So far, and I apologize if this has been covered ( missed it) I would say these are my observations: * Clark seems to have the buzz; the guy the panel and the other candidates seem to refer to the most, etc. I think that the panel and the other candidates think that, right now at least, he's The Guy. He also seems the most concise in his answers, and has yet to hear the bell, I think. * Graham has impressed me more than I expected; he still seems sort of goofy, but unlike some, he seems to say more than rhetoric. * Dean comes off, as expected, as a straight shooter, but perhaps a trifle inflexible. Also, like his overall campaign re: Bush, his strategy here seems to be very attack oriented. His ' let's talk straight' approach is pretty cool, but in this format also comes off somewhat like a slogan. He also goes over the time limit every time. * Gephardt looks like a deer blinking in the headlights, but comes off strong when speaking. * Kucinich seems to ask important questions, but seems a lightweight. * Kerry is, rightly or wrongly, coming off as the guy who vacilates. He was sort of my favorite before Clark, but he also seems to be the hardest to pin down. That can be done well or poorly, and right now it's coming off more the latter. Will comment more later, anyone else watching this? In general, I find when Democrats raise the Clinton years ( or when Republicans raise the Reagan years) as a sort of nostalgic Camelot sort of annoying and pandering.
Forgot about Lieberman and Edwards, both of whom come off decent but nothing to write home about, IMO. Lieberman is a good speaker, but snipey. * In general, most of them often resort to rap-style debating; " I'm the best. I'm the jobs candidate. I led the_________ect. " * Dean really stresses mud-slinging. I don't think he has made a statement yet where he didn't take a shot at someone, either Bush or one of the other candidates. * Sharpton, not surprisingly, comes off pretty well in this kind of format, speaking in sound bites as he does. But to his credit he also seems the most willing to say other candidates are right on certain issues. * Clark comes off bright, and confident, but is clearly paying the price of having gotten in late. He has been unable to answer some questions head on without having to acknowledge that he doesn't have a comprehensive position in place yet. It doesn't come off as avoidance; he seems to be able to convey that he has an overall scheme...but if he's still responding like this to some questions in a month, I'll be dissapointed. * Kerry and Edwards have come off strong lately in the debate.
Further observations: * Dean seems to have been singled out for doing what I said; bickering and attacking rather than debating. I have been both impressed by his direct answers to questions rather than spouting catchphrases and dissapointed in this tendancy of his. * Lieberman's hen and fox analogy was probably the sound bite of the debate so far; expect a lot of play. * Sharpton's reference toi slavery seemed to play well, although I thought it was an obvious reach to bring in his premium issue when it was not otherwise part of the debate. * Kerry has really gained strength as the debate progressed. * Graham has really gotten caught a few times rambling and seeming to lose track of what he was trying to say...he has lost steam in the same manner that Kerry gained his. * Gephardt seems to really be pushing the " I've been there, done that." angle. * Moseley has come off well spoken and bright, but sort of a two note performer: mention families/mothers/etc., and acknowledge that we are in a bad situation. * Clark's experience in corporate world has actually played, IMO, as helping to fill in where he might otherwise be percieved as lacking.
I wish I had seen the debate.. Maybe the will replay it on C-Span or something. My reactions based on the last debate, which I watched. I like Kucinich's positions the best. I just don't think he comes across that well and why vote for the guy with 1%.. I really like Kerry; he just seems like a Dukakis type loser to me. He would be my guy except for that. Mosely Braun is surprisingly well spoken. No wonder she became the first Black female senator. I still like Dean the best overall from a content and style combination point of view. Clark's extreme schizophrenia on war issues is too much for me, though I do think he is competent. I expect his inexpereience as a campaigner to hurt him. He will make a good running mate for Dan if there two egos can take it.
Thanks for the summary MacBeth. Probably more helpful than the garbage that will be in the papers tomorrow.
As an total outsider, to me, Kerry came across as the best of the bunch. Dean? You can see he has a strong background of cheif executives, he shoots pretty straight, and has at least an approach to the things. But you can also almost see he's from a rich snobish family. He seems not "seasoned" enough for the national stage. A teapot, I agree with peggy Noonon. I'm actually quite suprised by Al Sharpen. He actually has something in him other than "I'll fight for you brother."
Some network analysis takes: It seems to be the common perception that 3 seperated themselves from the pack; Clark, Kerry, and Dean...with Edwards a possible 4th. Kerry seems to have done the most to help himself tonight, as almost none of the analysts omitted him from the night's winners. Kerry and Clark seem to have come off as the most "Presidential' according to experts, whereas Dean came off as the most passionate and genuine. My Take: I think that, with all respect to Dean, a Clark-Kerry ticket would be formidable. Clark-Dean would be solid, but I'm not sure that either of those makes sense as a number 2 guy. Clark's entire purpose for being in the race is his belief that Bush is destroying the country, and that he's the man to get us back on track, and Dean seems too driven and pugnacious to play second fiddle to anyone. My take on the major players: Kerry: On the night, he started off weak, but really came on as the night went on, to the pojnt where he was, IMO, the strongest presence at the end of the night. Highpoint: Seemed to hammer points about getting our foreign policy back on track late in the night. His comment about Middle America, while repetitive, probably earned some votes. Lowpoint: Started off qualifying and shuffling, and seemd to be feeling his way rather than making points. Also called Dean on something he changed position on, which considering Kerry's war stance seemed a trifle uncalled for. Clark: Overall, quite impressive considering that he was so new to the race that he was realistically considering passing on this debate as recently as last week. His graps of the facts and figures on domestic issues, as well as the fact that the economic angle to the debate allowed and called for a lot of discussion about his experience in corporate America broadened his image as more than just the brilliant diplomatic general. Highpoint: Very beginning and very end; although it was silly that he had to do so, his response as to why he qualifies as a Democrat really got across a lot of his overall appeal, and the feeling that he really believes that he is doing this for the best of the country. He also answered the last roundtable question as well or better than anyone. Lowpoint: His repetitive need to remind us of the fact that he has only been in this for 8 days, and his ducking direct questions once or three times because of it. Dean: Was probably the personality of the night, with Sharpton. Was by far the most emotional, which is a double edged sword. To be fair, the post debate analysis saw him as attacked and defending rather than attacking, which was more how I saw it. His " Let's cut the crap and talk turkey" approach would be better served with more time to speak; in this format it came across as just another soundbite. He seems actually passionate rather than contrived, as some have recently portrayed him. Highpoint: The fact that most seemed to see him as attacked will probably generate a lot of sympathy for him. He also answered questions as directly as anyone else, probably more, with the possible exception of Kucinich, and made positive use of the 'outsider' angle that Clinton made so effective. Lowpoint: Again, double edged sword...many will, as I did, see him as starting a lot of the bickering early on by always bringing up someone else's name in a negative context when making a point. His anger, while passionate, also has the downside of giving the impression of someone with a hair trigger.
