home

Las Vegas Dems Debate: Post Debate Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:00:43 PM EST
Tags: Nevada 08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Who impressed you? Who let you down? Who do you think scored points with Nevada caucus voters?

I thought all three were good. I appreciated their lack of barbs and their attempt to put the Democrats first.

I thought the questioning by Russert and Williams was pretty poor. Instead of asking questions that would highlight their policy differences, they tended to ask questions on which all agreed.

No one failed. No one tripped up seriously. All would serve us far better than any Republican.

My final thoughts: Obama was likeable and well-intentioned. He just isn't ready in my opinion. He may be one day, but we need someone who is ready now. Hillary impressed tonight as being that person.

< Las Vegas Dems Debate: Live Thread Three | Hearing Thursday on Nevada Teachers' Union Suit >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Las Vegas Dems Debate: Post Debate Thread | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Great night for Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:07:49 PM EST
    I think all three of our candidates did well. Obviously in terms of the zero-sum game in that only one of them can be the nominee, I'd say maybe Obama helped himself a little by not letting Clinton outclass him on policy. Edwards needs something to energize his campaign, and though he held his own, I don't think he got what he needed.

    As for the questioning, the first 30 minutes should be a firing offense for Tim Russert.

    Left out a clause (none / 0) (#8)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:09:09 PM EST
    I meant to write "Obviously in terms of the zero-sum game in which only one of them can be the nominee, they can't all have helped themselves. I'd say Obama..."

    Parent
    diagree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    as odious as I find Russert he did them a favor. They really shown the 1st 30 minutes and they got the opportunity due to Russert.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:29 PM EST


    Parent
    It's true... (none / 0) (#14)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    ... that the candidates made good use of the lame questions that Russert was asking. But they were still terrible questions for any serious journalist to ask.

    Parent
    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM EST
    Russert is a serious journalist?  


    Parent
    With a few exceptions, I thought the (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    questions were better than in the past debates.  

    Parent
    Time for me to go to bed my typing has gone to (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    blazes.

    Shone, Not shown. Disagree, not diagree. Oy Vey!

    Parent

    not my favored candidate (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Klio on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:09:03 PM EST
    but I thought Obama had his best debate performance ever.  Really, really impressive.

    Obama and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:09 PM EST
    I think Obama was very likeable and well-intentioned but Hillary was more effective and showed more leadership potential.

    Shocking... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:13:12 PM EST
    I am completely shocked that you would say that Clinton was better than Obama!  :)

    Parent
    I also said (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    he was likeable and well-intentioned. He just isn't ready in my opinion. He may be one day, but we need someone who is ready now. Hillary impressed tonight as being that person.

    Parent
    He'll be ready (none / 0) (#23)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST
    when he picks up some more unelectable baggage.

    Parent
    I agree, of course (none / 0) (#16)
    by Klio on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    but O did perform very well

    I thought Hillary was astonishigly effective at demonstrating how good gov't policy affects individual lives

    Parent

    The best way to predict the future is to invent it (none / 0) (#44)
    by bronte17 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    Just found that quote from Alan Kay in a sig line and it is the perfect response to this issue between Hillary's efficiency and Obama's vision.

    "The future is not laid out on a track. It is something that we can decide, and to the extent that we do not violate any known laws of the universe, we can probably make it work the way that we want to."


    Parent
    Obama was the clear winner... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by eddeevy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:26:36 PM EST
    In my view, Obama was the only candidate that offered a coherent VISION for the future of our country. I particularly liked what he had to say about the role of the President...the person who mobilizes the country in support of a progressive agenda.

    visions are nice (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:30:34 PM EST
    but specifics on how to accomplish them are better. To be sure, Obama had more specifics tonight than he has offered at past debates, and he's improving in that regard. But, is it too little too late? We'll see.

    Parent
    Had to drive quite aways today for work (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    and through am radioland,   Report:  Michael Medved talking to Newt Gingrich, calls Obama's campaign "magical thinking."  

