I watched my FIRST DEBATE last night.

[underpants]

I have no single favorite candidate (per GD rules) so I do not aim for this to be sided towards any of them. This was my first instance of sitting back and sizing them up, I knew the lines they support and proport ahead of time.

First I thought that Koppel had a very interesting approach to moderating. It was good to go ahead and get the Gore endorsement out of the way, it was reported this morning on NBC that Dean was the only one who thought he could beat Bush next year... how's that for your lib'ral media?

Kucinich turned the whole first half of the debate back on Koppel with his "...I'm sorry I am an inconvenience to you..." line. Koppel all in all took the jibes with good spirit.

Dean
Wow he really needs to get someone in their to help him polish himself off. He doesn't seem to speak very fluidly and he definitely doesn't know how to finish his point. Okay that is just the window dressing but that is important in the general election, very important. I didn't get the 'grass rootsy' feeling from him he seemed to stumble over himself and was corrected by Koppel in the assessment of the first half of the debate. As for what he said, I knew what he was going to say and I generally agree him his points but he just didn't sell it to me.

Edwards
This "I'm an outsider" thing just isn't going to work. Is this new? He continued on that point several times and when talking about special interests and lobbyists left himself wide open on the trial lawyer front. He could have claimed that since he has influence and connections there he would be able to have an effect here and that he has experience (couple THAT with the outsider thing) there. By the way, his hair thing had me thinking of Bob's Big Boy for the duration. Smooth and polished and definitely about to finish his point.

Clark
He really looked shaky at the beginning. His first two answers were really pretty bad but he rebounded. He needs to control the debate and change speed and direction from time to time as Dean, Kerry, and even Gephardt were able to do-they stood out. Clark also was articulating lines very similiar to the White House (I hate to say) SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENSE, etc. I know those are his strong points but he needs to reassure people that he can handle what are seen as his weaknesses, as they all should.

Kerry
Easily the most relaxed (aside from oh we will get to that) and very comfortable. I missed the opening of his MTBE statement but the crowd really seemed to like what he said. Needs to smile some more and if I was in his campaign I would tell him to take the more casual reflective route. That is what is missing when you consider the incredible amount of debates (which is a very good thing which should have been pointed out to Koppel, they sort of did) it would be a bit of a relief from them sort of answering the question and then repeating their boiled chicken dinner stump speeches.

Gephardt
He actually surprised me with the part about what he feels in his heart and what he was WORKED for. He did have one answer early on that fell so flat NO ONE applauded. He did a good job despite that of actually standing out which, like I said, surprised me.

Sharpton
Very good they should all take huge clues from him. He knows how to FINISH a 90 second riff. No surprise given his background. His "bossism" thing was dead on and right. His comment about SNL having higher ratings than Nightline was funny and very well placed (at the end) and well taken by Koppel.

Braun
Very nice but the ~"I'm the womens' candidate" thing is nice to hear but falling on deaf ears. I thought that her, Sharpton, and Kucinich's response to the very direct question of when they would drop out were very good. I really am not sure if that question was appropriate or not.

Kucinich
Very good. I don't agree with the anti-NAFTA (sorry it's the new world) or that he (or anyone) could bring the troops home in 90 days-that would be disaster and illegal. Dennis surprised me in being very direct and doing what I said Kerry (and Dean) should do if steering the debate away from stump speeches and trying to connect to the audience in the room AND watching at home. He nailed Koppel on the direction of the debate.

Lieberman
Whoever wrote that line about following the Clinton outline for the new Democratic party was right on. Whoever gets the nomination should be saying that in their sleep and as many times as possible in front of mics and TVs-National security (the numbers don't lie), fiscal responsibility (##s), and values-try as they might (objective here) the Republicans can't touch any of the 9 Dems or the historical record on any of those. They might think they own those but they don't. Joe was good even if I think he is too middle of the road to win the Dem nomination and has too much baggage from 2000, sorry but that is how a lot of people will see it.

I was watching and I just wanted to see someone RELAX and conduct the debate as if they were in someone's living room and talking (and listening) as you normally would. Funny I thought that that was what Dean had based his campaign on and that I have seen Kerry do very effectively. Not to brag but I could have wiped the floor with several of them last night-RELAX AND CONNECT!!!!

I look forward to watching the next one.

[CatWoman]

1. can't let this thread go to waste

:kick:

Morning, UP :hi:

[underpants]

12. Morning and a comment on their time management

They really ought to be more adept at the yellow light red light thing by now. By continually running over time they appear to be unorganized, longwinded, and greedy. Just an observation.