That's what I said the the Clark candidacy thread, Clark-Kerry. Dean will not ingratiate himself to moderates.
I agree about the double edged sword of Dean's emotion. But I think it might play well in a general election. I kind of saw him as not backing down when being attacked and unleashing the hounds. It is double edged, but at least we will know where he stands, and that he won't fold like much of the current democratic congress has done with the Patriot act and the Iraqi resolution. The guy will stick to his guns and fight ferociously for what he believes. Kerry did well tonight, but it doesn't erase his recent record. I'm still not sure he will could make a big enough splash as the nominee. His walking the fence voting record as of late could haunt him, or tie one hand behind his back in the fight the presidency. Clark did well, and I kind of like him, but I do believe he should have been more direct in all of his answers. I don't buy the fact that he's a new candidate. BEFORE someone jumps into the race he should have all of his positions laid out, and have a clear vision of what he wants. His indecisiveness when it came to even joining the race, the I would/wouldn't have voted for the Iraqi resolution, and the lack of direct answers tonight give me pause. While I know I sais I don't cut him slack for being new, in some ways I'm more open to change my opinion about Clark because of his newness than any other candidate.
Thanks, cohen. I am pretty suprised that there aren't more posters discussing this: I thought that Batman would be here long before I ever got going, for example. I do believe that Clark's coming out party will be at the next debate, which will be on foreign policy. Considering that this was an economic debate, and he was newly into it, I was expecting a stumble out of the blocks. The fact that he didn't, in my mind, solidifies him as the favorite.
I didn't get to see the debate, worst luck, but this is what I just posted in the Clark's Economic Plan thread... I'll post it here, because I think it's germane. And I'll agree with Cohen again in this thread about a Clark/Kerry ticket. I think it would be a Republican nightmare. (nightmare being my words, not Cohen's) Part of my post from the other thread: As an aside, I heard that he did pretty well in the debate today, for someone just getting his feet wet. I didn't get to see it, being busy. By the accounts I read, it's not a bad beginning. While I was driving around, I listened to Rush on the radio. He devoted a large chunk (well, the entire part I heard) giving the other 9 Democratic candidates advice on how to run against Clark. I'm not kidding! I found it very bizarre. And telling. Limbaugh was making suggestions to Dean and Kerry in particular about how to attack Clark and lambasted them for what they've done in that regard so far. Until Clark jumped into the race, Rush was spending much of his time vilifying Kerry and Dean. Now he's chastising them for not running a good campaign against Wes Clark. And some of you think Clark doesn't scare the hell out of the Republicans?? Right. If I broke some sort of BBS etiquette, I apologize.
hell man, it was season premire night for Thursday night on NBC ER or a debate that is over a year before the elections...
Potential nominees: Kerry, Clark, Dean Potential running mates: Kerry, Clark, Edwards Boutique Candidates: Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich No chance on the ticket: Lieberman, Gephardt, Graham
my favorite part of the debate was when Clark said, if nominated, he would choose Newt Gingrich as his running mate....ya know...because he didn't want to look partisan. what?? i dreamed that part?
I know several of you more liberal posters are probably rolling your eyes when you see I posted in this thread, but I'm approaching it from the view of an unbiased observer and these are several observations: 1. If the debate was like one of those reality shows where several get knocked out in the first show, I'd have to say my picks for getting kicked off the island would be: Graham (he seems kind of mentally confused), Gephardt (he is useless and in his last shot to try for the nomination) and Carol Mosely-Braun. Add Sharpton and Kucinich to that list as well. 2. Dean seemed like he was pissed off the entire time at the entire world, including Bush and the other candidates. He was extremely negative and bullyish. 3. I thought that Kerry seemed kind of aloof and rambling, while let's not get started on Lieberman. He needs a serious dose of charm school and someone to teach him how to not to speak in a monotone that makes Ben Stein sound enthused by comparison. 4. Clark didn't dawdle around, but he actually answered questions quickly and concisely, compared to the ramblings of some of the others. No one hit any out of the park. As far as issue or entertainment value (which is all I see debates serving as), this was definitely a big, fat zero.
"I know several of you more liberal posters are probably rolling your eyes when you see I posted in this thread, but I'm approaching it from the view of an unbiased observer and these are several observations:" There's no way you could approach anything politcal as an "unbiased observer". You're way too far right to do that. Someone like MadMax probably could, but you? No way. I'm not going to roll my eyes , I'm just not going to take anything you ever say politically as "unbiased".
