CNN Democratic debate
My two cents:
Positive:
Dean
Edwards
Sharpton
Gephartd
Negative:
Judy Woodruff
Kerry
Kucinich
Clark
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Judy Woodruff was by far the worst "loser" of the debate, even though she's not running for president. She frequently debated the candidates, interrupted and used Kerry campaign press release against Dean midway through the debate.
Positive:
Dean
Edwards
Sharpton
Gephartd
Negative:
Judy Woodruff
Kerry
Kucinich
Clark
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Judy Woodruff was by far the worst "loser" of the debate, even though she's not running for president. She frequently debated the candidates, interrupted and used Kerry campaign press release against Dean midway through the debate.
Comments
Originally posted by Existence
Basically, midway through the debate, Judy said, "I have just been handed a note by the Kerry Campaign."
I thought that was strange...
After watching this debate and it was the first I have seen with the democrats running I found I did not like Dean for one very simple reason. He is full of himself to a higher pitch than any other candidate on the floor. He does his best to bash democrats and set himself apart. In my humble view he should have ran as something other than a democrat. I do not feel he can lead with his arrogant demeanor. Bush has let me (personally) down in this area. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" which in practice he is nothing of the sort. Bush does not lend his ears to anyone beyond his inner circle and it seems in my estimation that Dean is Bush on steroids. He places himself on a pedestal and has no respect for anyone else. This is not the kind of demeanor I would like to see a President display. Again to repeat myself Bush has been reason enough to explain my point with this subject. A leader should be someone who can spell out policy and a vision for the country and unite the country behind the efforts to achieve those goals. Dean simply does not have the skill nor demeanor to make this a reality in my view.
Changing gears Clark had trouble managing all the charges of him with being of two minds. On the one hand praising those in the Bush team and on the other hand he is a democrat? This seems to me as lost cause for Clark. End of story.
I think Lieberman was the most level headed calm one in the bunch but I suspect he is not well embraced by all in the party.
Edwards is going after "folksy charm" With his background and his pledge to middle and working amereicans. I actually have a high level of respect for Edwards.
Kerry had a lot of wit up his sleave with the sound bite nature of his jokes. In some areas I think Kerry has a good feel for being a president and with some areas I disagree with his tactics of debate.
Sharpton is just not presidential material and it has nothing to do with his race. I would be happy to see an african american be elected president in my lifetime it is just not Sharpton that will hold this title. God bless him but he is just not presidential material.
Braun gave some good answers with this debate I thought. I don't know enough about her and in my view that means she has no chance. Not well known.
Kucinich was just acidic and not personable nor likeable.
Gephardt gave a spirited level of discussion at the debate but to me his rhetoric is plastic and does not ring with any lasting value regarding the times today. He is charismatic but in the way of a slick car salesman not somebody you can trust.
Overall I was not impressed with any candidate. If I was forced to vote for one of them it would have to either be Kerry or Edwards.
That is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less...
Fellows
I can't believe someone like you has written off Bush. It certainly seems like it.
How do you know who Bush listens to? I'm not even sure of your point. Should he base his decisions on polls? That's what Clinton did...and it's not leading, it's following.
The Democratic field is a joke this year. I guarantee you that if Gore got into the race, he'd instantly get the most support. That should tell you about the strength of the field. Dean has lost momentum and Clark's campaign is a disaster at this point.
contrast this with what i recall from republicans, where the criticism, at best, is implied, but usually, the candidates stand on their own beliefs and merits without cutting off their peers at the knees at every given soundbite opportunity. (i am thinking mccain/bush from the primaries back in '99).
basically, aside from liebermann, everyone sounds selfish, bitter, emotional and immature. liebermann benefits from his experience the last go-round, but has that "loser" tag that will be tough to shake (plus, he always sounds like a wounded puppy to me... ugh).
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Changing gears Clark had trouble managing all the charges of him with being of two minds. On the one hand praising those in the Bush team and on the other hand he is a democrat?
I actually think this could be an asset to Clark if he used it to position himself as a moderate. Everyone just wants Bush out, so how far left or right really doesn't matter at this point.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I thought that was strange...
After watching this debate and it was the first I have seen with the democrats running I found I did not like Dean for one very simple reason. He is full of himself to a higher pitch than any other candidate on the floor. He does his best to bash democrats and set himself apart. In my humble view he should have ran as something other than a democrat. I do not feel he can lead with his arrogant demeanor. Bush has let me (personally) down in this area. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" which in practice he is nothing of the sort. Bush does not lend his ears to anyone beyond his inner circle and it seems in my estimation that Dean is Bush on steroids. He places himself on a pedestal and has no respect for anyone else. This is not the kind of demeanor I would like to see a President display. Again to repeat myself Bush has been reason enough to explain my point with this subject. A leader should be someone who can spell out policy and a vision for the country and unite the country behind the efforts to achieve those goals. Dean simply does not have the skill nor demeanor to make this a reality in my view.
I think the issue with Dean, and why he's gotten such tremendous support out of the gate by the left, is that he is attempting to go for the angry young man approach to campaigning. Lots of people, on both the left and the right, are very angry with this administration, and if Dean can tap into that energy for long enough, he'll have good, good, good momentum going into the primaries. It worked *extremely* well for the right, who are still foaming at the mouth about Clinton.
Now. I think to some extent you're right. Because he's positioning himself as representing the "liberal wing of the democratic party," he runs the very real risk of coming off as smug. But I think it's important that what he's doing is carving out a political position that desperately needs to get carved out. Real liberalism in America (and England, really) is dead. Has been for a long time. We've had in its place a stream of Demoplicans and Republicrats (like Clinton) who merely paid lip-service to the real liberal concerns.
That being said, I think Dean was right when he said something along the lines of "If I'm the liberal candidate in this field, something is seriously wrong with the party."
But in the end, I thnk Dean's positioning himself as the outsider--which, we should all remember, Bush did very well during his campaign (why no one really called him on the absurd claim is beyond me)--could play well. This pitch will resonate well with those angry with Bush, and especially those angry over his crony-ism. But it marginalizes him and threatens his ability to get the real backing of the DNC/DLC that he needs. But we'll see how the country reacts. Bush told America he was a "Washington outsider" (patently absurd), and they voted him in. Sort of. In the end, it was, as Clinton put it, "tight as a tick" either way. One way to read the CA recall is that they LITERALLY rejected the insider/career politician and voted in a complete outsider with an absolute mandate for change. The CA recall could, in other words, indicate a concern the rest of the country might share, and thus might be a very, very bad sign for Bush's chances of getting re-elected.
But Dean's generally good for all time zones, I think. If only someone would teach the guy how to smile. That's the PRIMARY thing that bugs me about him. I mean, what's up with that weird pursing of the bottom lip that he does?! It's as annoying to me as the Bush smirk/head-bob thing...
I think Lieberman was the most level headed calm one in the bunch but I suspect he is not well embraced by all in the party.
It should tell you something that, as a conservative, you like Lieberman. Specifically, it should tell you this: Lieberman is a conservative.
Sharpton is just not presidential material and it has nothing to do with his race. I would be happy to see an african american be elected president in my lifetime it is just not Sharpton that will hold this title. God bless him but he is just not presidential material.
Well, the thing to remember about Sharpton is that he's there to force the country to discuss the issues he wants to get discussed. He a smart man, and he knows he's not electable. But by god, he can make sure his issues get on the table. I applaud him for it. And I actually like him a great deal.
Cheers
Scott
PS
Your position on Bush and this admin has been consistently interesting to me FCiB. It is nuanced and complex, and I don't envy your political position in the upcoming election: a conservative seemingly opposed to the incumbent and unchallenged republican president. Maybe a good third-party candidate will pop up for you to vote for? You keeping your eye on anyone?
not the liberal wing...
He's basically saying you're not being moderate when you just roll-over for the republicans... you can be moderate and still hold on to core democrat beliefs.
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20031008/index.php
"Whether you agree with him or not, Howard Dean actually believes in his convictions. He is a genuine man. An honest, genuine man will not suffer fools lightly, nor will he stand around like a dummy with a phony smile on his face while he hears himself lied about."
Originally posted by chu_bakka
it's "the democratic wing of the democratic party"
not the liberal wing...
He's basically saying you're not being moderate when you just roll-over for the republicans... you can be moderate and still hold on to core democrat beliefs.
Hrm. I could've sworn it was the other way. I stand corrected.
Cheers
Scott
I think McCain is a moderate conservative... maybe Powell too.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fellowship,
I can't believe someone like you has written off Bush. It certainly seems like it.
How do you know who Bush listens to? I'm not even sure of your point. Should he base his decisions on polls? That's what Clinton did...and it's not leading, it's following.
The Democratic field is a joke this year. I guarantee you that if Gore got into the race, he'd instantly get the most support. That should tell you about the strength of the field. Dean has lost momentum and Clark's campaign is a disaster at this point.
The writing is on the wall for Bush you just won't see it.
If you've watched letterman lately... you could see who the joke really is.
"In any case, Bush's own team has assessed the Democratic field as "unusually weak" according to several sources. Of course, that could just be a leak to sway public opinion."
Which I found interesting because the statement was presented as though he hadn't drawn a definite conclusion yet. I find it interesting that his statements on this thread about the democratic field is EXTREMELY partisan (shock, gasp). So which is it? Either he believes the democratic field is weak or he believes these are just statements made to sway public opinion.
