Gonna give it a shot here... Semi-objective Debate Analysis

Obligatory Disclaimer: Still an Edwards supporter.

Overall: I was impressed by all three. I didn't think any of them made any fatal errors. Just want to make a couple of observations here.

(1) Why the hell is this debate only showing on CNN? There are not just thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but MILLIONS who cannot afford cable, or if they can, only have limited cable that does not include CNN. These same households certainly don't have the ability to watch it on the internet either. Why should they be limited to the few quick soundbites that the MSM will give them during the news?

(2) I have to say, between Clinton & Obama, (giving a nod to the fact that they are currently the two front-runners regardless of the obvious reason WHY they are), Hillary captivated me more than Barack did. She is close to overtaking him in my signature line, not just due to this debate but because of past debates as well. The only thing keeping her back is the fact that many minds in this good old US of A have been successfully brainwashed into thinking she is the devil incarnate. I just don't know if 8-9 months will be enough for her to turn that around. I don't know how well the right wing smear machine will manage to destroy Barack in that period of time - but I know they've already had many years to cement the negative opinion of HRC in peoples' minds. That really starts her off with a big disadvantage to overcome. Her statement that "I'm still here" doesn't counteract that - the reason she's still there is because she chose to run in the state of New York. I'm still not convinced she can overcome this in the GE. One thing I am convinced of, however, is this: Voters are not just hungry for "Change" this time around - they're hungry for COMPETENCE! And in this category she satisfies immensely. Loved it when she took GWB to task for trying to hamstring the next president with regard to Iraq and permanent bases etc.

(3) Obama scored some points, particularly (I thought) among black voters, and also with regard to foreign policy. But the "Christian" thing really got my hackles up. There are many other faiths and people of NO faith in this country and the last thing we need is more pandering on religion. Yes, I know he needed to make that clear in light of the RW smears - but plenty of time to do that after he actually wins the nomination (if that happens). His debate performance was still somewhat ponderous and halting, (though improved), but one thing that especially came through to me tonight is that he really does seem to act a bit superior. That didn't go well for Gore, and could be a problem for BO as well. Both would be good presidents - but you have to remember that a lot of very stupid people vote, and these people don't like people who SEEM intellectually superior to them, or who they cannot otherwise relate to. As far as relatability goes, BO is #3 on that stage. (Edwards is of course #1). I hate to say it, but I really didn't gain a lot of confidence overall from him tonight in any category and that's saying something 'cause he's been my #2 choice for a long time now.

(4) Edwards was superb as always, in my biased opinion. One thing though (and I heard the audience chuckling as he did it TWICE): He really needs to stop referring to Clinton & Obama as "These other guys". :) Also his "never taken a dime from lobbyists" statement is beginning to wear a bit thin. People hear something too often, they start tuning you out. Also, as he himself acknowledged, Poverty is not an issue that you can coast to the WH on. I was waiting for him to perhaps signal that he was going to expand this somehow, but it did not happen.

So that's my general feeling for what it's worth.

I guess you'd have to ask the party leaderhip. Frankly, I think they've been pretty stupid about how these things have been run.

The only consolation is that they're not on Fox (though with Blitzer & Russert, they might as well be).

unconsciously buying into the RW talking point that free market is the answer to everything. It isn't. These debates should be PUBLICLY funded and viewable by ALL.

try to tell me what I'm thinking or feeling?

It is an irritating trait, that sort of didactic assumption. You should try to avoid it.

I stated a fucking fact. The reason CNN carried the debate, and not NBC or PBS or HBO or anyone-the-fuck-else, is because THEY PAID FOR IT.

Did I offer you a dissertation on the "goodness" or "wickedness" of this fact?

No, I did not.

So please, spare me your 'insights' into how I view the world.

I didn't mean to offend.

It just happens to me all too often...which is why I tend to react like a punchdrunk fighter at the bell.

I simply provide a fact, a data point, or whatever, and if it doesn't meet with the "expectations" of the person to whom I'm providing it, they crawl up my ass with a Norma Rae lecture/speech!!

CNN had a fab feed working--three feeds, actually. I think it was on the radio as well. No one listens to radio anymore, it seems.

