Last NH debate

[M]

I think this debate was worthy of a thread, even though it was fairly dull. Who do you think were winners and losers tonight?

I think the following:

Winners

Kerry- nothing especially defining for good or evil. But he didn't hurt himself, and for a frontrunner that's good. He was consistent with his views, though I personally disagree with most of them he presented them well.

Edwards- acquitted himself fairly well despite flaws, especially messing up meaning of Defense of Marriage Act. Peter Jennings asked him a ridiculous and irrelevant question, asking him to share his knowledge about the teachings of Islam. Edwards sort of dodged the question, but I would have too. What was Jennings thinking? Was he just being PC, or trying to mess up Edwards?

Lieberman- surprise winner, was the best showing in the debate and his best yet. Lieby has distinct principles which, while to the center of most dems, he articulated clearly, intelligent, and even, at times, rather wittily (surprse surprise!).

Losers:

Howard Dean- didn't particularly hurt himself, but this was his chance t help himself bigtime. His lack of especial passion was probably unappealing to his core, and he apologized for the famous Hitlerian rally a little too much and too debasingly. It seemed like every time he opened his mouth he said something about excuse my hooting and hollering, until finally Sharpton made fun of him pretty well and he stopped.

Kucincih: you know, just the usual bu I mean, gimme a break already! Still the unintentional comic relief in Survivor: the Democrats.

Sharpton: the usual silliness, but also a big stumble on the Fed. He was asked who he would appoint to chair the federal reserve but seemed not to understand what that was. Finally he said something like "Uh... someone skilled in , uh, banking, who would help with the... uh, Federal (pause) Reserve". I think that shot his chance of taking any Southern states barring massive wierdness. (Who asks Al Sharpton serious presidential policy questions, anyway? Sheesh!)

Wes Clark: The evenings big loser. The gaffe over the Moore thing was avoidable and stupid. He could have used something like Edwards line on Terry McAuliffe's statement "I wouln't have said it like that, but yeah, I'm opposed to it." Instead, he said something like, "I don't know, and tell you the truth, I don't really care. This isn't about facts. It's about the future".

I'd like to here others' observations.

[Demrepdan]

I agree with your list. Kerry is definitly the BIG winner. But I dont know about Howard Dean...he didn't really.."win"...but he didn't really..."lose" either. He kinda redeemed himself for the hootin' an hollerin'..but that's about it. Here is my list:

Winners:
Kerry
Edwards
Lieberman

Howard Dean ?

Losers:
Wesley Clark
Dennis Kuchinich
Al Sharpton

[Demrepdan]

Hold the presses...I may change my mind right now. After having looked at the Debate yet AGAIN...I now think that Wesley Clark IS the big loser..even over Sharpton and Kuchinich. Although Clark is more of a contender than Sharpton and Kuchinich...Clark really did lose a lot of foot hold. Jumping around questions.....not answering questions fully...yeah..I'd say Kerry is the big winner...Clark is the big loser.

[M]

Overall a very interesting debate despite the fact it had few really memorable moments because of the current fluidity of NH. Edwards could have a shot at getting ahead of either Clark or Dean, possibly both, to become 3rd or 2nd.

Something Edwards is doing wrong: both in his website and his public appearances, he consistently refers to only SC and not the other Feb 3 primaries. While SC has been played up as the most important state tha day, partially because it is very different from the Northern states, he should at least try to get some delegates from other states that day.

Still, if he gets decent scores in NH, perhaps even a god 4th place finish, he should be able to defeat Fritz (no, not Comebackerry) in SC, then win the Feb. 10th primaries. After that things get fluid.

If Leiby can pick up a single Feb. 3 state (Delaware? Arizona?), he just might be able to score in NY, whwere his opponent had been Dean... fe could have delegates to throe to Edwards at the nomination. And a Lieberman/Edwards ticket, with those in either order, would be hard to stop even for Bush. I might even vote for it, especially if Joe heads it. They are the only candidates who consistently advocate a fairly aggressive and pro-democracy foreign poicy, compared to Kerry and Clark's James Baker policy of 'stability' over freedom, and Dean's incoherent mutterings. That scores with people like me.

[Platypus]

I've always been a bhig fan of the Edwards/Lieberman ticket, in electibility terms. It's a good mix.

Youthful enthusiasm/Aged wisdom
Charismatic/Boring
Center-Left/Center-Right
South/North

etc etc.