    Parent
    Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:57:23 PM EST
    Their strengths aren't opposing, they complement each other.  I'd like them on the same ticket.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:27:20 PM EST
    While I think Clinton won in the traditional debating criteria, Barack Obama did something bigger tonight - he really reached out on behalf of the Democratic Party and went the extra yard to put the race brouhaha to bed.

    Edwards has a pedestrian performance imo.

    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by magster on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    I'm learning more and more how Edwards' legislative record leaves him too much for him to apologize for ( I did not know of 2001 BR bill and Yucca Mountain veto override vote ).  While I think his conversion to the right opinion is genuine, I'm bothered at how wrong he was and have not heard why he was so wrong.

    Clinton replaced Edwards as my # 2.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    Edwards' early votes prove that just because you don't accept PAC and lobbyist money doesn't mean you'll vote progressive.  Overall Clinton - that corporate democrat - has a much more progressive voting record than Edwards.    

    He got much better as time wore on, although I'm not sure if that was due to a genuine change of heart, the fact he decided not to run for re-election to the Senate or his decision to run for president.  I like to think it's the first one, but he is a politician.

    Parent

    Just turned off the tv (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    the surrogates are on for all the candidates. As If we need them to spin what we just heard for us.

    Edwards was just ok (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CanyonWren on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    Up till now he's been my favorite candidate, but his performance was lacking tonight.  I found him to be a bit like a broken record, spewing out his platform and not sticking to questions, I'm sure to compensate for the abysmal lack of media coverage thus far.  I thought his response to whether learning English to become a US citizen should be mandatory was ridiculous and unrealistic, and in the long run will be costly to immigrants.  I think he needs to rework his responses to his votes for the war, the Patriot Act, and the bankruptcy bill because "I regret that vote" isn't going to continue to cut it.  And finally, his tone was too forceful and angry for my liking in this particular debate.  Both Obama and Hillary demonstrated a good command of the issues and stayed on point with questions, in calm and measured tones which was easier to listen to, frankly.

    The vision thing (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:23:20 PM EST
    I only saw the first half, but got from it a clear impression of their theory of change from Obama and Edwards, not from Hillary.

    Obama: bring us all together to have the power to sweep away the entrenched interests and decide how to move forward on the basis of consensus (what, no plan now???)

    Edwards: beat down the entrenched monied interests by confronting them with the power of government to regulate in the name of consumers, unions, families, citizens.

    Hillary: experience with how things are done makes her ready to do something, but what?

    From what I saw, a great presentation of three fine people, any of whom I could support, though Edwards' approach speaks most to me. I liked how they all took the high road and emphasized that not just they themselves but all of them would be champions of Democratic principles and contrasted this with the Republicans and Bush.

    Hey cpinva (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by noodles on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:24:48 AM EST
    When you are finished falsely accusing me of being a Republican feel free to reference the ACLU Fact on Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition (12/6/2005), "Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency... suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition." The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton."

    www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

    Apparently, opposing torture makes you a Republican if you are opposed to both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents from torturing or engaging in extraordinary rendition. Who knew?

    Not uncommon on this site (none / 0) (#54)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:14:50 AM EST
    To be accused of being a Republican or acting like a Republican for making a statement or questioning someone.  Especially a certain HRC

    Parent
    How dare (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:35:08 AM EST
    any one question the Human Rights Campaign, or as Mit Romney would call us, the militant gays.

    Parent
    ohh wait (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:36:12 AM EST
    it is Militant Homosexual, why do republicans insist on using that?  Do they think homosexual sounds more evil?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:39:29 AM EST
    It is VERY uncommon.

    More common is to be accused of being member of the Obama Cult.

    Also wrong to do and not allowed.


    Parent

    Apparently, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:35:03 AM EST
    "you're either with us, or against us"

    Parent
    That was a pretty big waste of time (none / 0) (#1)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    The presidential debating process is seriously flawed and not very productive.

