ABC Facebook debate discussion (1 Viewer)

[RJ in Lafayette]

I didn't see the Republican debate and watched only about a third of the Democratic debate, switching between it and the Pittsburgh game.

I agree with the analysts that the Democratic candidates looked tired. Based on the parts of the debate I saw, Edwards looked the best; Obama seemingly ahead in the game played it safe, avoiding a mistake and keeping his cool; and Hillary won a batch of debating points but reinforced the perceptions of her as cold and mean. Her absolutely best moment was when she actually smiled in response to the question about her likeability.

I very much dislike Hillary. She's the closest thing to Richard Nixon I have seen in three decades. And I am amazed that she continues to tout "her 35 years of experience" as she criticizes the experience of others. I am still waiting for the other candidates to actually talk about whether we want 24 years of a president named Bush or Clinton and about a Hillary election being a return to the politics of the 1990's.

I heard a panel of female reporters yesterday on the radio talking favorably about Clinton and saying that most in the country failed to realize she was the most conservative of the Democrats running. And I wanted to scream that nobody knows what Hillary really thinks about anything other than she has an extraordinarily high opinion of herself, believes she is entitled to be president, and will say nearly anything to become president. She and Romney are soulmates, two terribly bright and articulate people we don't trust and think are fake.

 

[SoonerJim]

I think Obama (who will win the nomination, IMO) would be better off with Biden as his running mate (if Biden is even interested, which is not a guarantee). Biden's experience and knowledge of foreign policy is well-established and would compliment him well.

I agree. Biden provided the foreign policy and experience for Obama, and can be easily imagined in the Oval office.

Edwards proved his unelectability as a VP in 2004 and can only get worse with his tempermental difference with Obama. Huey Long said the same stuff with a smile and a wink, when things were REALLY bad. I would have though that the multimillionaire millworker's son could have clothed him parents better. His dad looked as tough he just got off the shift. I'd have him looking like Father Divine.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I would have though that the multimillionaire millworker's son could have clothed him parents better. His dad looked as tough he just got off the shift. I'd have him looking like Father Divine.

I think that was done to show Edward's as being in touch with the common man.

I missed the debate, but saw some clips -- Paul again continues to disappoint me with his lack of ability to debate -- I really don't think he studies much. I think he's got a bedrock philosophy and does not do much research to either prove himself or disprove himself -- either that or he's incredibly slow on his feet.

 

[workhorse]

This is the best debate format yet.

I didn't see a clear winner between McCain and Romney. Huckabee has no chance of winning NH, but gave the best performance as usual. The fight between Paul and almost everyone else was both entertaining and frightening. Hearing so much discussion of alternative energy was encouraging....I'm going to start working on a 100mpg car if Huck wins.

Clinton is the loser so far on the Dem side. Whoever transcribes her comments is going to wear out the U and H keys on their keyboard. Agree with SBTB's assessment of Obama and Edwards vs Hillary. The experience card won't work in NH.

I actually thought Huckabee did not have his A game last night, and I'm a Huck supporter. I thought Rudy looked the best last night, and he needed it. He seemed well prepared and may have sealed 3rd place in New Hampshire. Also I thought Romney started the night off pretty good, but faded and got flustered by the attacks at him. He has clearly changed his strategy to "Change", piggybacking on Obama and Huck's success.

Best moment of the night: After Romney talked about the country wanting change, McCain openly mocks him with, " Sir, we disagree on many things, but I agree with you that you are definitely the candidate of change".

 

[Pure Energy]

Very good debate format....I liked it.

I thought Paul recovered nicely after the terrorism gaffe. He appeared head and shoulders above the other candidates in his knowledge of the economy and economic drivers. However, in the second half of the debate, I don't believe any candidate ever referred to anything he had to say by name--my recollection is you never hear any candidate utter Paul or Ron after that exchange particularly during the discussion about oil and high cost of energy. The zinger of the debate was when McCain made the reference that Mitt would get his award as the candidate of Change (referring to Mitt's flip-flopping on various issues). My take is McCain came out on top, Guiliani was second, with Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul bunched together and Romney appeared to finish dead last. He came off as an establishment candidate and was more about shooting holes in other peoples platforms than supporting his own. Things are going to get touch for Romney if he show poorly in NH.

On the Dem side, I was most impressed by Edwards performance. He appears to be taking a page from the Huckabee book and trying to become the "everyman" candidate--look at me, I'm just like you...come from a poor family of mill workers...look at my Dad, he's poor just like your Dad and can't afford fancy expensive duds. His approach seems to have changed to emphasizing the personal commitment he has for his causes. I don't think it'll be enough to woo voters, but who knows... Obama didn't say much to elevate his position, but his tag-teaming with Edwards helped move Hillary down a notch or two. The indirect references from Obama and Edwards directed at Hillary as the "Status Quo" clearly ruffled her feathers. For the Dems I have it 1) Edwards, 2) Obama, and a distant 3) Clinton and in last, last place, Richardson (he's an insignificant Presidential candidate at this point).

 

[blackadder]

The comment was dumb and Giuliani played it well. Then Giuliani went on to list a bunch of terror attacks against the US that happened before the war. Paul should have jumped back in here and confirmed that each of these events happened after the US put a military base in the Middle East. He should have asked Rudy how many terrorist attacks happened before the first base was installed and the US got involved with middle east politics.

Giuliani played it well, but I get Paul's point. This was hardly a "gaffe." IMO it just demonstrates the misconceptions about terrorism emanating from the Middle East. Paul was just unable to point out the weakness of Rudy's examples.

Bali? That was aimed at Australian tourists because Australia joined the attack on Iraq.

The Munich Olympics???