In ELECTIBILITY terms, its the best combo of the current democratic candidates, IMHO (although Kerry/Edwards would be good too)

[opebo]

Of course Lieberman 'won' the debate.  He's the only Democratic candidate that's fully reasonable, rational, and honest.  To Kerry's credit, he's perfectly sane, just a closed-minded left wing elitist.  Dean and Clark are outright loons.  Edwards on the other hand is a Clinton clone - a slimy, trumped up fraud.  The only distinction is he's nowhere near as intelligent, and is further to the left.  During the debate, and in fact all public appearances I've seen of the man, he seems like a bad, hammy actor.

[emergingDmajority1]

Lieberman did well, and so did Kerry, both on there home turf. Maybe Joe will get a nice 3-4% spike in the polls

Edwards was bombarded with silly questions, I thought he did ok. I think he can continue to inch up in the NH polls because he has a message and gets through to people. Likeable, approachable and very electable.

Clark was sort of boxed into a corner a few times, and he's being grilled by the RW for not denouncing Moore. But didn't Bush go AWOL or was this already debunked? I didn't get the memo, neither did Clark I guess

[Mort from NewYawk]

...And a Lieberman/Edwards ticket, with those in either order, would be hard to stop even for Bush. I might even vote for it, especially if Joe heads it. They are the only candidates who consistently advocate a fairly aggressive and pro-democracy foreign poicy, compared to Kerry and Clark's James Baker policy of 'stability' over freedom, and Dean's incoherent mutterings. That scores with people like me.

From today's NY Times, about Lieberman:
"He is a man, he often argues, who can build a coalition broader than the Democratic base in order to defeat President Bush. 'We beat him by running as an independent, center-out Democrat,' he says. 'You unite the party and then pick up support from independents and even from some disgruntled moderate Republicans.' Describing himself as 'a bridge-builder,' he adds that when the party won the national election in 1992, Bill Clinton 'worked from the center out and so that's what I intend to do again.' "

Looks like that approach works for at least one Republican in this forum, and probably more than one.

DEMOCRATS: THIS IS THE GUY!

[jravnsbo]

winners-- kerry, nothing exciting, nothing bad

Dean; apologetic but yet firm I thought he did alright.

Lieberman-still principled and strong even though he won't win.

Kucinich/Sharpton; good comedy factor.

Clark--goign to have to check with ACLU on matters?  WTF?!  ( didn't work for Dukakis Wes).  Then his flip flops ont eh war were laid out clearly and he got pretty testy ont he word guarantee.  Lastly he got beat up on the michael moore thing, pundits are already havign a field day.

Edwards- didn't know anything about Islam.  Would help if you were the leader of the free world and had major dealings in that area to know SOMETHING about the culture.  Lastly the defense of marriage act, does he even know what it is.  FUMBLE!!

[opebo]

...And a Lieberman/Edwards ticket, with those in either order, would be hard to stop even for Bush. I might even vote for it, especially if Joe heads it. They are the only candidates who consistently advocate a fairly aggressive and pro-democracy foreign poicy, compared to Kerry and Clark's James Baker policy of 'stability' over freedom, and Dean's incoherent mutterings. That scores with people like me.

From today's NY Times, about Lieberman:
"He is a man, he often argues, who can build a coalition broader than the Democratic base in order to defeat President Bush. 'We beat him by running as an independent, center-out Democrat,' he says. 'You unite the party and then pick up support from independents and even from some disgruntled moderate Republicans.' Describing himself as 'a bridge-builder,' he adds that when the party won the national election in 1992, Bill Clinton 'worked from the center out and so that's what I intend to do again.' "

Looks like that approach works for at least one Republican in this forum, and probably more than one.

DEMOCRATS: THIS IS THE GUY!

Of course any Republican is going to find Lieberman the least offensive of the Dems - but its a huge stretch from there to voting for the man over GW.  No, Republican support of Bush is rock solid.  Winning independents is not going to be accomplished by decency and substance (Lieberman).  They're more likely to be swayed by the flash and good looks of an Edwards.

[Gustaf]

winners-- kerry, nothing exciting, nothing bad

Dean; apologetic but yet firm I thought he did alright.

Lieberman-still principled and strong even though he won't win.

Kucinich/Sharpton; good comedy factor.

