A Near Perfect Debate. . .

After spending a half a day thinking about the debate last night, I've come to the opinion that this was a good day for Democrats.  Not just a good day, but a great day for our chances in 2008.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say it was a near perfect debate for the Democratic Party as a whole.

Before I go into details why, let me add this caveat: I'm not supporting any one candidate yet.  I'm rooting for the Party as a whole, and I'm supporting whoever wins the primary.  It is from that perspective that I think last night's debate was near perfect.

1) The front-runners didn't hurt themselves: Clinton, Edwards and Obama didn't look great, but they didn't look bad either.  Clinton was smart, answered questions and did what she had to do.  Edwards was great at connecting emotionally to all the issues.  Obama struggled a bit early on, but then came on strong at the end.  Sure none of the front-runners were perfect, but it was the first debate.  The first primary is eight months away.  There is plenty of opportunity for each candidate to shine.  In other words, all the frontrunners still show tremendous upside potential.  Sorry, to use the sports term, but the NFL Draft is tomorrow.

Most importantly, none of the front-runners screwed up.  No one got a question they couldn't answer (Edwards did come close, but he made up for at the end).  No one promised to steal babies in the night, etc.  And because they didn't screw up, all three can live to fight another day.  That's exactly what I want from a first debate.

2) The second-tier candidates helped themselves: Okay, the big exception was Richardson who didn't come off strong.  But  Biden and Dodd came off as smart, grandfatherly, and genial.  That's a pretty good place to be, considering that I don't think any of these guys will make it to the first tier.  But they are potential VP candidates.  One thing the front-runners don't have is experience.  Having a someone like Biden, Dodd, or Richardson has got to help.  In the end, Biden helped Obama jump on Kucinich, just like a VP should.  Can we trust Biden to keep his foot out of his mouth?  Maybe not, but these debates will help to keep him sharp.

3) The bottom-tier candidates attacked from the left: The one thing that pisses me off in a Democratic primary is where Democrats attack each other from the right (and yes, I'm talking about you, Steve Westly), because Republicans can use those attacks in the general campaign.  Last night, that wasn't going to happen.  Do you think that any Republican would rail against the Military-Industrial Complex like Gravel did?  Or attack Obama for being willing to attack Iran (like Kucinich)?  No matter how far the other candidates move to the left, the bottom-tier guys are still farther left.  So, our front-runners can look centrist and progressive at the same time.  Plus, Gravel is incredibly entertaining.

All in all, I'm very happy with the first debate.  But for the next debates, I want to see improvement from Obama and Edwards who both need to get fired up.  Clinton needs. . .something that I can't put my finger on.  Richardson needs to speak with more gravitas.  And everyone else should keep up the good work.  If everyone does their job we can get out of the primary with a candidate who's ready to kick ass.

UPDATE: As some of the commenters have mentioned. Clinton didn't look great. There are some who have it, and some who don't. As much as I like Clinton, she doesn't have it. At the same time, she's steady, almost the Tim Duncan of politics.



Display:


I want to see a format (none / 0)

with longer answers and details and the chance to rebut each other


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:49:47 PM EST

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

I hate these one-minute-answer debates. They just force the candidates to get into a 'dueling soundbites' competition.

For me the only surprising (and disturbing) thing was when Hillary Clinton answered the question about what she would do in the case of an AQ attack. She must have used the word "retaliation" three or four times. Her answer portrays her as little more than George W. Bush in a skirt.


by Mystylplx on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:10:01 PM EST

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

"Her answer portrays her as little more than George W. Bush in a skirt."

What a ridiculous statement.  Mystylplx, I can only surmise that you have a major hate thing going on.  Pretty sad, actually, but you are of course entitled to spew hate-infused venom on whomever you wish.


by georgep on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

It's not hate. Her answer could literally come from a Bush speech. She portrayed HIS philosophy for fighting terrorism completely--retaliate immediately and go afetr any nations who may be "harboring" them... etc.

Right out of Bush's mouth.


by Mystylplx on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

Except she meant Afghanistan/Sudan, not Iraq.  I hope.


by Jim Treglio on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

It's the same philosophy, and it plays right into terrorist hands. The whole point of terrorism is that they are not a real threat to our country. They lucked out one time and killed 3,000 innocent people--the flu, by comparison, kills 36,000 Americans a year.

So even if there were a 911 scale terrorist attack every single year then terrorists would still be less than 1/10th the threat to American lives as is the flu.

But the whole point of terrorism is to kill people in the most dramatic way possible in hopes of inspiring a panicked over-reaction. They can't actually defeat us so they hope to frighten us into defeating ourselves. That's why I've said the biggest victory for the terrorists in this 'War On Terror' didn't happen Sept. 11 2001--it happened the day we invaded Iraq because that proved the attacks of 911 worked.

And a policy of retaliation just plays into their hands. Inevitably we will kill lots of innocent Muslim civilians, and that will be shown on AJ, which will fuel sentiment against us and make the terrorist leaders more powerful.

Even one of those chickens that's been trained to peck a panel to get food will eventually stop pecking the panel if you stop throwing food at it evry time it pecks.

God I wish Israel would learn that...


by Mystylplx on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

Afghanistan: Right idea
Iraq: Wrong Idea
by Jim Treglio on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

"That's why I've said the biggest victory for the terrorists in this 'War On Terror' didn't happen Sept. 11 2001--it happened the day we invaded Iraq because that proved the attacks of 911 worked."

You make no sense.  For what you claim here to make any sense you have to state your sentiments about going into Afghanistan, as that was where Osama Bin Ladin was operating from and his operation was harbored and financed by the Taliban.    So, the question becomes:  Where was the Afghanistan invasion different than the Iraq invasion?   Why was "the day of the Iraq invasion" the day terrorists won a victory, but not the earlier Afghanistan invasion?


by georgep on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Perfect Debate. . . (none / 0)

Afghanistan was the second biggest mistake.

But you act all outraged as if Hillary didn't vote for the war, and she still believes her vote was correct. Now she says in the debate that her approach to fighting terrorism will be identical to George W. Bush's--that's no surprise, it's been identical to GWB's all along.


by Mystylplx on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.