    Moderators seem biased (none / 0) (#64)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    toward preserving their relationships with the candidates.  I think that it would be better to have moderators who have no stake in the candidates or the outcome.  I really liked the WMUR guy in NH who asked questions - he pressed for answers and repeated questions until he got something closer to an actual answer.  

    I'm starting to think the only way we will get to see the candidates pressed for answers will be if the Fox News team moderates... (j/k...sort of)

    Parent

    I thought all were good (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    except for the end when all were wrong on the Solomon Amendment and Edwards was bad on immigration.

    Why are they wrong on Solomon? (none / 0) (#20)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:08 PM EST


    Parent
    They all say they'll enforce it (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:42:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Which, irrespective of DADT issues, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    surprised me  What next, will they all sign on to no federal funds for medical clinics here or abroad if birth control or choice of abortion is offered?

    Parent
    I was hoping one would mention 'teh gay' (none / 0) (#50)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:53 AM EST
    and why the Solomon amendment is so awful in the first place.

    But, they took the brave road and praised our troops instead.

    Parent

    Nothing brave about it (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07:20 AM EST
    they all pretended as if they couldn't even understand why they were being asked.

    There was a better discussion of gun control, and that's at least as toxic.

    Parent

    I was being ironic. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    Praising our troops is about as controversial as liking ice cream.

    Parent
    Chris Matthews is Raving (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    About hillary's "power play" and how she used her attack on Bush to maneuver herself as the person who will be going to Denver and succeeding Bush. I didn't quite get his argument.

    remorse? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:18:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Overcompensation? (none / 0) (#24)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM EST
    Didn't see the debate, but I sure have appreciated your all's comments.  

    Regardless of why Matthews is praising Clinton, you can bet it won't last.  His NH night stuff lasted less than 24-hours when he said the only reason she was a Senator was because her husband messed around.  Jerk.

    Parent

    Ah, that's his angle (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:52:55 PM EST
    just read a report that after praising Clinton, Matthews then took her to task for being so presumptuous as calling Bush pathetic. Apparently Clinton acted as though she already had the nomination.  

    Did anyone hear him say this?  It sounds just like him, but since my ears bleed at the sound of his voice, I don't watch him at all.  It means I miss Olbermann, but honestly not even Keith is worth sitting through Tweety for.

    Parent

    Pat Buchanan later characterized Matthews's (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    remark as saying she was acting like it was a coronation, but Matthews heatedly disputed this.  He had sd. something to the effect she was acting like she already had the nomination, presumptive nominee.

    Parent
    it is called (none / 0) (#63)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    an assumptive close - and perfectly legit..if indeed she did it.

    Parent
    tomorrow I doubt Chris could follow his answer (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:08:59 PM EST


    Parent
    maybe trying to compensate (none / 0) (#34)
    by commissar on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:39:46 PM EST
    for the many reports of his misogyny and Hillary-hating.

    But also, let's be fair, being a talking head is tough. Three seconds after, he's gotta have his view on it, and hold it forth for the next sixty minutes.


    Parent

    Matthews is effusively praising Clinton... (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    ...because of the pressure on him from the netroots.  He thinks we're shallow enough to forget his two years of sexism by playing nice to Hillary tonight.

    I thought Clinton and Obama won tonight, and Edwards lost some of my support.

    Parent

    Commentators say HRC won, espec. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST
    with her attacks on Bush/Cheney and her firmer committment to withdrawal from Iraq.

    She won because she didn't lose and she is the (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:25 PM EST
    front runner after NH. Edwards lost because he didn't help himself.

    In the end, though it is the delegate votes that count.

    Parent

    Oh, the delegate count! (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Why is it called a (none / 0) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:21:30 PM EST
    gotcha question if Russert asks it but called negative campaigning if your opponent mentions it?

    Post debate talking heads: (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    Axelrod, Trippi, and, for HRC, a black male adviser.  Brilliant.  Trippi, like Edwards, favors blue jeans.  Interesting.  Watching to see if Axelrod and Trippi match BTD's opinions of them!

