I watch debates — so you don’t have to

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from a debate featuring questions exclusively from regular folks appearing via YouTube clips. I assumed CNN wouldn’t pick ridiculous questions from the 3,000 submissions, but it remained to be seen whether this novel approach would produce a more engaging event.

On the whole, I thought it was a success. Some of the questions were off the beaten path, and a couple were so far out there that they couldn’t find the beaten path, but the unorthodox format kept things lively and interesting. Even some of those questions that probably wouldn’t have been at the top of my list — if you had to pick a Republican running mate, who would it be? — were provocative and offered valuable insights into the candidates’ perspectives. I’ve grown to dislike this buzzword, but this debate had an “authenticity” that we usually don’t see in these debates.

Who won? It’s usually pretty tough to gauge how an audience is going to respond. I thought Clinton continued to shine in these debates, last night was Obama’s best performance yet (I think he’s improved steadily in each of the four debates thus far), Edwards was fine, Biden and Dodd continue to show that Senate experience leads to good debating skills, and Richardson, who seemed to stumble in previous debates, did a lot better last night.

I’m finding Kucinich and Gravel less and less engaging. Last night, for example, after a question about Congress failing to change Iraq policy, Kucinich said, “The Democrats have failed the American people.” Why Kucinich wants to recite and reinforce right-wing talking points is unclear.

Gravel, who got less speaking time than any other person on the stage, made the case for not being invited back. He attacked candidates for accepting contributions from “bankers on Wall Street” (which Ben Smith suggested may have been anti-Semitic), only to endorse the most regressive, far-right taxation plan imaginable. Don’t go away mad, Mike, just go away.

Other thoughts from my notepad:

* Obama’s subtle shot — Because Hillary is the front runner, the other candidates are going to have to take her on directly sooner or later. Last night, it was subtle, but Obama said at one point, “I think it’s terrific that she’s asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.” This is going to get less subtle as time goes on.

* Best Question — “I’m Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I’m the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina. Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?” Edwards’ response was kind of weak, and the low point of the night for him.

* Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton — A gentleman from Illinois asked Hillary, “With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again serving as the last three presidents, how would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for, and what your campaign has been talking about? I was also wondering if any of the other candidates had a problem with the same two families being in charge of the executive branch of government for 28 consecutive years, if Hillary Clinton were to potentially be elected and then re-elected.” I thought Hillary might struggle with this one. She didn’t.

“Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. (APPLAUSE) I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but… (APPLAUSE) Obviously, I am running on my own merits, but I am very proud of my husband’s record as president of the United States. (APPLAUSE) You know what is great about this is look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee. So I’m looking forward to making my case to the people of this country and I hope they will judge me on my merits.”

* Biden vs. Gun Guy — Jered Townsend in Clio, Michigan, asked whether his “baby,” a very big machine gun, would be “safe.” Biden responded, “I’ll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help. I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun.” Soon after, he added, “I hope he doesn’t come looking for me.”

* Obama vs cab drivers — Anderson Cooper: “Senator Obama, how do you address those who say you’re not authentically black enough?” Obama: “You know, when I’m catching a cab in Manhattan — in the past, I think I’ve given my credentials.” Clever and quick. Nicely done.

* “Hair” — Each of the candidates got a chance to show their own YouTube clips, and Edwards’ campaign did an amazing job turning around the stupid “controversy” about his haircuts.

* The Dodd clock — The Dodd campaign ran its helpful clock-watching feature, measuring which candidates got the most time.

* The people’s choiceFor what it’s worth, focus groups from CNN and Frank Luntz each said Obama won, a SurveyUSA instapoll said Clinton won, and a New Hampshire focus group said Edwards won. I guess this means there was no “clear” winner?

What’d you think?

which Ben Smith suggested may have been anti-Semitic

I doubt it

Why Kucinich wants to recite and reinforce right-wing talking points is unclear.

Huh, I recall writing some remark here about Kucinich after the first debate. I wonder what it was…

  • I didn’t watch the debate last night. For some reason, I keep forgetting to, even as I follow these things pretty closely. But I did see some post-debate chatting today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where Tom Shales of The Washington Post seemed to feel the process was one more step in the quest to make politics more entertaining. Maybe it’ll have that effect, but I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the original purpose.

  • i didn’t watch. too busy reading potter 7. it’s amazing by the way.

  • With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again serving as the last three presidents, how would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for, and what your campaign has been talking about?

    This is a really annoying point in all this ultra-early discussion of the election. The Clintons do not nearly represent the same people as the Bush family. They do not come from the same background at all. The Clintons do not represent old-money elitism or exclusivity. Bill Clinton came from a trailer park. Hillary Clinton’s dad was a small business man- a real small businessman, the pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps kind- the Bush family represents boarding schools and the upper-class, elite-class, northeast WASP heritage. They are the biggest of big business and money personified, and as far from the little guy as you can get.

  • For me, the two responses that reminded me why I prefer Obama were on education and minimum wage. When asked if the candidates would be willing to do their jobs on minimum wage for a year, Dodd complained he couldn’t afford to with two kids in college and Clinton answered with a strong “yes” and then smirked like she had gotten away with something. Obama followed by saying “We can all say yes because all of us have money. The problem is those of you who have to live on it year after year.” When Dodd complained that he didn’t have enough, Obama said that maybe he didn’t have Romney money, but he could get by. It really showed Dodd as out of touch and really distinguished Hillary’s willingness to give good sounding but dishonest answers while Obama really emphasizes all of us in it together.

    Something similar happened with the question of whether they sent their kids to public schools. While everyone was tripping over themselves to talk up public schools, Obama just pointed out that senators can always get their kids into an excellent public school. The problem isn’t that those schools don’t exist. It is that there are far too many kids stuck in terrible schools with no possibility of improvement. Accepting the fact that the Presidential candidates really are priveledged really makes him come off as a lot more honest about poverty and the divide between regular Americans and the wealthy.

  • Hmm, not a peep in the “debate” about the current Constitutional crisis caused by the Loyal Bushie Brownshi(r)t Cabal? Whatever.

    I’m finding Kucinich and Gravel less and less engaging. Last night, for example, after a question about Congress failing to change Iraq policy, Kucinich said, “The Democrats have failed the American people.” Why Kucinich wants to recite and reinforce right-wing talking points is unclear.

    To repeat something that I’ve said before, it’s time to set aside ideology and political solidarity in favor of the universal commonalities of all Americans, regardless of political persuasion — the mutual interests of our freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution and American National Security (not Iraqi National Security), especially the security and integrity of our Constitutional Republic. What stronger campaign platform could there be in these times of universal deceit?

    Where are Clinton, Obama, & Edwards on these critical matters? It does not go without saying these days, when Dick&Bush wipe their ass with the Constitution. I’m finding CB less and less engaging in his apparent opposition to the few candidates who give a damn if the Constitution is upheld. And Kucinich is right, “The Democrats have failed the American people.” The Democrats could have already begun the withdrawal of the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq and ended Dick’s Private Empire if they had withheld King George’s ransom, as is the mandate of the American People.

    But what do I know? I voted for Ralph Nader. Blame me.

  • >Why Kucinich wants to recite and reinforce right-wing talking points is >unclear.

    Kucinich may have absolutely no chance, but he keeps speaking the truth as he sees it. IMO, he maybe be one of only a few true Progressives in Washington.

    I feel there are plenty of people tired of the political partisan game playing and Kucinich reflects that.

    Getting out of Irag isn’t a Democratic or Republican issue. The people turned to the only place and the only people they could – Congress and the opposition party (in this case the Democratic Party).

    The result so far is more troops in Iraq and more violence.

    I would say that is a failure on some level and to some degree.

    Resolution of this issue can’t began to happen until accountability is asumed. Until someone says this is what the Aamerican people voted us in for and we’re not there yet only serves to keep things at a stalemate.

    Stating this any other way just puts the issue back into the political posturing relm – which seems to go nowhere except back and forth.

    Maybe the Democrats are trying, but I think more people want them to try harder and maybe faster. Can anyone honestly say that the Democrats are doing everything they can?

    Kucinich’s suggestion will never fly with politicians because they can’t stop being politicians. Stopping the funding provides too many potential political dangers for the cowardly non-statesmen(people) who presently populate the Congress.

  • and Clinton answered with a strong “yes” and then smirked like she had gotten away with something.

    The question was a dilemma, and either answer could have been construed badly. Clinton picked what she thought was the better answer– otherwise, people could have made it sound like they’re a bunch of “elitists.” The question really was silly, and in my opinion, honestly, probably just meant to trap people. Why ask it? The answer Hillary gave was an, “I’d work hard and do what it takes for my kids answer,” the thing is, for a Democrat then you still have to fit in and say, “but it’s not good enough for the American people without a higher minimum wage, etc.”- you have to make it clear that you’re not against increasing the min. wage all of a sudden and why the Dem stance is good. Otherwise Hannity et al. won’t mind saying that you’re against increasing the min. wage the next day and that you’re a flip-flopper.

  • Echoing jKap #7, “Kucinich is right”.

    Politically incorrect and tonedeaf, yes. Which is why he won’t win the party nomination. But is he more in tune with a large chunk of Americans on War & Peace, Impeachment and Healthcare than the triangulating frontrunners? Also yes.

  • Something similar happened with the question of whether they sent their kids to public schools.

    See, same thing– a series of inane questions. And allowing that “which Republican running mate would you choose” question- come on, that’s like asking, “If you had to, which of your friends’ spouses would you sleep with and why?”

  • Americans are simply not ready to vote as President someone who has a video showing himself primping to the tune “I Feel Pretty.” If we can’t get together on gay marriage, a guy with makeup and $400 haircuts isn’t going to cut it.

    Edwards has no chance.

  • On whether the Democrats failed America, maybe the Democrats did just about all they could do in the situation they were in and the unexpected challenge they were up against, and can’t be charged with prescient, perfect knowledge and judgment, and just like us couldn’t have expected how disturbed and adverse our media would turn out to really be. Remember, when we went to war in Iraq, we all had out doubts about it because Bush was leading it, but I bet a lot of you doubted it less than I did and I bet a lot of you were thinking, “Well, maybe we do need this war,” on the eve of the invasion.

    Whatever the case, I guarantee you there are a few Dems in congress who are already bought off and ready to turn when they’re needed, because that’s just how bad people are. Democrats are not perfect people that you can predict to be, down-to-a-man, incapable of turning on you or being bought off. Joe Lie just turned out to be the first guy at bat to do it– he started contradicting us at every corned to blunt our message in these controversial times. I have no doubt that he lied in wait to pull the rug out from under us. Kucinich is just showing us that he is the next guy in line, when things get more solid for the Dems. When we get better representation in congress, there are probably another two people at least ready to turn on us so what we have isn’t so strong. The Republicans would have thought about it and would have executed it. What Kucinich said is not helpful for us and we should all know it.

  • IMHO Al Gore won the debate by not being in it. It looked like a dog and pony show to me. Almost all of the contestants would make a decent president, but we need a great one, and he’s waiting in the wings.

    I also (more or less) agree with jKap and Ohioan on Kucinich. After all the crimes the Bush cabal has committed in broad daylight, after the worst clusterfuck ever in Iraq, with majorities of public opinion agreeing with the “radical left” position, there’s only one Democrat who’s willing to call a spade a spade? Very disheartening.

  • Dittos JKap #7

    Kucinich is 100% right: “The Democrats have failed the American people.”

    The Democrats continue to fail the American people and I do not see an end. They (We, Democrats) are in a position to carry out their constitutional duties but still will not. They repeatedly make gestures and then fold. Sometimes a right-wing talking point is factual and true.

    I implore you all to scroll up to #7 and read again the center paragraph.

    CB, I agree that the current Republican government is a constitutional, moral and human disaster but lining up behind the current Democratic Party simply because it isn’t Republican is not a significantly better alternative.

  • but lining up behind the current Democratic Party simply because it isn’t Republican is not a significantly better alternative.

    Yes it is.

    “Alternative” is, by definition and etymology, a choice between two. The host cities for the All-Star Game alternate, American League-National League, for example. It’s a switching-back-and-forth thing, not a rotating thing.

    Sorry. Been teaching too long…..

  • Obama looks very good and Hillary, no matter how much I dislike her, would make a much better president than ANY Republican currently seeking the nomination.

    The problem remains that America – that place we fly over while travelling between coasts – is NOT going to elect a black or a woman.

  • I do not have Cable so couldn’t watch the debates….obviously this debate was for those with more discretionary money than I have. Nonetheless I did find the transcript on cnn.

    I rather like truth and transparency, so I have a soft place in my heart for Kucinich and to a lesser degree, Gravel. I think they speak truths as they see them minus political fears and consequent hedging and dodging. I’m glad they are out there to remind us. Gravel gets a little bizarre at times…but hey… if we talk bizarre look at who resides in the White House right now .

    Obama said some good things…including recognition of the role Big Pharma Big Insurance etc now play in our government. Since I think that is a MAJOR issue I am now swinging back to Obama. Hilary said a lot without saying much to my mind. Edwards was steady right on as usual. And Richards piped up with a few good insights.

  • Swan,
    I do think the questions were traps. I think it is important to see how the candidates handle those traps. To my eyes, Hillary tended to be too cute by half and Obama tended to acknowledge the trap and respond to it directly. Answers to the most inane questions can often be enlightening.

    Publius,
    Here in Oklahoma, they are devoted to hating Hillary. Amazingly, Obama speaks a lot to their values andgets people excited. My sister is a lifelong party Republican and she is excited about the chance to vote for Obama. She isn’t alone.

  • CB, I actually ENJOY watching the Democratic debates. You earn a lot of gratitude from me when you watch the Publican debates so, I don’t have to.

    I thought that the best line of the night belonged to Edwards. After several of the others had recited the same crap about “bringing Democrats and Republicans together” (in the style of George W. Bush??), Edwards pointed out (correctly) that these people won’t negotiate, they won’t ever give up their power willingly, and that he has been taking on the rich and powerful all his life.

    He’s right. The Publicans have been bought and paid for and show no inclination to compromise. The ones in Congress will compromise about as much as what we can expect from Bush in the next 18 months.

    At another time, one of the candidates (Edwards? Obama?) said that it won’t change anything if we replace their insiders with our insiders. Absolutely right.

  • DXM #16

    “. . . but lining up behind the current Democratic Party simply because it isn’t Republican is not a significantly better alternative.”

    The operant word there as I read it is CURRENT. I opine that the DNC needs to be made responsive to the progressive electorate that it purports to represent. In it’s CURRENT form it’s rapidly losing me and a large number of people around me – all of us are long term CORE Democrats. Forums such as this are a good place to be putting the pols on notice. My (our?) partisan fealty is not a given. I haven’t voted for Nader yet but the DNC is convincing me that I ought to.

  • But what do I know? I voted for Ralph Nader. Blame me.

    Comment by JKap

    I understand your Nader vote well. I voted for Benjamin Spock (Peace and Freedom Party) in 1968. It helped Nixon win a close one (along with all the others who chose to sit that one out because neither party represented them re anti-war).

    However, I consider that vote, in retrospect, to be a mistake. It was even worse in 2000 because Mr. Nader had a seat at the table with Democrats where he could advance his truly progressive agenda. But he chose instead, infamy, then irrelevance, now obscurity.

    Do you now consider your 2000 vote a mistake? Would you have voted Gore or just sat it out?

    Just curious.

  • Do you now consider your 2000 vote a mistake?

    I voted my conscience, just like I did in any elections that I have participated in since then — and like I will do in 2008 (if, indeed, Dear Leader does not declare martial law and suspend the elections and the Constitution).

  • We forget that in ’00 Gore was a poll-whore who ran a campaign based on not rocking the boat. I voted for him but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from it. Nader was a viable option for a principled Liberal.

    I’ll probably take the Nader option if Hillary gets nominated just because she looks so much like the consumate wheeler-dealer establishment pol and half the nation hates her. Any of the other Dems now running will get my vote. I’ll vote for any non-fascist challanger to my Dem Senator and Congressman.

    We really should get organized and take our party back.

  • The worst and most embarrassing thing about Kucinich is really our embarrassment, not his. We know he’s right just about every time. And we know — most of us — we aren’t going to break our backs working for him. So what does that make us? Well, that makes us Democrats who have failed, I guess.

  • I skipped back and forth between the debate and other things, but it seems to me that if they are plugging the imporance of these YouTube questioners, they could have had their videos fill the screen as they answered instead of appearing small and fuzzy on a big screen on the stage. The questions weren’t that different from what they would have received from a moderator and I think CNN’s trumpeting of spontaneity taking candidates by surprise was naive, since all the possible questions had been posted on YouTube ahead of time so candidates could still prepare for them. If they truly want to surprise them, they need to set it up where the submit them but no one can see them except the people choosing the questions. Then there could be surprises.

  • Swan # 13 – but I bet a lot of you doubted it less than I did and I bet a lot of you were thinking, “Well, maybe we do need this war,” on the eve of the invasion.

    A straw man argument – a lot of us, self included, were on the streets protesting.

    As Howard Zinn once said, we are citizens, not politicians. Our job is to let those in power, ie the Democratic party, know our intense displeasure. Leave it to them to count their faxes and figure out how the country feels. It shouldn’t be our job to compromise or excuse them – if we do, then obviously our leaders will take our muddled feelings into consideration and adjust their positions.

  • Kucinich is right …He is the only candidate speaking the straight truth and not just continuing the corporate agendas I will support which ever democrat that wins the nomination but Kucinich is the only candidate who shows us the way to peace “immediately”. If republicans seize on certain truths for talking points Kucinich is not creating the talking points by speaking the truth.
    This Iraq occupation could have been stopped months or “lives” ago if the democrats would have just stood their ground no matter what. It was after all the republicans who were willing to hold the troops hostage to get funding.
    Kucinich is the ONLY candidate out there who would bring about the changes most Americans claim to be seeking.
    Kucinich is the only candidate brave enough to stand up and fight for the constitution by introducing articles of impeachment against Cheney. The others point at the corruption and say it’s terrible but Kucinich actually is trying to do something about it. The others say it’s a waste of time because we don’t have the votes. Cowards think that way, refusing to fight unless they are assured victory beforehand. The others talk, Kucinich acts and speaks the inconvenient truth, the democrats did fail us on stopping the Iraq occupation or preventing the continuing deaths of our soldiers. Why do we want pomp and fanfare over serious deliberation and truth.

  • By the way, if CNN allowed the crazy guy holding the AK-47 and calling it his “baby” to directly address the candidates, how can we ever blame Al-Jazeera for airing similar videos????

  • Kucinich has never been my favorite candidate, and I have to ask an inconvenient question. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Kucinich the only Dem candidate who has been invited to do a segment/interview on FOX News….and actually went?

    He wouldn’t be the first fringe candidate to sell out his principles in exchange for an audience. I’m not saying he has, but by slamming the entire Democratic party with such a broad brush like he did in this debate he’s sure sounding a lot more like a Republican mole than I feel comfortable with.

  • I’ll probably take the Nader option if Hillary gets nominated

    Comment by Wahoo

    How can you watch Hillary and not be impressed with her intelligence and leadership abilities, even if she’s not your first choice (mine either, but I’d easily vote for her if she’s the nominee)?

    And your reason is that it looks like it would be a real close election if she wins the nomination! Sheesh, 2000 was only a few short years ago. Live and learn? I guess not.

    We could use some more 7-2 decisions once President Guiliani replaces some of them old-school liberals that still infest the Supreme Court.

    So a vote for Nader over Hillary advances the progressive agenda how? How do you see that playing out?

  • #31

    Sooner or later the Democrats will stop positioning themselves as “Republican Light” and losing and start listening to the folks they claim to represent – or there will be a new party.

    Hillary’s disingenuous crap about her war vote simply sends me up a tree. The “If I knew then what I know now” line simply won’t wash unless she’s talking about making a bad POLITICAL move. I knew then what she knows now and so did she. My biggest problem with her isn’t even her own doing – about 30% of the country simply hates her and her presidency could only create further bitter polarization that we really, really don’t need.

    My party fails me. Time to re-group.

  • It looks like the most insight might actually be in the comments section here. But from CB’s retelling, I’m most impressed by this one statement, and I hope it comes to define the Democratic primary season. “Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.”

    That one is sooo right, and anyone thinking to smear or attack another Dem candidate should remember that.

  • My party fails me. Time to re-group.

    Comment by Wahoo

    Yeah, time to regroup by forming a circular firing squad I guess. You still didn’t answer my question how voting for Nader instead of Hillary, if she is the nominee, furthers the progressive agenda.

    Spock, Wallace, Anderson, Perot, now Nader? Maybe it’s the third party idea that should “regroup” itself out of destructive irrelevance. If you want to truly “vote your conscience,” why don’t you start sending money to Nader now so he can get serious and beyond the spoiler role you relish. His capitalist fat-cat stock portfolio is getting thin. I hear It’s down to a dimes worth of difference!

  • By the way, if CNN allowed the crazy guy holding the AK-47 and calling it his “baby” to directly address the candidates… -Ohioan

    Actually, I think it was a M4A1 or some other M4 variant, but seriously, that guy was disturbed. If you want to play with big guns like that, join the army, meet interesting people, kill them. No one needs a gun like that for either hunting or defense.

    Does he honestly think he’s going to rise up against a government out of it’s boundaries? No one’s done it yet, so I have to think that is not a valid excuse to ever own a gun like that.

    He was a straight up psychopath. Frankly, anyone who wants a gun like that is exactly the type of person background checks should keep from having one.

    Sigh.

  • Comments are closed.