I think Hillary is more likely to beat McCain in debate than Barack

From the debates I have seen, particularly the most recent in SC, NV, and NH, I have to say that I think Hillary is clearly the best debater we have. I also think that debates will be crucial against McCain who will try to win Independents there. We need someone to "make McCain's ears steam." We need someone to bring out the inner Bush hugger and whiner that is at McCain's core. I think Hillary can do it. I don't think Barack can.

McCain is not going to cede Independents to the Dems. Independents are why McCain is our worst adversary. Independent is practically McCain's franchise. They abandoned him because of his support of Bush and the war, but they will come home to him. By the time the election has rolled around, the Republicans will make sure the Iraq war is seen as improved. And McCain will not fail to criticize Bush in the GE--something he has a much harder time doing in the primary. The media likes McCain's brand of "high stakes, improvisational straight talk." Hillary is better at improvisational straight talk than Barack, in my opinion, and in a debate scenario, Hillary will go for the jugular in real time.

So I think Independents, while they may start out in our camp with a Barack nomination, will shift toward McCain quickly after the first debate. I think the opposite shift would occur with a Hillary nomination. I just think she Will burn McCain big time while Barack might try to be conciliatory in hopes of picking up cross-over Reagan Democrats. I just think Hillary has proven tougher in debates time after time, and I want that against McCain.

in a way.

But then W was about as bad in the debates as I've ever seen, so obviously it's not a deal breaker.

in debates--and that's when "everyone agrees" as they like to say, on the same values.

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch any Repub debates. I have no idea how well
McCain debates.

He does have some humorous moments, now and again. But overall, he is not inspiring.
I imagine a Hillary and John debate might be similar to a Senate debate. Somewhat gentile.
But then again, it could get contentious at times. Mostly, I think it would be boring.

His monotone sounds a bit like hectoring, too.

McCain would clean his clock, with just two of his "My friends..." introductions to his points.

Huckabee would "likeability" him to death (no chance of that, fortunately--he's gone soon).


The only idiot that he might have a chance against is Mittsy the Shittsy, because Mittsy is an AWFUL debater. AWFUL.

If McCain puts Holy Joe on the ticket, Obama is fucked if he wins the nomination. Even Clinton would have to work like hell to overcome that duo.

He'd be a great SECDEF. Not a great VP in that particular matchup.

* would never have made it to the White House.

We use less demagoguery, so our positions require persuasion.

Picture a Dem candidate stumbling around like Bush did and getting anywhere. There's just no chance. The Dem party explicitly values rational debate whereas the Republicans think of it as just one factor, IMO.

Did you hear his speech at Sun City, FL on Saturday (26 Jan)? "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others." What was he doing, paraphrasing Orwell? Has he ever read Animal Farm? Does he write this stuff up himself or is it something prepared and put into his head prior to speaking engagements?

What a morAn.

of his. Probably we can expect more of same.

I don't know if that speech as Sun City, Fla. was on national TV, but it was aired on cable in Central Florida and heard it by chance. Does he even know he was paraphrasing Orwell? Probably not, he's a military guy with not a lot of university education.

If McCain is the GOP candidate he will try to make the election all about national security and the so-called War on Terror.

Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be easy opponents for McCain to debate, because they gave Bush the authorization to use military force to bring about the neo-con goal of regime change in Iraq. At least McCain has consistently supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have said different things at different times, depending on which way the politican winds were blowing. Even if you buy their explanations for why they voted for the IWR in 2002, and for what they said in 2002, 2003 and 2004 - McCain will hit them with it. For that matter - so would Romney, Giuliani or even Huckabee. Whoever is the GOP nominee.

who voted for or against the Iraq war doesn't amount to much right now. So playing that card as a winning hand won't get any candidate far with the current economic situation. As in '92 "It's the economy, stupid!" once again.

Its not just about the war. It would be McCain, the guy who stands for what he believes in, against Hillary who doesn't stand for anything and shows no conviction. That would be the dominant narrative. It worked against Kerry and Hillary is an even easier target for that line of attack.

Its hard to argue against a war you voted for. It was a serious problem for Kerry and a major reason why he lost.