When BO made the Xtian commentary, the "people meter" looked like a ski slope. It dipped WAY down. He's going to have to put that shit to the side, because it doesn't play to a wide audience.

I only had one issue with Edwards' entire night (for the most part, I thought he was ON all evening). It was when he used the word "we" to mean himself. It might be a particular thing with me, but the "Royal We" grates a bit. I don't know if it's a regional useage in the south that I might have missed when I lived in that area, or just a quirk of his to avoid saying "I" or "ME" too often.

Both Obama and Clinton Advocate and have taken Big $$ From Coal... Thos ePesky Lobbyists that John Edwards Like sto talk about again... Oh Well... :)

aren't free either. you shouldn't have to pay to watch a debate.

Lots of places have free access--from coffee shops to truck stops to hotels and you name it. The entire city of Boston is working on getting wired...

a campaigning unit.

I think all three are basically honorable and dedicated individuals. I think the choice of questions they are asked is partly to blame, but I'm not getting a whole lot of information from these events. What purpose does a question about whether Bill Clinton is a black man or not serve? I am embarrased if any foreigners are watching and see what stupid questions are asked of our candidates. I'm getting style, aggression, compassion, feelings and anecdotes put these debates are very thin on information. Edwards talking about a mother who can't pay for both the heat in her home and her rent and puts her children to bed with coats and extra blankets is interesting. It's interesting that he's aware of that. But what does that anecdote tell us about what Edwards specifically plans to do? And how does he plan to pay for it? What specific course of action to relieve poverty in America will he commit to and can he challenge his fellow debaters to meet that challenge? I hear sniping between Hillary and Obama over whether Obama actually supported Reagan or not. But what does that tell us that either Hillary or Obama will do for this country? Tonight they even argued over whether Hillary actually used the word Reagan or not. Where are the new ideas that Democrats are supposed to have? Hillary ducks questions about the specifics of her healthcare plans while Obama gives us vague responses to how he will improve America's image abroad. I did hear one specific proposal by Barack Obama regarding the incarceration rate of black people and the injustices in the judicial system and that he will convoke some kind of panel to review these injustices. But there's no discussion of Iraq. Neither Obama nor Clinton will tell us they will COMPLETELY withdraw from Iraq or when. If a partial withdrawal is all they intend to do, and leave a force on the ground to combat terrorism in Iraq, how many troops will that involve? And for how long? I'm expecting some amount of information from these debates. I'm expecting to see supreme intellects on the stage who have a masterful command of facts, figures and plans about a variety of solutions to our problems. Instead, I'm seeing infighting about who said what sound bite, I'm hearing anecdotes and vague notions. I'm really disappointed this year with these candidates.

Few real answers to important questions. And not that many important questions. Very little concerning the "hows" on the issues. Hillary and Obama talked in circles when it came to Iraq. Last debate it seems all 3 were for getting the troops out within a year. Did I hear wrong. Edwards is sticking to the one year plan.

The finger pointing by Clinton and Obama should have been taken care of in another forum. It was as bad as the msm version of the issues, he said she said. They were vote counting on stage.

I already ran from here screaming earlier due to no ability to hide the excessive number of highly biased posts. I'm glad I came back. They all seemed at the top of their respective games tonight so it was their basic personalities that made the difference. I agree with your analysis for the most part. Good post.

He was very, very good.

But I gotta tell you, I am sick to death of that GD mill. Enough. We get it.

Otherwise, good show. Edwards proved he wasn't an afterthought or some third wheel tonight. Good for him. :thumbsup:

One other thing I noticed: Edwards was really cozying up to Hillary. Not sure whether they were ganging up on Barack 'cause he has more delegates, or he is starting to think she is going to win the nomination. Perhaps both. NOT a good time or place for the two of them to be ganging up on BO. I'm hoping his reason was that he has decided he could beat Clinton one-on-one more easily than Obama -- The only other possible reason is that he is angling for the VP slot from HRC instead of BO. It was a clear change of direction from the last debate and it certainly wasn't lost on her.

there in his home state. Doesn't Obama lead the polls in S. Carolina?

take votes away from Clinton. I think he was making a real shift there toward Hillary and I think it had more to do with the end game than just South Carolina.

by someone who appears to like red meat which is evidently why you liked Hillary tonight. Edwards didn't deliver any for a change, and look who everybody else thinks won.

