Good review of the Democratic Debate

[Yellowdogtexan]

I watched most of the debate including the end where it got interesting. I agree with this review of the debate by Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1678242_1678241_1678231,00.html John Edwards
Grade: A
Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic — essential for a winner.

Barack Obama
Grade: B+
All eyes were on him for the first answer of the debate as he was invited to attack Clinton (a challenge cleverly disguised as a question). But he cluttered his response with too many of his (unfortunate) trademark "uhs" and a rehearsed Rocky joke, and glanced nervously over at Clinton to gauge the effects of his soft swipe. Gained strength as the debate progressed (and as Edwards and the others joined the Clinton hunt). Had his finest moment — and nearly lived up to the press corps' lust for attack — when he addressed the controversy of sealed documents at the Clinton Library and the Senator's long, divisive history. Offered powerful responses denouncing fear and celebrating diplomacy but likely appealed more to his existing supporters than to potential new recruits. In the final moments, he knocked the daffy-but-intriguing UFO question out of the park by focusing on the importance of life on earth.

Joe Biden
Grade: B
Had line of the night slamming Giuliani on 9/11 ("There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11. I mean, there's nothing else") and saying the former mayor is unqualified to be president. In that instance, he was at his best: so great and so honorable, in his own wacky way. But lacked his Iraq mojo from past debates — and he seemed to disappear for a very long stretch in the middle of the forum.

Chris Dodd
Grade: B-
Solid and dignified. Got to make his best pitch on electability, and did it as well as he has in any debate. But still too senatorial and spent too much talking about the nation's challenges and not enough about himself — a problem, because people still don't know who he is or what he stands for.

Bill Richardson
Grade: B-
Gallantly defended Clinton from negative attacks, allowing him to display his more natural and relaxed side than he has in previous debates. Bumble-free, kept things simple and direct, and highlighted his gubernatorial status and diplomatic strengths. Nevertheless, simply not a player most of the time.

Hillary Clinton
Grade: C-
Fell off the tough-shrill balance beam onto the "shrill" side — with a THUD. More defensive than usual, and at times too political and too hot tempered. Borderline disastrous moment at the end when she gave an equivocal answer about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in New York; it opened the door for her opponents to pounce by turning it into a character issue — and pounce they did. The failure of her performance was cumulative, however, so only those watching the whole debate would see how weak her evening was. If she loses the nomination, tonight will go down in history as the first step to her defeat — no fatal "Dean Scream" catastrophe, but far from her finest moment, to say the least.

Dennis Kucinich
Grade: D+
Took advantage of NBC's decision to exclude Mike Gravel from the debate by acting more measured than usual. Was a gentle, spritely populist on health care and the war. Tried to go mainstream in talking about UFOs (despite gingerly acknowledging a sighting as reported by his friend Shirley MacLaine), but was shut out of the key conversations by the moderators.

[Kurtz]

Musta been a different debate than the one I saw. :lol

Edwards looked like a babblin' preacher which of course rubs me wrong. :lmao

And Obama, he just gave similar answers to Hillary's all the while criticizin' hers. :lol

[Wabash]

The thing that puzzles me the most is this:


WHO IN THE HELL IS STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HILLARY?

[sparks]

The thing that puzzles me the most is this:


WHO IN THE HELL IS STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HILLARY?

:para

:rofl

[issac the dragon]

Who the hell was stupid enough to vote for Bush? If he could win a second term, anyone can be prisident.

[sparks]

Who the hell was stupid enough to vote for Bush? If he could win a second term, anyone can be prisident.

Boy ain't that the truth? :roll

He squeaked into office twice...by a fraction!

[sparks]

Boy ain't that the truth? :roll

He squeaked into office twice...by a fraction!

Ya know...whoever wins the next Presidential election, I hope they do so by a freakin' landslide! :yep

[VRWC]

Sounds like a fair review. I do think Hillary made some major mistakes though.

[April15]

The thing that puzzles me the most is this:


WHO IN THE HELL IS STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HILLARY?I will take the challenge and be stupid. It sure beats anything Bush or the contenders offered by the repubs have.

[Kurtz]

The thing that puzzles me the most is this:


WHO IN THE HELL IS STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HILLARY?