Hillary is the better debater, but I expect Obama will get better as the primaries go on. The primaries are toughening Obama up. I like Hillary, but she really motivates the Republicans, that could spell trouble.

I wonder how many times we'd hear him say that in a debate with a Rethug?

Seriously, he couldn't win a debate with himself. He was talking today, and couldn't keep along one subject line. He continually changed the story mid-sentence, and never finished is point.

I have seen him in interviews, and he didn't seem shaky to me. It is possible that he could lose the debate simply by being no good, regardless of who we field. I don't feel comfortable counting on that, but I feel better about it if McCain is really going south as you say.

Kerry's debating would have won the election for him had Kerry been on top of the rest of his campaign. Kerry only made one serious debate blunder in bringing up Cheney's lesbian daughter. But it was a serious blunder. Otherwise, Kerry turned Bush every way but loose.

Obama's positions there are just much more inline with the country.

Welcome to 2004.

Every time Clinton brings up her 35 years of experience, the GOP will blast the airwaves with photos of what John McCain was experiencing 35 years ago. They'll dig up every DFH photo of Bill and Hillary at Yale. Suddenly, Republicans will care about draft dodging again... because, as we all know by now, the last eight years have been disappeared; it's as if Bush never existed to this GOP.

It will easily be a most disgusting and vile campaign. I do not think Senator Clinton would be able to endure the onslaught any more than I will.

Both Gore and Kerry performed very well technically as debaters versus the idiot Bush. But the perception produced by the MSM in the after debate spin made them both losers to the "more authentic" Bush. It was ridiculous, of course, but there it was.

In post-debate analysis a Dem candidate like Clinton (against whom there is nearly universal MSM bias) will be ripped and shredded regardless of how she does in a technical sense. Really, nothing could be clearer or more certain than this.

Have we learned nothing from the lesson of 2000 and 2004?

But losing is more often losing. The media might spin a Clinton win as a loss, although I have not seen that factor in the Dem debates. I have seen a lot of anti-Clinton bias, and I agree with you that it could be a big factor in the election. I think the anti-Clinton bias won't be nearly as bad in the GE when she is pitted against McCain as opposed to the primary where she is pitted against Obama.

I don't think the media will hand McCain a debate victory over Hillary if Hillary clearly wins, and I think she is much more likely to win, not just on technical grounds, but on style, poise, and the ability to think on her feet.

Gore and Kerry had good debates and bad debates. In particular, one of Kerry's debates was as thorough a drubbing of Bush as I have ever seen administered. But then Kerry had to bring up Cheney's lesbian daughter in subsequent debate. That wasn't a technical point at all. It was a debate losing style point where Kerry appeared to reveal bad character. Gore had a couple of similar problems in his debates (the sigh, and the Mr. Calm debates).

Thanks to Bush, I think debates are going to be taken more seriously this year. That is, I think part of the lesson of 2000 and 2004 that has sunk in with people is that they need to think a little harder about who they elect president.

And it is not that Obama can't debate at all. He can. It's just that it is not his strong suit.

HRC is an excellent debater with an encylopedic command of the facts. She would do well by my measure but I worry that she would be scorned for what she wore, the tone of her voice, her hair style, too aggressive, too passive, too angry, too soft, too hard ... all the kinds of subjective criticisms that come to the venal minds of biased media "analyzers" post-debate. We all saw it way too often with Gore and Kerry.

I hate to say it but our election "debates" are hardly debates in the academic definition but more like "job interviews" in front of a broad public audience. Coming out of the debate successfully depends more on which candidate seemed more likeable, with whom voters are more "comfortable", who seemed more "presidential", and that kind of crap than technical merit. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad but it is the reality of modern American politics.

but this hasn't been the case in the debates. I think he's too stressed about saying the right/wrong thing.
The first time I saw him speak (I'd read his convention speech) was as a guest on the Daily Show. He kept up his end of the banter with John Stewart *way better than any other politician I've seen.
I noted the same thing elsewhere as well.

I'm sure it sounds silly to some, but to me that shows that he can think.. which I think is relatively important.

Both Hillary and Obama would do much better than him?