the big dollar leg-marks and arm-marks and bigass buttocks-marks.
Did that answer your question?
Oh, let’s just elect a lobbyist turned actor turned polititian and be done with it.
I don't know, Ann. Different stroke for different folks, I guess, but the candidate who has turned me off the most tonight is Edwards. What a complete phony.
Richardson was exposed. He's VP material, and possibly a detriment at that.
Biden is doing well although his mouth is his own worst enemy.
The two best performances are being turned in by Hillary, who has been measured at the start and passionate later on, and Obama, who has been smooth throughout, if a bit unsubstantive.
Compared to the GOP debate, I would say it is a wash so far. Neither party has seemed head over heels better to me at this point.
I take that back. Compared to the GOP debate, the Dems have lost ground because no one has had that "spotlight" moment, the way Rudy did in his smackdown of Ron Paul. There has not been any comparable moment that will be YouTubed and on CNN headline news.
So out of the debates so far, I would say it is Rudy first, the rest of the field (both Republican and Democratic) second, with Richardson, Edwards, Paul, Gilmore, and Brownback bringing up the rear (not necessarily in that order).
Their consensus biggest issue is Iraq. That is not good strategy nor forward-thinking for DEMS. That horse has left the barn and so won't help to differentiate the candidates from each other if they are in lockstep. Nor with voters.
Biden, Edwards & Kucinich essentialy gave the same answer that they will go on a world tour and fix Iraq, Iran , Korea and image problem.
Why does Kucinich strike me as the smartest of all them? Not the most practical but an obvious thinker.
Dodd is worried about constitutional rights?? That is such a crock - ACLU driven but not real concern to majority of Americans.
Richardson will federalize schools a bit- all day Pre-K and kindergarten - thank you PU Foundation - guess they have succeeded in brainwashing him.
And anyone notice Hillary had to get in the claim that her husband had a chance to kill Bin Laded but he was worried too many goats would be killed too.
I'd say the winner tonight was Phil Leotardo.
If I wanted to look at empty suits, I would go to Macy's mens dept.
Pathetic. The so-called debate, that is, though I have to admit an occasional short-lived tendency to like Joe Biden. Why doesn't Mrs. Clinton simply wear a large button that says, "Bush is evil." That pretty much sums up her position on everything but socialized medicine. Then we could have close-ups of the button when it's her turn to spout rehearsed drivel and wouldn't have to listen to her. I doubt her gibbering fan base would even notice.
Kabuki.
Didn't watch it, as the only primary that matters for the Dems is the one taking place in the offices of SEUI, AFSCME, NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO and The Teamsters, followed closely by the Democrat caucus of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NOW, the American Association for Justice, the ACLU, the Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council are tertiary, as are the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the 15-watt bulbs populating Hollywood and environs.
Everything and everyone else is a side show, especially Kos and his children of the corn.
PS: Thanks for watching it so I didn't have to, and for sharing your observations.
I wonder how the debate would have turned out if FOX's Brit Hume had been the moderator?
I don't trust any of these bozo's [except Hillary, how ironic] with foreign policy. If they're to cowardly to let FOX host, how can they be expected to stand up to Iran?
"If they're to cowardly to let FOX host, how can they be expected to stand up to Iran?"
That would be a freaking great question, except for the fact that, as far as I can tell, the Republicans have not be standing up to Iran one iota.
I mean, they talk tough, but then so did the Democrats on Iraq when Clinton was President.
And one thing is clear-- the radical Islamists do not really give a rat's ass about what we say. They care what we do. And while Bush has had the right idea of fighting back, he has done a pathetic job of doing the fighting. Unfortunately for us, everyone has taken from this that the right answer is to stop fighting.
So I am looking for the candidate least likely to run away with tail between legs. So far, my choices look to be Rudy, because he doesn't run, followed by Hillary, because she will be trying to prove that she is tough, followed by McCain, who is tough but is wishy-washy because he loves the media attention, followed by possibly Thompson of the Fred variety, followed by the rest. Of the rest, give me Obama, who is either the prodigy or will flame out within four.
I take that back. Compared to the GOP debate, the Dems have lost ground because no one has had that "spotlight" moment
There was one [via Reason Magazine]:
7:13: John Edwards, excruciatingly, speaks truth to power by calling Hillary and Obama wimps. Obama kicks him in the groin and slices his throat with a rusty garden trowel. (Actually he says "You were about five and a half years late on this," and the media room rumbles with the sound of reporters finding their ledes.)
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120535.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOeLpyqDMak
The best thing Obama and Edwards can do is ignore Hillary and civilly attack each other. It raises the stature of both, lets us know about their plans and views, and if Hillary continues to be placed between them, makes her look small and irrelevant. This debate was dull and tedious but for the sparring between Edwards and Obama.
Senator Clinton keeps saying this is "Bush's war". Fine, let's just suppose that, for the sake of argument. So, what? Does that mean you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and not address it?
She also says we have a President who won't change his strategy. This seemed too true for a while, but now we have this "surge". It was in all the papers. Did she mean a different change in strategy? Is withdrawal the only strategy she considers to be significantly different from the pre-Petraeas rules?
I had somehow expected the debate to be funnier. Aside from Dodd's monumentally stupid oil-price cap, though, the part I saw didn't really do much for me.
Dodd's suggestion of capping the price of oil at $40 a gallon was, er, interesting.
Every time I start to despair that the Republican Party's scientific illiteracy, a Democrat is nice enough to say something like that.
I'd say the winner tonight was Phil Leotardo.
Thanks, George. I'm dying to talk about The Sopranos, but obviously I'm going to have to be patient.
Many thanks to those of you who watched this debate and reported on it. I can't think of anything that would have induced me to do same.
www.obamawall.com
I am watching the entire thing online courtesy CNN. So far Edwards and Biden have made the strongest impressions. Biden on substance and Edwards has been combative. Obama has been good but not spectacular. Ms. Clinton is just like she was in the last debate. Good form, answers questions clearly but flat.
The sappiest movement so far has been the military man's wife question. Not the question itself but the news anchor asking the question.
Almost reached the end. Why are the questions all arbitrary? How come an audience question is only amswered by one or two candidates and not all.
More impressions - Barack was nervous at times. Ms.Clinton's body language was very positive and it was nice to see her smiling mom like. Reminded me of Indira Gandhi.
Tongue lashing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXESd_q56Cw
The Silverman Effect?
Paris Hilton reports 2 days early for jail.
Sorry, but this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXESd_q56Cw
coupled with Paris going directly to jail afterwards is going to sweep this debate away before sunrise.
#2 will be Sopranos discussions.
EnigmatiCore said...
I take that back. Compared to the GOP debate, the Dems have lost ground because no one has had that "spotlight" moment, the way Rudy did in his smackdown of Ron Paul. There has not been any comparable moment that will be YouTubed and on CNN headline news.
So out of the debates so far, I would say it is Rudy first, the rest of the field (both Republican and Democratic) second, with Richardson
The problem of media and handlers fixating on The Killer Sound Bite as sole determinant as to "who won the debate" is the expectation is then in the minds of politicians to avoid thoughtful comments and focus on a bagful of "snappy one-liners" or periodically bristling with outrage in hopes that they luck into The Killer Sound Bite showing they somehow won the debate by virtue of their timing of selective outrage or having a good writer on staff.
With good 'ol Rudy, his "great oratorical victory" was not over ideas or debunking anyone or giving a wonderful, thoughtful response to a range of questions....no, it was his ill-informed umbrage at Ron Paul challenging the 2001-2002 meme of Rudy and Bush that American policies have nothing to do with 9/11, the great and noble Religion of Peace had nothing to do with it, instead it was renegades not at all typical of Noble Muslim peacelovers - who - "hate us for our freedoms and Bill of Rights".
In the days after 9/11, Rudy may have been stabilizing on the "I am concerned and directing emergency response front", but he was dead wrong in most of the analysis he made. He called it a crime and the whole area a crime scene that besides rescue, was mainly about collecting evidence to "present to the Manhattan Court System". The figures he threw around for weeks were 11,000 to 13,000 dead, hundreds awaiting rescue by "The Heroes" - despite disaster experts telling him rescue was unlikely and under 4,000 were dead by Day 3.
He spouted the line that it had nothing to do with US ME policies, nothing to do with Islam...it was all jealousy over "Our Constitutional Liberties".
At the debate, Ron Paul was just quoting the reasons the diplomats and terrorists BOTH agree on were the cause of Jihadi attacks.
The was lost in The Killer Soundbite Moment.
In the Democratic Debate, perhaps it was good that no one uncorked a Jesse Jackson like rhyme or a spittle-flecked moment of dumb and self-righteous outrage the media could feast on. Though many, definitely the bottom-feeders tried uncorking well-practiced one-liners in hopes the media would elevate them as Giver of the Killer Sound Bite
Just as well, because that way people were able to focus on the answer and demeanor of the candidates....And IMO?
*Joe Biden the debate winner. (though Hillary was the real winner) Biden gave intelligent answers, took some risks, quick on his feet.
*Richardson the biggest loser. Fumbling, evasive, slathering on his resume. Came across as dumb, too.
*Mike Gravel, Kuchinich, Dodd - The loud yipping of the little dogs. Inconsequential. All were desperate for the media to elevate them with the "sound bite of the night", kept trying...it all came out as "yip, yip, yip!".
*"Obamarama" was trying to be perceived as the wise and magnaminous one. Problem is he has little real experience to pretend he is wiser than thou.
*Edwards? Hair looked great. Smarmy and silver-tongued as normal. Trying to position himself as the "more liberal than thou" of the serious candidates.
*Hillary was also as quick on her feet as Biden, and came across as well informed. She also came across as relaxed, confident, and natural, with an easy laugh. (high marks to her handlers and trainers in accomplishing such a difficult makeover!!!). She didn't lose anything but some of her reputation for coldness and inauthenticity, so she was likely the biggest winner.
I noticed that none of the candidates support English as the official language. All pandered to "the hero troops". All wanted to force the military to take gays...
I'm sorry, you lost me as soon as you called the well-deserved (and badly needed) smack down of Ron Paul's nonsense "ill-informed."
Speaking of ill-informed, have you read the 1996 or 1998 Fatwahs delivered by a consortium of radical Islamists announcing reasons why the US is being targeted? Bin Laden's later communication on the US-Israel relationship?
Or the confirmatory analysis by diplomats and policy experts writing inForeign Affairs on the religious and political causes of Islamist terror? Or by Michael Scheuler in Hubris?
Big hint.
They don't "hate us for our freedoms". They hate us for our policies, our culture of materialism and purience, supporting their enemies, meddling in the ME and elsewhere in the Ummah, and of course - for being infidels.
"They don't "hate us for our freedoms". They hate us for our policies, our culture of materialism and purience, supporting their enemies, meddling in the ME and elsewhere in the Ummah, and of course - for being infidels."
And all these factors result from what -- our freedoms. You are quibbling over semantics.
The Democrats disgust me. The debates are turning into a contest over who would surrender first, and fastest. Remarkably, Hillary is the only one up there with a set of balls.
No, our "freedoms" are largely indistinguishable from freedoms in advanced European and Asian nations.
What distinguishes America and a few other countries from the other infidel nations is we do all the other stuff the radicals detest.
In fact, the same radical Muslims hated the "unfree" commie states far more than freedom-loving states, for their Godlessness.
Islamists actually support several freedoms - they favor democracy as a means to be voted into power, they support private enterprise, property rights, rule of law (Sharia), privacy rights. They are against unreasonable searches and seizures. They are strong 2nd Amendment supporters. Believe in due process (under Sharia Law), right to speedy trials. Any freedom compatible with Islam...
Why "they hate us for our freedoms" is as simplistic a late 2001 line of drivel as "they aren't true Muslims but only a small group that has hijacked the good name of the Religion of Peace."
Ask a moderate Muslim, let alone a radical why Americans in particular are disliked now when we once were welcomed as recently as the mid-60s and you get two answers:
1. Israel
2. Pushing your policies and purient culture on Muslims when you used to leave us alone.
Cedarford,
I would say they also hate us for our "realistic" policy of propping up dictators in exchange for stability [like House of Saud]. Part of that was due to the Cold War, another because oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. If not for that, our foreign policy in the ME would resemble our policy re sub-sahara Africa.
Also, I think Joe is talking about the values of the Enlightenment, Western Civ, Bill of Rights etc. Things like seperation of church and state, woman's suffrage, homosexual rights, free speech [like the poison that Hollywood pollutes the world with]. Their culture is still locked in the 4th century, and their clerics want nukes. So someone has to either reform them or annihilate them.
Not sure what to do about Israel. The enemy won't be satisfied with anything less than pushing it off into the med [or back to Europe]. Do you see another solution to that?
I switched the channel and poor Joe Biden was on another channel campaigning in Iowa. Some guy had lost his wife. Biden threw his arms around the man, and stared right in his eyes and said, "It gets easier. After about five years the tears turn to a smile."
If Biden does that kind of thing when he's not on camera, then it's no wonder that Delaware is such a tiny state with lots of uninhabited areas.
Kirby: I think most people know that Biden lost his own wife (and one child) in an accident (a long time ago). You have to read his comment in that context.
Kirby:
I can't stand Biden either but his first wife was killed in a car crash about 30 years ago. So he has some experience with this.
Speaking of ill-informed, have you read the 1996 or 1998 Fatwahs delivered by a consortium of radical Islamists announcing reasons why the US is being targeted?
Taking a fatwa at face value as evidence of the underlying motivations is about as intelligent as taking a politician's press release at face value as an accurate representation of the politician's underlying motivations.
What you and every other little-brain who falls for bin Laden's spiel fail to realize is that the alleged "reasons" for the jihad shift from year to year based on what's politically popular. You have to look a little deeper than the surface to see what the real problem is. Look into it.
Post a Comment