I think most thangs puzzle you, Wabby. :lol

[Kurtz]

Every news talk show has focused on Hillary's performance
last night 'n that just reaffirms...lots of folks is skeered. :yep

[Yellowdogtexan]

Any of the top three or four Democrats will easily beat whoever the GOP puts out unless the reagan cloning project finally succeeds. The top gop candidates are just plain weak in general and each have some fun flaws that will be easy to play with.

[sparks]

Any of the top three or four Democrats will easily beat whoever the GOP puts out unless the reagan cloning project finally succeeds. The top gop candidates are just plain weak in general and each have some fun flaws that will be easy to play with.

:rofl:

[AYFR]

Any of the top three or four Democrats will easily beat whoever the GOP puts out unless the reagan cloning project finally succeeds. The top gop candidates are just plain weak in general and each have some fun flaws that will be easy to play with.

I forgot the Democrats are perfect without any flaws (well in their eyes anyway)

As for winning the election chickens and eggs

[Yellowdogtexan]

Some additional reviews of the debate http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071031-debate-reviews-pile-on/TIME's Mark Halperin Gave Edwards' Debate Performance an "A"; Edwards "Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner." "Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner." [Time.com, 10/31/07]

David Yepsen: "John Edwards Emerged As the Evening's Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton." In a blog post titled, "Johnny Be Good," Yepsen wrote, "John Edwards emerged as the evening's most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance...Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy." [Des Moines Register, 10/30/07 (DMRegister.com]

New York Times: Obama "Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards." "But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton's credentials and credibility. 'Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C.,' Mr. Edwards said. 'She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's not ending the war; that's the continuation of the war.' He added, 'I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time.'" [New York Times, 10/31/07 (NYTimes.com)]

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far." George Stephanopoulos: "I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn't back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again, that she can't bring about change." [ABC, "Good Morning America," 10/31/07]

CQ's Craig Crawford: "I Thought It Was Edwards' Best Performance So Far." On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: "Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?"... Craig Crawford: "I thought it was Edwards' best performance so far." Crawford later wrote, ""John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as 'doubletalk' and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish 'neo-conservatives' on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator's most forceful debate performance so far." [MSNBC, 10/30/07; CQpolitics.com, 10/31/07]

The Nation's Ari Melber: "John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing." "John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. 'If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq [with no timetable],' he said, 'then Senator Clinton is your candidate.' Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible 'change' candidate." [TheNation.com, "Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate..." 10/30/07]

Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, "Who do you think won the debate," John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%. [DailyKos, accessed 9:04 a.m. on 10/31/07]

CBS's Jeff Greenfield: "It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language" On Iran. "But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president." ["The Early Show," CBS, 10/31/07]

The Nation's John Nichols: Edwards "Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton." "It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. 'If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.' That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton." [TheNation.com; Yahoo.com, 10/30/07]

The Nation's John Nichols: "Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest." "It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander...Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that 'it's fair' to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. '(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,' argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...'... It was a smart, at times intense dialogue...But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was 'written literally by the neo-cons,' the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, 'We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.'" [TheNation.com; Yahoo.com, 10/30/07]

NBC's Tim Russert: "Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama." Meredith Viera: "So did Edwards emerge?" Tim Russert: "I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton...But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama." [NBC's "Today Show," 10/31/07]

Marc Ambinder: "John Edwards's Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder." "In this discordant symphony – 'A Clintonian Lament' -- John Edwards's instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama's were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, 'It's the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.'" [marcambinder.theatlantic.com, 10/30/07]

ABC's Rick Klein: "Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart." "11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. And other surprises -- how about Joe Biden taking on Rudy Giuliani? Is he the new George W. Bush, in terms of punching-bag status?" [ABCnews.com, 10/30/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: "Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses... Edwards Called Her on It." "Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of 'double talk.' Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?" [MSNBC.com, "Clinton having it both ways... again?" 10/30/07]

The Politico's Ben Smith: "John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton... Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports" Spitzer's Plan. "John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator ... Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants." [Politico, 10/31/07]

ABC's Rick Klein: "It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration." "10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: 'Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.' Obama: 'I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.' And Obama calls the Spitzer plan 'the right idea.'"[ABCnews.com, 10/30/07]

CNN's Candy Crowley: Edwards "Stepped Up His Game." Appearing on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, "John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor." [CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 10/30/07]

CQ's Craig Crawford: "I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you." [MSNBC, 10/31/07]