Will he fire Trippi now?

Actually I really think Edwards has the best chance in the GE and that more than anything else is the reason I support him. (It's not the only reason of course) Don't get the red meat comment exactly, unless you mean substance. She definitely gave more substance than the other two. Trippi... Trippi. You know, if I remember correctly I read an article where he talked about how Dean just wouldn't listen to him (especially on the issue of releasing some of his records as Governor). Don't know if you can blame him completely for either of their campaigns' failures - who would you suggest Edwards hire? At this point in the game I would say the time to shake up his staff has probably past.

I also agree whole-heartedly with you about number 1. I had half hoped that at least it might be on public radio as well; it wasn't. Also, not only does it take a certain level of well-being to be able to watch it on the internet (you need a computer) but also, you need computer speakers that WORK! They are notorious for breaking and becoming useless years before the rest of the computer reaches that state.

I at least saw excerpts on Nightline. Obama did look a little tired.

1) If you can't afford cable, they (MSM) could care less what you think.

2) I havn't seen ONE poll where she beats all the repugs; and I have a HUGE problem with her being for change. You can't be for change and still use the same old dirty politics of an establishment candidate.

3) The christian thing was to get independents and disenfranchised repugs.

4) I agree, Edwards did fine, but he needs to tone some of that down. I know people follow in sound bites, but enough is enough. Gimme some new bites.

where he was asked about the Muslim email. I wonder why people place so much faith in polls 8 months before an election when neither candidate ha s been chosen?

I, too, was taken aback by Obama's "Proud Christian," though apparently many DUers love this...

And I, too, get tired of Edwards' harping about lobbyists. There are many worth causes, like the Sierra Club, that lobby Congress. Unless you can prove that someone voted because of money that s/he got from lobbyists, you taint all members of Congress in one stroke.

Many are there to educate and to provide additional points of view.

devil incarnate so have fun with your new sig line.

Anyway I haven't changed the sig line yet, still need more convincing re her ability to win the GE vs. BO

been my senator for 7 years and I've seen nothing but calculations coming from her aspirations for higher office..starting with the vote for bush's push for war ON Iraq. She has blood on her hands and she's not letting up with her vote for the vile kyl-lieman bill.

be hard on him but I didn't take notes and couldn't think of many big positives off the cuff, so I just went with general feelings. I still like him. I recognize that HRC has some serious problems and that many of her votes have been cast with her run for President in mind, as opposed to being cast in conscience. However that's part of what's necessary to gain the office. She is typecast as "calculating" where a man might be called "shrewd". I think there's still a core being within her that would make some very different decisions as President than her Senate votes might suggest.

If you're an Obama supporter (not certain of that) what would be more productive at this point if you're trying to win over some wafflers like me would be to either address some specific things in this thread reasonably (without a large amount of anger, in other words) or to say a few good things about his debate performance that you noticed, that are perhaps not fresh in our minds or didn't stick with us as much as they stuck with you.

hilary and your comment about putting her in your sig line to me was like you really didn't have a clue what she's about.

But, yeah, I like Obama and Edwards and don't have cable news but getting a sense of the debates from here. Everyone has their own perspective and mine is it will be a miracle if Obama or Edwards gets it away from the Washington power structure but that's what I'm pulling for.

Ummmmm, something stupid I hope. I want flame bait but I've only started maybe 3 threads in 3.5 years so I don't want to overplay it. Right now its a choice between a homage to all the times I've typed "K&R" or maybe a rant on all the candidates being to the right of me.

I could go for the classic "AHAHA I was a freeper all along" thing, but its been done to death.(I did Robinson's pancakes on post 700 to a resounding ho-hum btw) What to do, What to do.....

We have a new headline:

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Hillary close to overtaking Obama in race for 4th place in signature line of left-leaning member of Democratic Underground discussion Forum

I actually do like the fact that Barack refuses to sink down to the level of his opponents when they are attacking him in often unjustified and unfair ways.

I wouldn't say he is acting superior.

I would say he is behaving Presidential.

There's a difference. B-)