Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is the best analysis of the debate I've seen.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:18 PM
Original message
This is the best analysis of the debate I've seen.
From NBC's Chuck Todd
If the last debate was the moment where Democrats realized that the Clinton coronation was, at least, postponed, this one will be known as the debate that seemed to sharpen the contrast between Clinton and Obama and create a gap between the big two and everyone else. The sparring between Clinton and Obama on a number of issues is likely to set the tone for some time. Edwards was hurt, partially, by the fact that Clinton and Obama were next to each other, while Edwards was off to the side.

This debate was about Clinton effectively fighting back, Obama sticking to his guns and separation between those two and everyone else.

As for Edwards, he just wasn't at his best tonight. His attempts at hitting Clinton early on fell flat. That little "planted question" line was out of place. What's interesting is that Edwards seemed to get it and went back to his comfort zone and ended the debate a lot stronger than he started. Of course, first impressions are everything and Edwards didn't make a strong first impression at this debate.

As for Obama, he did fine but, early on, missed a major opportunity. Obama showed his inexperience at debating. When Clinton hit him early on health care, Obama simply defended himself from the attack, rather than deflect the attack and hit back at her over the '93 health care reform failure. It was an easy hit for him, and he missed; he didn't even swing; got caught looking. Clinton is winning on "experience," not because of the practical experience she has as a former chief executive (she's never been one) but the experience she has as a politician, as a debater. Clinton would not have missed a similar opening.

Clinton ducked the immigration controversy that dogged her at the last debate because she only had to utter one simple word on the driver's license issue: "No." She didn't have to answer for the fact that she waited a few weeks to give a definitive answer. Meanwhile, the theatrics between the moderator and Obama over whether he was answering "yes or no" on the issue gave Clinton the moment on immigration THEY were looking for. Will this be the Clinton YouTube moment they push around? We'll see. (BTW, Clinton better be careful on NAFTA; her about face on the issue from what she said about the trade deal just one year ago is striking. No one tagged her on it tonight but don't be surprised if reporters pounce.)

Obama got his YouTube moment when he got to challenge the moderator on the issue of being a pessimist. Look for THAT in an email box near you VERY soon.

One final Clinton v. Obama point. Clinton really benefitted from the audience responses; I'd love to know who got tickets for this debate, whether one campaign was allowed to get more tix than another. Because the booing by the Clinton supporters when Edwards or Obama confronted Clinton were distracting to the candidates and did throw them off every now and then.

As for the rest of the field, Biden, again, had a good night. He keeps doing well at these debates; we'll see if he can use this to propel himself in Iowa. Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message. Still, I bet the Dodd folks are lighting up CNN over the lack of face time.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/469442.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
starmaker Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. watch Gravel's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very good and fair assessment k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. The whole thing was as set up to make Hillary look good anyway.
Didn't work for me though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I do believe that was the case based on the evidence presented. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vireo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. Also check out NPR's "On Point"
I don't know if their weekly news roundup is always this good but I happened to check it out today and was favorably impressed.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/11/20071116_a_main.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. LOL. Chuck Todd is one of shallowest media whores out there!
I guess that's a prerequisite to work for the national review and the likes of Matthews and Russert.

This review is typically vacuous- style over substance, with little in the way of critical thought.

"Edwards was hurt, partially, by the fact that Clinton and Obama were next to each other, while Edwards was off to the side."

:rofl:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rjones2818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hmmm...
Dennis isn't mentioned. It's a bad analysis.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. HA!! you pick Chuck Todd as the Best Analysis? You mean for Your Candidate!
What a shill he is... Maybe next you'll say Sid Bluementhal has the best analysis of "Why Hillary can Win!" :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Did you even read it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC