[Got an email from someone at Comcast letting me know the “Democrat Debate will be available ON DEMAND for all Comcast Digital Cable customers in New England . The debate will be found in the Get Local folder by the end of the day today. Similarly, that will follow with the posting of Tuesday night?s Republican Debate ON DEMAND on Wednesday. ” So check it out. –Joel]
My Tivo tells me it’ll be two hours long.
Given it’s early in the season, I’m not expecting much out of the politicians, so I’ll be looking to media figures to go crazy in attempts to prove what tough, incisive journalists they are.
Maybe Lou Dobbs will point a gun at Bill Richardson and demand proof of citizenship.
Please share widely!
The candidates spent too much of the Iraq discussion arguing about the past. I would have liked to have seen the past dispensed with succinctly, and the focus put on ideas that move us forward.
<
p>
I was boiling with the absurdity of the questions. Far too many of them began with, “Why are your fellow candidates wrong when they say …” That line of questioning places personalities first, discussion last, and makes all involved look the worse. It does not belong in a national debate.
<
p>
Don’t even get me started on “To each of the candidates: How would you use former President Bill Clinton?” What baloney.
<
p>
The talking heads were saying Edwards was making a big move on this one. I will tell you what he was doing: setting himself up as big #3, the whiney spoiler nipping at the heels of Hillary and Baraq. I am favoring Hillary at this point; however, Baraq won the exchange more thoroughly, by being the first to build an alliance with Edwards, leaving Hillary as odd man out.
<
p>
I am calling it right now: If Baraq gets the nomination, he picks Edwards as VP. And Edwards accepts.
Will, I agree on some points, disagree on others. BTW, Obama’s first name is spelled “Barack”.
<
p>
First, I disagree that they spent too much time arguing about the past. I think that arguing about past decisions is vitally important. Understanding whether their past decisions were justified helps us predict whether their future positions will be justified. And understanding whether their past decisions are consistent with their current solutions helps us understand whether they’re serious about their current proposals or merely telling us what we want to hear.
<
p>
I agree about some of the absurd questions. The questions of the form “Why are your fellow candidates wrong when they say . . .” are designed to elicit conflict, which the media love to highlight.
<
p>
Lastly, your characterization of Edwards is unfair. Edwards put his ideas forward like everyone else on stage. Why, therefore, is he a “whiney spoiler” and every other candidate is not? Clinton and Obama are not divinely entitled to have the race to themselves. Edwards is in this to win it outright, and he’s leading in the first primary (caucus) state, Iowa.
Is it online somewhere?
I drove up to Manchester and took part in 2 hours of shovin’ and yellin’ in the “pit” alongside the debate venue’s entrance. I then retired to the field office in Manchester. Here are some observations (disclaimer: I was there to support of Richardson) :
<
p>
<
ul>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Performing above average: Clinton, Gravel, Richardson
Performing at average: Biden, Dodd, Obama
Performing below average: Edwards, Kucinich
I think Hillary’s best moment was when she said that the Iraq War was “George Bush’s war” and that fellow Democrats should be united in ending it and not attacking each other over who did what in the past. As many of you know I am no fan of Hillary Clinton by any stretch of the imagination, but in doing this she not only allayed liberal concerns over Iraq by promising to end the war, she also deflected blame on Bush for starting it (and away from her), and also acted like the elder statesman by staying above the Obama-Edwards fight and looking dare I say it all the more presidential because of it. I was honestly surprised and I must admit that while she is dead last on my preference list (even Gravel would be more electable in my view) this move was sheer political brilliance that was dare I say it Clintonesque.
<
p>
One debate an electable candidate does not make however and she will need many more of these moments.
<
p>
Also Edwards attack tactics completely backfired, he nearly won IA in 2004 by being the positive nice guy candidate and staying above the Dean-Gephardt battle to come out on top in the end. Obama had a good moment taking the steam away from Edwards but this could hurt his nice guy image, also he needs to be far less Senatorial, far less nuanced, and he has to stop playing it so safe. While I respect and admire his nuanced approach and the way he seems above partisanship the criticisms that he doesn’t stand for anything will only continue to mount if he doesn’t start articulating what supporters already know he believes in and if he doesn’t start throwing some juicy meat to the base.
<
p>
With the apparent demise of the Richardson surge by abysmal debate performances and the Meet the Press appearance Joe Biden needs to keep getting his name and face out there if he wants to move into that number 4 spot because his debate performances are solid he just needs to be more actively campaigning. Unless he’s pulling a Vilsack his silence is confounding for someone who usually likes the sound of his own voice. Maybe he’s just shell shocked after the articulate and clean gaffe.
<
p>
And the rest of the pack doesn’t really matter, I think Edwards days are numbered with the Bob Shrum and the attacking, he needs to get his A game on again and hope that lead in Iowa holds or else money and momentum will shift. Dodd is in the same boat as Biden and honestly Kucinich and Gravel should rock paper shoot to see who is this years gadfly crazy candidate since two gadfly candidates does neither one of them good, Im thinking Kucinich is downgraded this time around due to Gravels presence.
The Democrats have majorities in both houses now so Hillary’s claim that this is solely George Bush’s war is untrue. They have the power to stop the funding if they were serious about it. In the House, the Democratic leadership deliberately put forward a bill they knew would continue the war. In the Senate, Hillary, Barack, Biden, or Dodd (or any other Democratic Senator for that matter) could have lead a filibuster of the war funding bill. Why did they choose not to? Because they’re afraid of being called names by a President with a 30% approval rating. They’ve perpetuated every stereotype of Democrats being weak and timid. They were put into power to stop the war, and they deliberately failed. If they’re voted out next time around, don’t be surprised.