The First Democratic Debate: A Quick Report Card
I don't have much time to write tonight, but I did manage to catch the first Democratic presidential debate, so I thought I'd give my initial impressions and give you a chance to agree or disagree.
John Edwards: I thought he did okay. He seemed somewhat low-key, but he looked presidential (and a lot of the others didn't). I think he sounded pretty genuine in most of his responses. Though some people seem to think he botched the "moral leader" question by taking so long to respond, I actually think he handled it pretty well. It was a stupid question, and he seemed to actually give it some thought rather than just spit out some cliche answer.
Grade = B.
Hillary Clinton: Clinton sounded intelligent and her answers weren't bad. She seemed very robotic and emotionless, though. Usually she's more animated and warm. As a result, she seemed to blend into the background.
Grade = B-
Barack Obama: Obama seemed to start out a little shaky, but I think he found his stride with the abortion question. He gave a great answer. I also think he showed some assertiveness toward the end when Kucinich was taking a swipe at him. Once he gets more comfortable in this type of setting, I think he'll really start to stand out.
Grade = B+
Bill Richardson: I didn't think Richardson did well at all, which surprised me. He's always struck me as being fairly quick on his feet and engaging as a speaker. He needs to step it up big time if he wants to become a serious contender.
Grade = C
Chris Dodd: Dodd actually did pretty well. His answers were substantive, responsive, and generally well thought out. Too bad he's so unmemorable.
Grade = B+
Joe Biden: Believe it or not, I thought Biden did really well. He's good in this kind of a format. I don't think it will propel his candicacy out of single-digit territory, but he's clearly going to be a major factor in these debates. He's going to force the other candidates to improve their games.
Grade = A-
Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich is actually a pretty good debater. He's quick on his feet and gives responsive answers. Those answers can be pretty kooky, though. And he's a little too smug.
Grade = B-
Mike "who the hell is that guy" Gravel: This guy is going to be a real problem. He was obnoxious, generally unresponsive, and often incoherent. Kucinich at least has a role to play. By representing the far left, Kucinich provides contrast without being too disruptive. Gravel, on the other hand, is a clown and if he continues to act the way he did tonight, he'll be an annoying distraction in every debate he takes part in.
Grade = F
What did you think?
John Edwards: I thought he did okay. He seemed somewhat low-key, but he looked presidential (and a lot of the others didn't). I think he sounded pretty genuine in most of his responses. Though some people seem to think he botched the "moral leader" question by taking so long to respond, I actually think he handled it pretty well. It was a stupid question, and he seemed to actually give it some thought rather than just spit out some cliche answer.
Grade = B.
Hillary Clinton: Clinton sounded intelligent and her answers weren't bad. She seemed very robotic and emotionless, though. Usually she's more animated and warm. As a result, she seemed to blend into the background.
Grade = B-
Barack Obama: Obama seemed to start out a little shaky, but I think he found his stride with the abortion question. He gave a great answer. I also think he showed some assertiveness toward the end when Kucinich was taking a swipe at him. Once he gets more comfortable in this type of setting, I think he'll really start to stand out.
Grade = B+
Bill Richardson: I didn't think Richardson did well at all, which surprised me. He's always struck me as being fairly quick on his feet and engaging as a speaker. He needs to step it up big time if he wants to become a serious contender.
Grade = C
Chris Dodd: Dodd actually did pretty well. His answers were substantive, responsive, and generally well thought out. Too bad he's so unmemorable.
Grade = B+
Joe Biden: Believe it or not, I thought Biden did really well. He's good in this kind of a format. I don't think it will propel his candicacy out of single-digit territory, but he's clearly going to be a major factor in these debates. He's going to force the other candidates to improve their games.
Grade = A-
Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich is actually a pretty good debater. He's quick on his feet and gives responsive answers. Those answers can be pretty kooky, though. And he's a little too smug.
Grade = B-
Mike "who the hell is that guy" Gravel: This guy is going to be a real problem. He was obnoxious, generally unresponsive, and often incoherent. Kucinich at least has a role to play. By representing the far left, Kucinich provides contrast without being too disruptive. Gravel, on the other hand, is a clown and if he continues to act the way he did tonight, he'll be an annoying distraction in every debate he takes part in.