Completely inappropriate example. The Munich operation was undertaken by the PLO and aimed at Israel, not Germany. It just happened in Germany becuase that is where the Israeli Olympic team was. Further, the PLO was largely a secular nationalist organization aiming to "liberate" Palestine. They are not Islamic radicals seeking to impose Sharia on anyone. Left alone, the PLO/Fatah are the kind of guys that kill Islamists.

Sorry Rudy.

Same with Leon Klinghoffer. That was the PLO and they wheeled him off the deck of the ship because he was an American and a Jew.

Why don't they attack Luxembourg?

I don't get the logic they use to explain the focus on the United States. Why would weak Islamic terrorists who are supposedly attacking because they simply hate and they want to impose radical Islam start with the country that is strongest and farthest away?

Seems to me it would be smarter to start with Luxembourg and work your way up. They are an easier target and closer.

Paul is basically right. Problem is few people in America can differentiate between the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and Al-Queda and Giuliani knows that. So, one minute he can paint them all as "Islamic radicals" who attack us "because we are free" and the next he can say he doesn't "blame all Muslims."

And I'll add that Rudy very slyly made his pander to the NY Jewish vote. Both his specific examples, Klinghoffer and Munich, were PLO attacks aimed at Israel or American support for Israel. neither involved Islamic extremists. Yet he successfully conflated the two and no one called him out on that.

This conflation has been a general neoconservative strategy for years now and it has been quite successful.

 

[cruize]

To everyone who thinks otherwise, Obama will not win the nomination.

 

[Severum]

The clips with blue podiums are from an older debate. Here's the whole GOP portion:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3554557223000413568&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

 

[bclemms]

The clips with blue podiums are from an older debate. Here's the whole GOP portion:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3554557223000413568&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Thanks, I didn't even pay attention.

 

[LSSpam]

I'm geniunely excited at an Obama/Edwards ticket and deathly afraid of any ticket with Huckabee on it.

 

[mister pc]

I think it is pretty clear that Obama wins the nomination in a landslide and Edwards may have played himself into a high spot with Obama, maybe even a VP spot. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be all but a free ride into the white house.

I dont know about Edwards as Obama's VP. Edwards isnt going to bring very many new voters to Obama's side because their positions are so similar that all of Edward's supporters will already move over to Obama if he wins the nomination. I think Edwards could make a good AG or something though. For VP, Obama should choose a moderate with a strong record on national defense who can appeal to southerners.

 

[Severum]

...On the Dem side, I was most impressed by Edwards performance. He appears to be taking a page from the Huckabee book and trying to become the "everyman" candidate--look at me, I'm just like you...come from a poor family of mill workers...look at my Dad, he's poor just like your Dad and can't afford fancy expensive duds. His approach seems to have changed to emphasizing the personal commitment he has for his causes. I don't think it'll be enough to woo voters, but who knows...

Edwards has used the same formula since the 04 race and probably earlier.

I actually thought Huckabee did not have his A game last night, and I'm a Huck supporter. I thought Rudy looked the best last night, and he needed it. He seemed well prepared and may have sealed 3rd place in New Hampshire. Also I thought Romney started the night off pretty good, but faded and got flustered by the attacks at him. He has clearly changed his strategy to "Change", piggybacking on Obama and Huck's success.

Best moment of the night: After Romney talked about the country wanting change, McCain openly mocks him with, " Sir, we disagree on many things, but I agree with you that you are definitely the candidate of change".

I agree that Huckabee didn't dominate this debate like he did the last few. He needed to fight for extra air time and throw in a little more humor. Giuliani's campaign is dead, so he had an easy debate off the radar.

The big question now is whether Obama draws enough independents to hurt McCain.

 

[LSSpam]

I dont know about Edwards as Obama's VP. Edwards isnt going to bring very many new voters to Obama's side because their positions are so similar that all of Edward's supporters will already move over to Obama if he wins the nomination. I think Edwards could make a good AG or something though. For VP, Obama should choose a moderate with a strong record on national defense who can appeal to southerners.

VP's don't bring anyone any voters anyways. Never understood the rational of "balancing the ticket" and haven't seen it provide tangible results in recent history.

The "throw the bums out" senitment is enormously strong right now, as proven by the wholely undeserved Dem victory in the mid-terms, and Obama tagging Edwards as his VP would continue to build his momentum with the group that has to elect him if he hopes to win. So why not do that?

The single biggest roadblock I think Obama faces is (ironically when you consider 90% of our nation's history) not the fact that he is black, but the undercurrent of suspicion amongst some that he might be a secret muslim infiltrator (or something like that).

 

[Severum]

<object width="470" height="406"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/44873C7D97EE7A53" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/44873C7D97EE7A53" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="470" height="406" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>

Here's the full Dem debate in 10 auto advancing parts (direct link if they don't advance).

 

[mister pc]

VP's don't bring anyone any voters anyways. Never understood the rational of "balancing the ticket" and haven't seen it provide tangible results in recent history.

The "throw the bums out" senitment is enormously strong right now, as proven by the wholely undeserved Dem victory in the mid-terms, and Obama tagging Edwards as his VP would continue to build his momentum with the group that has to elect him if he hopes to win. So why not do that?

The single biggest roadblock I think Obama faces is (ironically when you consider 90% of our nation's history) not the fact that he is black, but the undercurrent of suspicion amongst some that he might be a secret muslim infiltrator (or something like that).

I agree about the muslim heritage being a huge strike against him in a general election. But balancing the ticket is a very sound strategy I believe. For example, if Hillary were to win the nomination and pick Barack as her VP that move alone would immediately earn her millions of votes. Similarly, if Obama can get a VP candidate who appeals to a different demographic than the Obama base, it will help him get more votes and stand a better chance of winning the election.