Clark--goign to have to check with ACLU on matters?  WTF?!  ( didn't work for Dukakis Wes).  Then his flip flops ont eh war were laid out clearly and he got pretty testy ont he word guarantee.  Lastly he got beat up on the michael moore thing, pundits are already havign a field day.

Edwards- didn't know anything about Islam.  Would help if you were the leader of the free world and had major dealings in that area to know SOMETHING about the culture.  Lastly the defense of marriage act, does he even know what it is.  FUMBLE!!

No Americans know anything about islam. I don't really think Bush is much of an expert on the subject either.

[Gustaf]

Of course Lieberman 'won' the debate.  He's the only Democratic candidate that's fully reasonable, rational, and honest.  To Kerry's credit, he's perfectly sane, just a closed-minded left wing elitist.  Dean and Clark are outright loons.  Edwards on the other hand is a Clinton clone - a slimy, trumped up fraud.  The only distinction is he's nowhere near as intelligent, and is further to the left.  During the debate, and in fact all public appearances I've seen of the man, he seems like a bad, hammy actor.

Opebo, I am a little surprised by this. You have always struck me as one of the most realistic Reps in the forum, despite your far right winged views, you are usually able to make unbiased predictions and analyses. But this post on the debate seems a little too Republican in perspective...of course Lieberman looks best to you, he does to all Republicans.

[opebo]

Opebo, I am a little surprised by this. You have always struck me as one of the most realistic Reps in the forum, despite your far right winged views, you are usually able to make unbiased predictions and analyses. But this post on the debate seems a little too Republican in perspective...of course Lieberman looks best to you, he does to all Republicans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well thanks for the 'realistic' compliment.  Its true I vented my spleen a bit in the above posting.  I just feel bad for Lieberman and dislike the others.  A more dispassionate analysis would be Kerry won, and Lieberman did well but couldn't win because he's too moderate for a Democrat audience.  I'm honestly not very good at figuring out how the viewers will respond to debates - its very much about personality.

[Gustaf]

Opebo, I am a little surprised by this. You have always struck me as one of the most realistic Reps in the forum, despite your far right winged views, you are usually able to make unbiased predictions and analyses. But this post on the debate seems a little too Republican in perspective...of course Lieberman looks best to you, he does to all Republicans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well thanks for the 'realistic' compliment.  Its true I vented my spleen a bit in the above posting.  I just feel bad for Lieberman and dislike the others.  A more dispassionate analysis would be Kerry won, and Lieberman did well but couldn't win because he's too moderate for a Democrat audience.  I'm honestly not very good at figuring out how the viewers will respond to debates - its very much about personality.

You're welcome. It's hard to keep one's personal views out of assesments, that goes for everyone, including myself. Judging by your posts you seem able to distinguish very well between what ou want to happen and what you yhink will happen. I, of course, could not see the debate, since it, like all American prime time shows, runs in the middle of the night Swedish time, so I don't know who won. Seems like the consensus so far is that Kerry and Edwards did pretty well, whereas Clark and Dean did badly, which might add to the two former candidate's momentum.

[© tweed]

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

[jravnsbo]

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

[© tweed]

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

The Islam question was very stupid, how the hell is he supposed to know the teachings of Islam?

[Gustaf]

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

The Islam question was very stupid, how the hell is he supposed to know the teachings of Islam?

Get over it JR, no one knows a thing about the teacings of Islam, does Bush?

[© tweed]

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

The Islam question was very stupid, how the hell is he supposed to know the teachings of Islam?

Get over it JR, no one knows a thing about the teacings of Islam, does Bush?

Imagine if they asked Bush about the teachings of Islam.

[jravnsbo]

well If I was a candidate I would have studied up on it.  Logical question when you need to know how people feel, thinka nd have respect for their culture when we have so many troops in that region and that region is at the center of foriegn policy.  

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

The Islam question was very stupid, how the hell is he supposed to know the teachings of Islam?

[Gustaf]

"respect for their culture"? What kind of appeasing, un-American, treacherous, liberal mumbo-jumbo is that, huh?

well If I was a candidate I would have studied up on it.  Logical question when you need to know how people feel, thinka nd have respect for their culture when we have so many troops in that region and that region is at the center of foriegn policy.  

funny one, yeah he stumbled badly, but I thought edwards did too on defense of marriage and Islam questions.

Kerry held steady and Dean did ok with apologies mostly.

Clark should wear a shirt to the debates that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'

Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did well.

The Islam question was very stupid, how the hell is he supposed to know the teachings of Islam?