[Punkingal]

2. What a great analysis....

I just wanted to add a comment or two. (I don't have a candidate, either.)

I thought Gep did surprisingly well, something I have observed in every debate. I particularly liked his talking about getting at the root causes of terrorism. I have been waiting for someone to say that. Instead of just killing people, a la George Bush, let's talk about why they are angry enough to attack us to begin with.

Kerry is obviously a deep thinker, and very brilliant, but he tries to say too much, as people who see many facets to an issue often do. It doesn't bother me, but I think he may be over the heads of some people, which is a shame. He really is a brilliant man.

Overall, I just think we have an embarrassment of riches, here. What great candidates they are, and one of them will put George Bush away.

[blm]

6. He is brilliant and can hit the ground running

in every area and more than any single candidate. I want his environmental plan in action Jan. 2005 and help save this planet before it's too late.

[Rainbowreflect]

3. I can't really disagree with you.

I think they all did a pretty good job.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. the "unelectable" candidates did the best, interesting isn't it?

Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton won the debate - they got the longest and most applause, they controlled the terms of the answers to the questions, and they stuck to the issues even while those pathetic excuses for moderators asked asinine, insulting, and irrelevant questions.

What the hell was up with interrupting Braun? Ted Koppel wouldn't let her finish a sentence - he'd ask a question, and before she got two words out he was interrupting her and attacking her? She smacked him for it too, good!

[underpants]

11. Yes they were probably the most memorable

but some of that has to do with the fact that they aren't really getting themselves out there due to money constraints.

They really ought to be more adept at the yellow light red light thing. By continually running over time they appear to be unorganized, longwinded, and greedy. Just an observation.

[blm]

21. the yellow light thing is the big drag at the debates for me

because, of course, I would prefer the full policy to be discussed on EVERY issue. I really dislike soundbite politics and soundbite politicians.

[underpants]

25. Well you have 9 candidates and 90 minutes

Obviously, at this point, there just isn't time for full discussion. When the number of candidates is lower, and it will be *, more full and deep discussions will be possible.

*I am not advocating that anyone quit but some will. They should at least stay around until Iowa and New Hampshire are over.

[curse10]

5. Great analysis

I didn't watch last night (I taped it)- But I am not surprised by your analysis. That's the same one I've had for most of the debates. :-)

[Ramsey]

7. My take

Dean: I have seen him do better. The question about when can the president lie to the American people was an opportunity for Dean to talk about all the times the Bush admnistration has lied inappropriately and he let it fall short. I thought he answered the other questions pretty well. He stumbles a bit still. I thought the fact that the whole first question gave all of the other 8 candidates a chance to bash Dean and he only got 90 seconds to respond was unfair to Dean, and I liked that he took that time to defend Al Gore.

Edwards: Too "on message", talking about being an outsider and corporate influence in answer to every question. A little too canned. He does speak well and is kind of folksy, but its not enough. I think the local moderator must be an Edwards supporter because he gave all the other candidates hardball questions and Edwards got some softball like "what are your best qualities".

Clark: He did well I thought. His selling point is his military experience, but he took on some domestic issues better than he has in the past. (My concern about him continues to be lack of fully formed domestic policies, so good to see he is getting some).

Kerry: He is always very eloquent and informed, but for some reason he is not engaging or warm. I liked that he gave an answer about a local New Hampshire issue.

Gephardt: He always surprises me by coming off better than I'd expect. He is conversant and speaks well. The frist time I saw him (at an Emily's list debate) he really turned me off by talking about his humble origins and his kid's illnesses and just being way too personal for my comfort zone. I thought it was creepy that he'd use his kid in a stump speech. I guess he's dropped that schtick. But I still him as a little too slick.

Sharpton: I must be the only person that finds Sharpton to be grating and noncredible. Sure he can do a funny sound bite, but he sounds like a stand-up comedian. His comments about "bossism" were actually gratuitously inflammatory because Al Gore did not say anything of the kind in his Dean endorsement. Sharpton just rubs me the wrong way.

Braun: She was eloquent and diplomatic as always. She just doesn't have a chance so its hard to take her seriously. I liked that she tried to quell the rancor among some of the others and talked about unity.

Kucinich: Well, he was terrific, even though I don't agree with some of his policies. I liked his comments about substance over fluff. I am sorry though, his about-face on choice and the explanation for it doesn't fly. If he cared about women's rights, he should have cared before the righht wing inevitably started restricting them out of existance.

Lieberman: OK, he just grates on my last nerve usually, but he was a little more toned down in this one. He didn't do his Hollywood-is-evil spiel, thankfully. I don't like the way he continues to specifically attack other Dems on the stage (especially Dean).

I look forward to the time when there are 3-4 candidates, because 9 is just way too many to have any really meaningful discourse.

[underpants]

10. I'm not disagreeing with that but I really AGREE on Kucinich and Edwards

Edwards (all of them) need to get off message for just a second and sell THEMSELVES. I thought Edwards would be a fantastic candidate at the beginning but when he just kept saying the same lines over and over I rolled my eyes. They have had enough of these and more to come to not sell THEMSELVES. All sales include the human element and that is about 80% of politics. W somehow (hello media) created a story of himself-well these people don't have to. Be yourself and let the people know who you are what you care about and that you will listen.

They should all be watching Clinton tapes, regardless of his policies he could work the room like no one we have seen maybe ever, that's what scared the pants off the Repubes.

Oh and stop the mentioning by name of people. Kerry did this last night and even I see that it is textbook focus group artificial turn OFF politics. It was good when it was first thought up but now to the campaign weary and the casual observer it sounds forced.

No Kucinich doesn't have a good excuse for turnign 180 degres on abortion.

[LeahMira]

15. People CAN change!

No Kucinich doesn't have a good excuse for turnign 180 degres on abortion.

There are a lot of things I was brought up to believe. I never really questioned many of those beliefs because it wasn't a personal issue for me, but as life goes on they have become personal and I have changed.

I think there are probably a lot of folks who are anti-choice right up to the point when they find themselves or their daughters pregnant. Certainly there's no reason to think that's specifically what happened with Dennis, but something apparently came along that made him examine some heretofore unexamined beliefs. It's called maturity. Perhaps the particulars are not public business?

[underpants]

20. Okay

I don't thnk that Kucinich's supporters are going to be too hung up on that issue anyway. As far as in the general election I would find it hard to believe that anyone who has CHOICE in even their top 20 ranking of issues are going to vote for W.

Yes people do change, hell I worked for the '84 Reagan campain! I was young and I needed the money....

[bobthedrummer]

23. A matter of conscience isn't trivial. People do think and change.

This is old news anyway, DK changed position on women's rights years ago and he advocates a Roe vs. Wade federal judge litmus test.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Since Wes is "my" guy

I will post for him. Great post, BTW. ;)

Clark
He really looked shaky at the beginning. His first two answers were really pretty bad but he rebounded. He needs to control the debate and change speed and direction from time to time as Dean, Kerry, and even Gephardt were able to do-they stood out. Clark also was articulating lines very similiar to the White House (I hate to say) SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENSE, etc. I know those are his strong points but he needs to reassure people that he can handle what are seen as his weaknesses, as they all should.

The main reason (he stated this last night) he spoke to SECURITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE is because THAT is the ad the SHRUB is running in NH right now and has been for a couple of weeks. THAT is "THE ISSUE" the SHRUB is going to run on and it must be countered. If ANYONE can do that, it's the General and I thought he did it well. I hope you stayed tune to the spin room after the debate? THAT is where the General shone through the most in the domestic issues, mainly because he was given the opportunity to expound on an issue in great detail. He told a story of a boy whose mother has environmental cancer and the boy asked him to please do something about the environmental policies the shrub administration has implemented. Clark will be pro-environment by moving to an alternative fuel source and investing more money in the sciences to do that.. He will create jobs by stimulating the economy with new business incentives and keep jobs here by taking away incentives given to companies who outsource or take their business overseas. On education he will give $12,000 to kids for college by taking back the shrub tax cut from income earners of $200,000 and up. He has a plan for our domestic policies, but must be given the air time to give it with clarity. So far, the only candidate who is afforded that luxury is Dean.

Speaking of Dean....
His speaking pattern really grates on me. It's broke, way too fast and he's hard to understand sometimes because he doesn't ENUNCIATE his words. Just MY observation.

If you need or want more information on the General and his positions, follow the links.

http://clark04.com/issues/

http://www.americansforclark.com/speeches/016/

http://www.americansforclark.com/

[underpants]

13. Thanks but....

Unfortuneately most people aren't going to hang around to watch that post show either. That is what debates are for, this is your time.