    Somebody please (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:33:18 PM EST
    throw Joe Trippi under a bus.  That guy may be worse than Axelrod.
    This is a big yell fest. Trippi is really (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    bad on TV.  

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#35)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    I missed the debate and appreciate both the blogging and the comments here.

    Also, if you haven't read Josh Marshall's live blogging, it's pretty amusing, almost entirely a takedown of Tim Russert.  A sampling:

    10:16 PM ... Inside Tim's head: my ingenious question to throw anti-military Democrats on the defensive.

    10:17 PM ... Inside Tim's head 2.0: I struck out with Hillary and Obama, I'll give it a crack with Edwards.

    10:20 PM ... Inside Tim's head 3.0: I'm a very serious guy and I won't shy away from the toughest questions.

    10:23 PM ... Russert cometh ... But somehow he's really off his game tonight. He keeps going into the questions with that checkmate relish. And then the candidate answers it without too much problem.

    10:28 PM ... Inside Tim's head 4.0: Let me whip you upside the head with some facts, Edwards.

    10:35 PM ... I'm starting to wonder if Russert really knows how to deal with answering questions when the producer and sound man doesn't work for him and the candidates have no respect for him. I think he's about 0 for 8 at this point.

    10:38 PM ... Hillary points out to Russert that they should discuss race issues besides the inflammatory fun ones that Russert enjoys.

    10:43 ... I think I may remember this debate as the one where the candidates refused to take Tim Russert seriously no matter how serious he tried to seem.
    Hillary vs. anti-Hillary (none / 0) (#39)
    by noodles on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:48:24 PM EST
    I have my 1-2-3 preference but realistically would be equally happy with Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich. I don't like this idea of dynasties and political families (please, Chelsea never run for political office). One question I would like to ask Hilary is: "It has been reported that Bill Clinton engaged in Extraordinary Rendition while in office; will you also engage in this furtive method to torture people?" I would also like to know whether the Egyptian government suppled the Clinton administration with the interrogation tapes and where they are now.

    Of course, this in no way diminishes the fact that under Bush the CIA, the Military, and Blackwater mercenaries have become little more than officially sanctioned sadistic psychopaths. I'm also inclined to think that Bush personally has a video collection of torture and snuff films that he watches to amuse himself. But my question remains; what is Hillary's position on Bill Clinton's use of Rendition?

    noodles, (none / 0) (#46)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    where has it been reported, by whom, and with what tangible evidence to support the allegations?

    One question I would like to ask Hilary is: "It has been reported that Bill Clinton engaged in Extraordinary Rendition while in office;

    i just love how people, like you, limbaugh, hannity, coulter, etc. throw stuff out, with nothing to actually substantiate even the basic assertion, and hope someone will take it serially.

    I have some lingering anger (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:10 AM EST
    about the bad responses on the Solomon amendment. Not one of the candidates even qualified their response by promising to work to repeal DADT.

    An offensive showing that makes me glad not to support any of them.

    Can't blame you, but can't say I'm surprised they (none / 0) (#51)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:02:38 AM EST
    whiffed.

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#58)
    by bob h on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:39:00 AM EST
    has got her mojo back, and I don't see where along the line she loses it again.  I agree that putting Obama in the VP slot would be a good move.

    "Putting Obama in the VP slot" (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    If asked, would he accept?

    Parent
    I hope not (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    he'd never be pres.  
    exhibit a: Al Gore
    Hillary could be his VP, she is very middle management.

    Parent
    Al Gore would be Pres. except for (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    Bush v. Gore.  He ran such a cautious campaign and avoided Bill Clinton like the plague.  

    HRC "so middle-management."  What a slap.

    Parent

    Answer for cpinva (none / 0) (#65)
    by noodles on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    ACLU Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition (12/6/2005)

    Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency... interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition." The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

    www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

    Las Vegas Dems Debate: Post Debate Thread | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment