Clark was unimpressive tonight (imo)

To me, it seemed that whenever he was asked a question, he would respond with the most abstract and ambiguous notions and phrases possible without mentioning any concrete policies or plans he had.

I think he is trying to learn and form a coherent message as he goes along, which is why getting in so late has been a detriment to him.

This was the second time I heard him speak, the first being his town hall meeting where he was really spot on in defending his choice to run and why he is a Dem. Perhaps this was just a bad night for him because he was attacked in many directions both from whore Judy and his fellow candidates.

Either way, I think he (at least temporarilly) lost his defining stature that separated him from the rest of the field.

Any thoughts?

The consensus was that Edwards and Gephardt did the best, but that Clark did well too.

Dean and Lieberman were viewed negatively, while Kerry was at first as well, but he made up some ground with my friends for his Limbaugh comment. (I still wasn't impressed with Kerry.)

The other three weren't taken too seriously, I'm afraid.

DTH

I just said in another thread, Judy needs to ask a question THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! She actually turned her back on Gephardt and walked away as he was speaking directly to her. I hate that bitch!

To directly address your post though, I thought Clark did pretty good. I don't think he did badly (maybe that's more precice.) He was the focus of a few attacks. I think he addressed the questions "adequately" which may not be enough. You're right, I saw him at a union hall speech here in Tulsa, and thought he was wonderful! He has 4 major policy speeches he's getting ready to make. Until those speeches are made, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think that's fair to him, and responsible on my part.

I can't stand her, she needs to go work for fox.

I wasn't used to seeing her like that. I only recently started watching her on CNN and have thought up til now that she's pretty decent. Asks tough questions but in a very nice way. Tonight she was very aggressive.

I thought it was funny when one of the candidates called her out for interrupting. I don't remember who it was - Gephardt? - he said if she was going to talk, she should deduct that from his allotted time! LOL!

He said it after being ignored for like the first 20 minutes of the debate.

This debate format is really inadequate for anyone to shine...imo

But how could it have been?

Ol' skinny kept beating him over the head with the absurdity of the fundraiser crap...

and then he didn't get another question. This wasn't the best format for him at all...tho he looked really good up there...especially with the rolled up sleeves. :9

And then the rest of the night was devoted to hackdom IMO

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn....

Except for Sharpton...who is never boring...nor do any of us take him seriously for one single minute. Love him anyway.

When Wes got the chance...he did every bit as good as any in the field, tho.

I saw Clark on CSPAN the other day - he was in Iowa and he sounded great. Almost convinced me. But tonight was different. He doesn't seem to be up to speed on domestic issues and he was on the defense regarding his stance on Iraq and Bushco. That's really scary to me.

Edwards and Kerry were both good tonight. As always, Sharpton provided the entertainment. Braun was as sweet as always and I loved her comment about how the men have had their turn and have mucked things up and it's now time to let a woman try (even though she was careful not to come out and really clearly state that was what she meant). And I really like where Kucinich stands on everything, but he always comes off sounding angry and a little crazy. If I was an idealist, I would vote for Kucinich hands down. But I know I have to put ideals aside and vote for the most "electable" candidate.

Dean didn't win any points tonight. I started campaigning for him in late August and then got cold feet in mid-September. He just hasn't loosened up any. His grassroots campaign is his big plus. His debating skills need a lot of work.

Gephardt is looking better and better. Lieberman should drop out now. I can't stand him.

On the electability scale I'd keep: Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Dean and Clark - not necessarily in that order. Still need to watch them in a few more debates.

Relatively speaking... so how can you say "He doesn't seem to be up to speed on domestic issues"

He was given absolutely NO chance to say anything about domestic issues.

Perhaps Judi planned it that way,

Perhaps she deliberately focused the first question on Clark to allow the others to pile on the fact he was non partisan up until he declared his party affiliation and candidacy.

Perhaps Judi, her fellow whores and Rove see Clark as the biggest threat....

they do not want him to speak, because they know that he is the one to beat. It was so obvious. As for as Judy Wood(work) she has as much appeal as a 2x4. What a bitch! I'm emailing CNN now about her poor performance.

They did nothing but attack in the first half and in the second half Woodruff tried her hardest to ignore him.

I liked Kerry and Edwards, Dean too. Clark would be a jam-up VP...

that no one was watching the debates anyway. I hope they're right because I don't think tonight did anyone justice. Woodruff set the mood at the beginning acting like a bitchy professor and frankly, I thought they all looked like they really wanted to be somewhere else.

There weren't any people here in NY talking about this debate. And I bet you all of Mass. NH, and RI were watching the game, not the debate. The debates don't have a major effect untile December and January.

the old timers will tell you that only hard-core political junkies are into the minutiae at this point.

clark is getting alot of free press this morning. he held his own. i agree that geppy was the best. they need a better format.

judy wood-RUFF was a terrible moderator.

and then he turns around and complains that all the congressional dems (some of whom are running) voted a bad resolution.

That was weird.

But at least he didn't let Judy Woodward interrupt him.

..I expected him to bellow, "Stand down soldier!"

That would have been delicious!

I agree Clark was being ganged up on by Woodwork and the other Dems.

I personally thought Dean seemed stronger than he had in past debates (no longer a target). Edwards and Gephardt always put on a good show. Kerry improved over past performances. Mosley Braun was intelligent and articulate and ignored. I thought Sharpton was off his game. Lieberman and Kucinich need to go away.

He did complain about attacking dems (which got applause), but he did not criticize the others. He challenged them to do something about the pre-emptive doctrine.

because he's supposed to be so good, but so far I haven't seen anything but a guy who doesn't have to be told to stand up straight. All he does is repeat platitudes, and those in a boring monotone.

MOST SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING THE DEBATES WAS SAID BY GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:

"...This administration's preemptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear
weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all
those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that
doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on
this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it." WC.

They Ignored him after that!

We can't afford to let this administration drag us into any more wars and it certainly looks like they're lining up their ducks so that they can say they have no choice. So much can happen between now and 2005. We can't give up and plan to fix everything after the election.

You can't just go around and talk truthfully about Jr's screw-ups!! Not when Judy-the-schill is in charge! Remember, no criticsim of our Dear Leader!!

Julie

that was good

and makes me give him a second look. The leading candidates seem afraid to take on the legitimacy of the preemptive doctrine. Having a military man do do is powerful and I hope we see more of it.

Damn right.....


The media wants a war.....


Do the research and find FOX, MSNBC, and CNN's ratings pre war, war, and postwar....

Damn these merchants of war....

but he is no dope.

Personally, I prefer his low-key intelligent style compared to the pompous grandstanding and endless pontificating of the usual suspects.

What I like about Dean, however is his steeliness, as one pundit put it - although he lacks an outer polish sometimes. For those who have been paying attention, it is that inner quality--that resolve- that resonates with so many that are weary of the lack of defiance and substance so pervasive in the party for so long. Strength should not be measured in superficial things--but in the demonstration of a will.

And I'll agree! Resolve seems appropriate.

I sincerely hope he goes easy on the "we've raised more money" stuff though.

He and Trippi ARE and WILL be important for developing the new Grassroots style.

But it is NOT an end in itself... IMO.

It's the candidate's policies that matter most and whether you think they're sincere... not how they're raising (long as its legal) and how much they've got.

Dean is right to taut his approach... but perhaps with a bit more subtlety?

but it is significant--the amount of funding from small contributions and the way he championed the grassroots energy--it is the heart of our revitalization. No other candidate can speak of that phenomenal momentum and it shouldn't be brushed aside or minimized.


Dean is not always smooth in all venues. He has moments where he shines but he is not slick.

Unfortunately, it is that superficial slickness that the pop culture worships, and so often it is an empty package.

show that when a politician, like Gov Davis, has no connection with his politcal base, he has no supporters to back him in times of trouble. This was also the lesson from 2002 November debacle.

The reason why Dean is building a grassroots support base and constantly nurturing it is to help him weather times of trouble, whether they be from minor self-inflicted wounds or attacks from opponents and media pundits. It is also to get him elected and to have a mandate to initiate the change that this country needs.

Yes, Dean has issued policy statements to court his base, but it is primarily Dean's public willingness to fight for the Democratic base and Democratic principles against the Rightwing and the Dems who capitulated to Bush that has won him loyalty from progressives and moderates, who would normally look elsewhere. Kerry et all can point to their votes on liberal issues, but when the going got tough -- Bush's push for the Iraq War last year during campaing time -- they dropped the ball and let the Dem base down. And Clark is no better than Kerry et all. His Repuke sympathies and political campaign faux pas that only a neophyte would make are too recent to dent Dean's base. Clark is courting the Dem plutocrats, not the Dem base.

When the going gets tough and the opponents and media pundits sling mud, the Dem base will be the keel of Dean's campaign and get him through adversity. Dean's fundraising success is the best barometer of his success at building a loyal following. When Dean was attacked, Dean's supporters kept or increased their donations and that is why Dean blew away the Establishment Dems in the worse quarter of fundraising for politicians.

According to the detailed poll analysis in another thread, unlike Clark, Dean's support goes up as income levels go up. If anything, the plutocrats like Dean more, whereas the lower income people like Clark more.

Edit to add links:

Thread where analysis was posted

The summary of results

comment regarding income

So if anything, your comment that Dean appeals to the base while Clark appeals to the dem plutocrats is actually upside down.

When answering the Iraq campaign veteran's question about funding families of service members (from memory):

"The Republicans care about weapons programs. The Democrats care about people."

From what I've learned and seen: Clark is a good man and he would make an excellent President.

EDIT: typo C in first "care."

Deans performance last night was not his best. But, CNN did a lousy job, and perhaps wanted the chaos to make them look bad? GRRR.

Maybe that's the way to go. People seem to like him.

and was more convincing than Kerry's convoluted explanations for his Iraq war vote. I just don't think that Clark was telling the truth, but he did sound convincing despite his Nixonian tendencies.

BTW, I am happy to see that many of you found Judy Woodruff (sic) as horrible and pathetic as I did?

BTW part 2, I thought all the candidates did well, but one candidate in particular shone above the rest insofar Iraq was concerned: Dennis Kucinich!

He should think about presenting a more mature, dignified matter in which to criticize, and mix it with some positives - it would be more effective. There is something juvenile about his tone.

That is my only criticism of Kucinich.

Edwards made remarkable statements that brought together all the candidates...DK could learn a thing or two from that. I always expect to see DK in a tie-dye shirt with a peace sign when I see him speak. He just doesn't come off as presidential or realistic.

I think last night was an off night for him.

He managed to get in a few good ones (pre-emption, for example), but after they sat down, I don't think he fought to answer as much as the others. He was awfully quiet, LOL.

Oh well, back to Dean.

I just saw in one of the articles about the debate that this last week's strategies to wound Clark must have hit their mark.

“A lot of were concerned about Clark after he announced,” said Scott Reed, a GOP strategist. But his failure to register as a Democrat and his focus on running nationally “shows a lack of understanding of the process and priorities.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/977989.asp

Last night's bashing was like a chorus of the absurd...and our candidates and CNN colluded well.

Can anyone say Arnold? or Gored?

If he wins, he'll be going against Bush. Clark's performance was much better than any of Bush's appearances.

Clark needs to pivot better on junk questions, but I'm certain his campaign staff is already working on this soft area.