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: Extr