I think Rove's opinion piece is designed primarily to sway public opinion and is not a definitive assessment of the democratic field. I could easily make an argument that the 2000 GOP candidates were equally as "weak". I mean Forbes, Hatch, E. Dole, Bauer, Dan Quayle (need I say more), Kashich and the rest were terribly weak presidential candidates. McCain showed the only real upset potential against the anointed one (I voted for McCain).
That is not to say that there aren't a handful of '04 Dems that really shouldn't be up there (Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, Edwards). This is really a race between Dean, Clark, Kerry and (maybe) Gephardt and the debates would be far more interesting if it were limited to those four.
Braun: Well.... she didn't get a lot of screen time, and she certainly tried the whole 'mother to the nation' bit and the 'we need a woman in the white house' bit too... I think she'll wash out, but not because she doesn't have ideas. She's not a total write off yet.
Clark: Poor poor showmanship last night. I expected more from a 'general'. He comes across as too faced (just as his accusers want him to). He also is tied with Dean for least 'trustable'. I've written him off as a crook.
Dean: Well, he might have a decent speech writer, but you CAN'T buy a better personality. He just suffers from 'head up the anus' syndrome. Plus his admiting on stage that he was black maling his own state legislature to pass a tobacco tax? Poor business man... poor business. Written off as crook runner up.
Edwards: Good show from him. I was surprised, after the last debate I expected him to kinda remain passive, but he really got some good mojo working for him. Plus when Sharpton effectivly threw him full support I made a prediction to my wife that Al Sharpton may have just handed him the presidency.
Gephardt: Not too bad, but not too good. He seems sincere (which is rare in this monkey race), but he also doesn't seem to have ideas to back up his good personality. Show me more and give me faith.
Kerry: About the same as Gephardt, only not quite as good. He had some slightly good points but when he started talking about Vietnam I wanted to shoot him. Show me more and give me faith.
Kucinich: Clever guy, but he is burning bridges with his running mates and won't be able to pick up their support should they fall out and him stay in. Also, I get the feeling he has 'bought his way in' to the election process. I expect him to wash out soon enough. A near write off...
Lieberman: Although slated as the 'conservative' of the bunch he sure reminds me of that odd ball who always winds up in an election. He is just kinda.... goofy. I'm not sure if I should hug him or hit him. I LOVED that scripted line which said he would support ANYONE on the stage who made it up against Bush. The guy who wrote that bit of speech should get a check in the mail from the DNC. Anyway, he'll really have to let me know about his 'heart' if he wants my vote.
Sharpton: Like Braun not much screen time. He sure helped Edwards by throwing into his camp (which I didn't expect). The guy may be motivated, but as most folks have said, not politician material. I'd love to see him tag team with others to kill off some of the blue bloods in the bunch.
That's my wrap up. Stay tuned.
Originally posted by Northgate
That is not to say that there aren't a handful of '04 Dems that really shouldn't be up there (Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, Edwards). This is really a race between Dean, Clark, Kerry and (maybe) Gephardt and the debates would be far more interesting if it were limited to those four.
I disagree.
I expect it to be Clark, Dean, Edwards and one more (undecided). Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton will all wash, but don't count Edwards out yet. He has that 'good old boy' feeling with the Democratic badge. He might just fleece America.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
I disagree.
I expect it to be Clark, Dean, Edwards and one more (undecided). Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton will all wash, but don't count Edwards out yet. He has that 'good old boy' feeling with the Democratic badge. He might just fleece America.
I like Edwards, don't get me wrong. He definitely has the right look and temperament. I just don't see his campaign catching any fire or money. In the interest of getting more discussion and debate out of the candidates, it would be nice if the field cut be cut to four or five players, max.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Good point Northgate. He could be an 'all or nothing candidate'. When his window closes, there is not reopening it. Whereas some of the other candidates (read clark and dean) can afford to blunder a bit, so long as they keep on earning money.
As is always true money is the key here. Dean is the front runner because of his ability to raise a lot of money right now, regardless of whether or not it's grassroots money or the corporate money Clark can raise. Clark's late entry puts him at a disadvantage at the moment, but his Clinton connections can fix that right away. Too bad he looked a little weak up there because he intrigues me.
Currently I'm a Dean supporter, but I was disappointed with his lackluster performance last night. Actually, no one really surged out of the pack. Too bad really, because I think many on this board and elsewhere have unfairly characterized him as arrogant or snobbish and I didn't really see those traits last night.
Signs of an economic recovery are starting to pop up here and there. This is good news for Bush. If the economy and the WMD fiasco were both issues, then I'm convinced he could be overthrown. If the economy improves incrementally by election time, then WMD's may not be enough to defeat him. We'll see how much of the "recall" ripple effect is still tangible this time next year.