Grade = F
What did you think?
posted by A.L. at 10:44 PM
17 Comments:
I'm surprised you do not mention Brian Williams. Williams has made it clear in the past to anyone who will listen that he is a BUSH LOVER and tonight his questions were so biased and inflammatory AGAINST the Democrats they seemed designed to make the Democrats look bad.
Again, I am surprised that is not mentioned in your summary.
It is long past damn time the Democrats stopped agreeing to appear on the Bush-loving networks: Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR and Air America. When are Democrats going to WAKE UP and stop giving legitimacy to the Cheney-whore press by appearing on the Hallihitler-bought-and-paid-for airwaves. I ONLY want to see the Democrats on the Internet, but NOT on Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Pajamas, Huffington Post and the rest of the GOD DAMN BIG OIL slurping poisoner brownshirts websites.
I am surprised that this is not mentioned in your summary. I'm wondering who's paying for your lunches these days.
As you know, Mike Gravel represented Alaska in the United States Senate. Clearly there is something about that state requires a person to be batshit crazy. I mean, have you ever met anybody from Alaska?
I liked Gravel. His assessments are right on. I feel some of the others would agree but not openly since the wacko right would use it demonize them.
My biggest dissapointment was the lack of raised hands to the Cheney impeachment question. Cowards all.
I don't know, I thought the Cheney raise hand question was a crock.... the legislation just got introduced, just because nobody raised their hands doesn't mean they won't vote for it. It was a question designed to trap them and they knew it. I think you are right on with most of your assessment, except about Biden. He's an ass.
Rather than being a distraction I found Gravel to be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stuffy room.
I'm surprised you do not mention Brian Williams.
Well, that's a whole post right there. I agree that his questions were terrible. He wanted to play 'gotcha' with the candidates, but to do so he took a lot of quotes totally out of context and asked some accusatory questions that made no sense. His question to Obama about our "three best allies" was clearly set up to bait him into not mentioning Israel, at which point Williams would hit him with a quote taken entirely out of context about the Palestinians. That whole sequence was just an embarassingly display of journalistic stupidity. As were the questions to Edwards about his hair and to Obama about his "donor problem." Williams has never impressed me.
AL
I'll try and answer your question rather than ranting at random.
Edwards: A- He was always quick on his feet in getting back to showing off his manifesto (the most detailed so far); I was struck by his long pause but his actual answer on moral leadership ended up being pretty good: God, wife and father. Surprisingly tame against Big Oil and Wall Street, prudently so.
Clinton: A- too. She was less stiff than I am used to think of her as. She positioned herself smartly as a potential Commander-in-Chief and managed to sound like she really is anti-war, which she's probably not in reality. Smart tactics mentioning Bill but only in connection with Columbine. She's going to be a tough cookie to crack for Barack and John.
Obama: B-, as much as I like him. He was evasive and uncertain, slow to get on his feet. The question on 'attack on two cities' threw him off his stride (but too easy for Clinton as she answered after two tries). I think Williams was determined to undermine him more than anyone else. Barack needs to find a way to handle this soundbite debate format which is the opposite of his deliberate thoughful was to frame issues; hope he learns from this and moves on to be as impressive as he is inspirational.
Richardson: C+ Sorry but I was not impressed at all, kept reading down from his lectern to his cue cards.
Dodd: B- Unmemorable altogether
Biden: B++ I think he projected a presidential look more than anyone else. His 'Yes' was great TV. Even if he doesn't stand a chance, it's good that he's there. Shows the strength of the Democratic bench against the circus of the Rep side.
Kucinich: A- He did what he's supposed to do rather well. Of course irrelevant, but at least he's putting the pressure on the issues he cares most about, hats off to that. Being next to Gravel, he almost sounded moderate.
Gravel: D or A+ depending on how you want to see it. A+ for entertainment, D for negativity. As you say, an 'annoying distraction' that steals air time from the real thing. MAybe he can help the others sound less liberal than they would otherwise, good for the general election. Man, Alaska must be an interesting place (on my list of places to visit)
That's it from me, take care
Giovanni
Thanks, Giovanni.
We seem to more or less agree. It's interesting reading all the reactions this morning. A lot of people saw the debate very differently. The one poll I saw of people who watched the debate (in SC) had Obama winning easily, which was kind of surprising to me. He did especially well among independents, which is also surprising to me.
I agree with you that Edwards and Clinton did better than Obama on the terrorist attack question, but I also agree that they were greatly assisted by answering second and third, respectively. I'd be curious to see how the Republican candidates would respond to that question.
While asked on the spot it might be a bit unfair, I think the three top allies question is kind of interesting and revealing? I would pick Britain, Japan, and Israel. Australia gets fourth place. How about you'all?
By top allies, do you mean "most strategically important" or "most supportive" or what? Under the latter criteria, countries like Israel and Australia score pretty well. But under the former, I doubt either of them score that highly. Japan and the UK score highly under both. Canada and Mexico rank highly under the first criteria too given the length of the borders they share with us and our integrated economies.
I think Gravel did better than you think. And he was given less time to speak than the front runners of the Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential race. However, i found the debate helpful because it gave me more information about the candidates. I'm now looking forward to the Republican candidates' debate.
Nice job, AL, though no two lawyers are going to agree 100% on the evaluation of every speaker.
The questions asked were a major reason that the evening was so unsatisfying. "Gotcha" questions were much too frequent, both from Brian Williams and from Dave Stanton, the local SC news anchor who presented many questions.
Can anyone offer a simple standard that could be applied to questions to exclude 95+% of the "gotcha" & politically slanted questions? Even news persons who have no bones to pick based on biases are always tempted to exploit a candidate's recent statements that are expressly or impliedly self-contradictory.
The candidates did fairly well at applying a Reagan-esque 11th Commandment -- not to speak ill of your primary opponents. I personally believe that that principle is critical to a Democratic victory in 2008. The relation is not 100%, but I'll bet that a bloody party primary campaign is one of the strongest predictors that the party will LOSE the general election.
Gravel's disastrous answer implying that Clinton-Edwards-Obama would consider using nuclear weapons to attack Iran showed exactly why he does not belong in these debates. Williams used a follow-up Q to maneuver Gravel into attributing that mind-set to the Dems' first tier, when the idea of a nuclear attack on Iran belongs to Bush, Cheney, and no one else.
None of Gravel's other points,such as the US history of irresponsibility on nuclear non-proliferation, out-weighed the negativity of that single blunder.
AL, is your hostility toward Gravel related to the fact that he cut Obama down at the knees for his failure to rule out a nuclear attack upon Iran?
Gravel is right, most of the "centrist" candidates want to appear as hawkish as the hawkish Republicans. Since the 1950s, too damned many Democrats have been in thrall to the Nixonian smear that they are "soft" on defense. It has gotten the US into all kinds of problems over the years, and thank god that there's at least one person on the stage who has the historical perspective and the guts to state that this newest crop of Democratic candidates runs a risk of falling into that trap once again.
It's pretty simple: A nuclear attack on Iran is unacceptable. There's no good reason why Dem candidates should not state that clearly.
This is an election in which Dems can find their way back to sanity, or they can continue to triangulate. Gravel has good reason to be angry that so many of the current candidates appear to be equivocators. If he doesn't say these things, who will? The corporate media?
I'm late to this, but I just saw the debate, and the most astonishing answer of the night was one of the ones I was supposed to be impressed with. It came from Senator Clinton:
"Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."
Well, if this is the case, THEN WHY DID SHE VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION? Hasn't anyone else found this answer peculiar?
Otherwise, I'm an Obama supporter, and so I'm biased, but I didn't think he got off to a slow start. I thought he was far more consistently interesting than either Edwards or Clinton. Biden was solid, Richardson uneven, Dodd also uneven.
Gravel may seem a distraction, but he is voicing what many people think -- and expressing it in a manner that many feel it.
Heck, his so-called "antics" may be what it takes to get more people to watch the debates. God bless him.
Thank you for your comments. We agree on much which means, of course, that you were very perceptive. :-)
We disagree totally about Mike Gravel, which is hardly worth dwelling on, but there was one key question that clearly demonstrates the ability of propaganda to eat the minds of intelligent and admirable folk, even such as yourself.
There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion." It is totally made up. No gynecologist/obstetrician would use such terminology though the dimwits appointed to the Supreme Court did. It conveys a picture intended to inflame and falsify. I thought for a second one of the candidates was going to respond appropriately but none did.
D&C's are performed only in the most extreme cases and are an argument for legal abortions rather than against. It is very sad that the country is in the grip of a fatwah by evangelical ayatollahs.
Best, Terry
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home