We live in a KISS and soundbite world so get all of your issues and policies and make sure you can sum the general idea (with a look to the audience with specifics that affect them) in a sentence or two. Free advice for all of them.

[onecitizen]

24. I have to agree with you..........

on Dean's speaking style. It bothers me. It must run in the family because his brother was interviewed earlier this week and his style was the same. He misspeaks frequently and apologizes and corrects himself usually. Dean is much better with small venues I think. And I do like his message. People like Joe try to paint him as a wild Liberal which he is not. He represents to me, the best qualities of a Liberal and his conservative leanings are in the realm of fiscal responsibility which I can certainly agree with.

[wa state wanderer]

9. C-Span 1 replaying debate Now. 7 AM Pacific

Just a head's up.

[underpants]

14. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[PsN2Wind]

16. Removing troops "Illegal"

Sending them in might have been illegal, considering that it was done based upon too many lies to recount. But why is the removal illegal?
And you are a supporter of NAFTA because, it's been such a boon to US workers or the tremendous benefits to the Mexican worker or you just like that New World Order thingy?

[underpants]

18. Occupying powers have responsibilities under Geneva and UN charter

A quick search found this. I think it is applicable if not I have seen this discussed previously on DU as well as in major publications and all seem to agree that we can't just leave we have certain responsibilities.
Besides that it would be suicidal politically, militarily, economically (oil), and securitywise.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 6
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143.

____________________

As far as the NAFTA thing goes- what I meant is that that is how it is. Reversing it would be extremely detrimental to businesses in terms of capital expeditures and in kind with those that they still employ and investors. 25 years ago the US economy staples were autos and steel, well it's not anymore. We adjusted from there (tough I know but we did) and we can again.

[redqueen]

26. Now that's funny

Citing Geneva Convention articles as a reason to thwart DK's healing measures toward progress, while the same articles were ignored and trashed in the effort to get the oil.

Despite the nitpicking, Kucinich is right that the US presence there is part of the reason for increased hostility. Adhering to GC articles which are counterproductive is foolish and will kill this country's future domestically speaking.

Additionally, reversing the trade agreements which are detrimental to people's lives is simply logical. Staying with them because getting out would be 'detrimental to business' is tantamount to saying 'profits are more important than people'.

If people could adjust to the loss of jobs, businesses can adjust to the loss of profits.

Sad that so many have become so invested in this 'what's good for GE is good for America' type of thinking.

One more point, yes we did adjust from 'there' (assuming you mean the first giant outflow of jobs to Mexico / Canada), but your assumption that this can go on indefinitely is clearly unfounded. We are in uncharted territory, and we need a captain with some common sense if we're to avoid getting lost at sea.

Combine free trade with the huge expenditures in Iraq and you have the perfect recipe for a serf class ripe for exploitation in America, as well as the end of New Deal programs once and for all.

[underpants]

28. Article VI Clause 2

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Sorry but not only was the Geneva convention ratified but so was the UN Charter which I believe references the Geneva convention. It is the law here and it must be followed. Just because W&Co. broke international law ( and US law) with their illegal invasion does not mean that the US should break another law.

I agree that our presence there has increased hostility and that was one of the arguments against the war. I'm not just saying I WAS RIGHT we all were and the possible consequences were never put in front of the American people nor was there a demand (by Dems) that they be put forward as part of the debate over the war.

As far as the NAFTA argument. You may very well be right and the grand experiment fails. What I was getting at is that that ship has sailed and instead of arguing over whether we should have done it, here we are. I don't really think it will create a serfdom and frankly I never put GE above people. I was just trying to state the matter of fact (and they could be wrong) argument of what is happening now. Completely reversing ourselves isn't going to happen and Kucinich comes off as a kook and radical for proposing it. I know we all have wants from politicians but politicians also have to get elected. Kucinich never really stood a chance and what will be seen as inane ramblings is not helping his cause.

[LeahMira]

17. Thanks for your thoughts and insights ...

I feel almost as if I had been there! :-)

I'll look for a transcript later on, but it will be easier to "see" with the picture you created in words.

[underpants]

19. Wow thanks

:hi:

[el_gato]

22. support for NAFTA is support for corporate enslavement

so I differ with your view on Kucinich

[DUJunkie]

27. I too watch the debate,

and what I notice, was the stroking Ted and Scott gave to Dean about Gores support. Then the question was asked by Scott to Dean, do you as a president think it is okay to LIE to the American people if it is for national security reasons? Dean looking up at the ceiling answers YES. WTF.......