Rachel Maddow to Moderate New Hampshire Democratic Debate

Image from Frontiers Media

Well, good on you, Ms. Maddow! Though unfortunately, Chuck Todd will also be moderating. Of course, Todd's non-substantive style, lack of follow-up questions, and softball lobs are generally confined to Republican guests on Meet the Press anyway. But with Rachel on board, we're ready to see some real, issue-oriented, meaty questioning. She's been prepping for this for her whole life, practically, so this should be good.

[Excerpt]

MSNBC to host New Hampshire Democratic debate

 . . .The debate will take place at the University of New Hampshire in Durham at 9 p.m. Eastern and be moderated by Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow. All three Democratic presidential candidates, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are expected to attend.. . .

Read more at: MSNBC

SNL: The Democratic Debate

All in all, not bad. Pretty funny, actually, particularly the choice of Larry David for Bernie Sanders, and Alec Baldwin's Jim Webb. I'm still not a huge fan of Kate McKinnon's Hillary Clinton, which is funny, but not very realistic. Still, it was the best skit of the night.

First Democratic Debate Brings Out Bernie PUMAs

Image from USAToday

The first Democratic presidential primary debate was held in my old hometown of Las Vegas on Tuesday Night. By all accounts, it was a sober, serious affair, in stark contrast to the three-ring circuses held by the GOP in recent months. While there was some expected disagreement, and the occasional dig from one candidate to another, but the tone was noticeably more adult, more mature and more presidential.

Better yet, both of the leading candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton acquitted themselves well, and made their own fans very happy. I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders increased his brand, since fewer people know it as well as the Clinton brand. And Clinton put many minds at ease with her personable, sharp and "ready" performance. It didn't have the zazz of the GOP free-for-alls, but it was more in line with what one of these things is supposed to be.

My assessment was that both Sanders and Clinton came off well, but that Clinton had the edge. Sanders got tripped up a few times, and Clinton for the most part didn't. The media, by-and-large, agreed with me, widely hailing Clinton as the winner, and proclaiming (without irony) that after months of media criticism, she now had a big boost. Sanders was acknowledged to have done well, with the same observations I made, where he could have prepared better.

But that's not the whole story. There's been something bubbling under the surface for a while now that really came to a head after the debate. Bernie Sanders supporters, who have long felt ignored, are making more noise than ever, and are not showing the decorum of their hero. Quite the contrary.

Okay, little sidebar here. I've contributed to a few message boards over the past 24 hours, using some of the arguments I'm using in this column. Doing so, I have incurred the wrath of Bernie supporters. This kind of proves my overall point, but I'm going to attempt to squelch what I can here, by saying: 1) I'm not referring to all Bernie supporters; 2) I make no comparison between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders as candidates; and 3) I'm a progressive liberal Democrat who happens to like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

In online polls, Clinton didn't win the debate. In many cases, she came in third or fourth (which is preposterous). Sanders won, and not just by a little. By a lot. By an absurd lot. By an old MSNBC Ed Show text poll margin. By a "Saddam Hussein won an election" margin. In one of the polls, it was Sanders at 81%. That's not normal, and it's not remotely believable. So, it was off into the blogosphere and social media to figure out what was going on.

Image from source, New York Times

Doing so was akin to wading into the piranha-filled waters of a NewsBusters or Breitbart message board. Inexplicably, the Bernie fans are filling the role usually played by extremist Tea Baggin,' Palin lovin' conservatives. The love for Bernie overflows, and the venom against Hillary is flowing freely, with spittle, foam and maybe a little blood. It's just bonkers.

My conclusion is this. Whereas in the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton had her "PUMAs" (which stood for "Party Unity My Ass") and Ron Paul had his disciples who would rig polls, use trickery and even break the law to try and engineer a win for their candidate, Sanders has his own "Feel the Bern" cult.  It's not too much of a stretch to believe that these extra-energized, strident and driven supporters will be more likely to participate in an online poll. So, I won't go so far as to say any of the polls have yet been rigged, or even that any shady business has happened. But I do believe these polls are overly lopsided due to a practice called "FReeping." It's completely legal, but it's not particularly accurate.

That said, I'm more than a little worried that this is going to get worse. I've already encountered Bernie supporters who loathe Clinton with every fiber of their being, and refuse to vote for her if she's the nominee. They're doing their level best to convert people not just to their candidate, but to their view of Mrs. Clinton. They don't save their vitriol for her either, questioning the intelligence and integrity of her supporters. Their abrasiveness and invective tarnish not only their own candidate, it spills over into the entire Democratic effort at electing a candidate.

Here's a response I got from someone I agreed with on the hostility level:

 "One told me to die in a fire on this board. Also said that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, he doesn't care if the whole country burns. Kind of a fire theme. I don't think Bernie would tolerate such cultish behavior, and I wouldn't be surprised if he regrets creating this monster." (Source)


And that pretty much sums up my concern. It's their way or the highway, they will not vote at all if their candidate doesn't win the primary, they will trash the other candidate, and take no prisoners along the way. This is not needed when the Republican side is in such disarray. I hope that Bernie notices, and says something about it. And I hope the Hillary supporters don't take the bait.

[Excerpt]

Who Won and Lost the Democratic Debate? The Web Has Its Say

Bloggers, commentators and the Twitterati quickly weighed in on the first Democratic debate, scoring the winners and losers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators). . .

Read more at: New York Times

Conservative Group Attempts Humor, Leading Into First Democratic Debate

Stop trying to be funny, conservatives. This is an attempt to make the Democrats look silly, and I can't fault them for that. But with the shenanigans going on, on the right side of the political world right now? They need to do a whole lot better than this.

 

Daily Show's Indecision 2008 Debate in Review

I've said many times (and believe me, it's true), blogging on weekends is hard work. It is a time when I have more time to devote to the endeavor, but news sources tend to dry up. So in an effort to bring interesting things to the blog, I do sometimes resort to the easy way out.

But that doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, this is very, very good. Check out The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's take on this week's Democratic primary. It's a hoot.

Steven Weber: Folksiness & the Subtlety Impaired

Photo from Stephen King Short Movies

I like this Steven Weber post so much, I want to marry it. Him. Whatever. I wish I could publish the whole thing. Spot on.

[Excerpt]

Mainstream Media Mainlining

. . .But then It's so much easier to keep Hillary's wince-inducing attempts at folksiness and Barack's well intentioned statements that continue to rankle and confuse the Subtlety Impaired as banner headlines, retarding any progress their earlier debates may have made in the semi-consciousness of America. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

MoveOn Responds to Last Nights' Debate

MoveOn.org responds to last night's Democratic debate, asking, are these the questions you want answered? My response would be, these are the questions the right wing wants publicized, and they don't really care about the answers. As for their importance to Democratic voters? Not so much.

Gibson and Stephanopoulos Taken to Task

Photo from (of all places) FOX "News"

As I said previously, I didn't get to see last night's debate, but I've heard, seen and read a lot about it today. The general consensus from the right seems to be that Barack Obama finally had to answer some "hard" questions. From the left, the thinking seems to be that he had to answer some hard right questions.

From what I've learned, it sounds like the debate was run like Meet the Press or This Week rather than a debate, with the "moderators" acting more like inquisitors. Beyond that, it seems clear that the first half of the debate was engineered to present the "gotcha" questions, trying to get soundbites, while the more boring substantive questions were saved for the second half.

Does anyone remember when the debates were run by the League of Women Voters, and that the moderators let the candidates provide the "gotchas?"

[Excerpt]

An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos

Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,

It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, collegial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this. . .

Read more at: Attytood

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link

21st Democratic Debate in Pennsylvania

Photo from source, Huffington Post

There's something a little unfair about the Presidential debates in general to those of us in the Pacific Time Zone. 8:00 pm Eastern sounds like a fair time to hold them, until you realize that is 5:00 pm to us. That is the time I leave work.

Just the same, I attempted to tune in to see the thing, but it was not carried on our ABC affiliate. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get all the high (and very, very low points) over the next few days. The general consensus seems to be that Barack Obama did not do terrifically well, and that the questioning was sort of below the belt. Not a lot is being said of how Hillary Clinton did, which may be telling.

[Excerpt]

Clinton emphatically says Obama can win White House

Hillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat.

"Yes, yes, yes," she said when pressed about Obama's electability during a campaign debate six days before the Pennsylvania primary. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Last Democratic Debate Before New Hampshire

I confess, I missed the most recent Democratic debate. I half forgot, and half didn't care. As I've said before, while I'm nominally for John Edwards, I'm pretty much happy with whomever gets the Democratic nomination. So, since I fell down in my duties, I found this recap, in case you're interested. . .

[Excerpt]

Dems, GOP Face-Off In Final New Hampshire Debates

Hillary Clinton went on the attack against Barack Obama at the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night, but she ran into a tough push back not only from the Illinois Senator but also John Edwards, who took Obama's side and lashed out at her as an agent of "the status quo. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post

CNN Democratic Debate: My Take

CNN aired the latest in a (very) long string of Presidential Debates tonight. It was the Democratic nominees' turn tonight, and I think on the whole, they did very well. I missed the first half hour--these things rarely take west coasters' schedules into account--but got to see the rest.

The weakest performance, in my opinion was by debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer. He seemed to want to inject himself into the story, modifying the questions to his liking. I'm not a Wolf fan.

As for the candidates, here is my take. . .

Hillary Clinton: Very calculated answers, but also quick on her feet. She has the ability to turn critical questions about herself to her advantage. However negatively I might feel about her politicking, I'm also impressed by her quickness. After seven years of The Decider, I'm more than ready for a quick, intelligent President.

Barack Obama: Gamely trying to distance himself from Senator Clinton, he also manages to sound calculating. And his booming voice ventures into evangelist territory, which gives me the heebie-jeebies.

John Edwards: My favorite, but is also guilty of the slick, political, "what you want me to say" answers. Also stretches his words (aaaaaand, soooooo) while thinking of the answer. I still like him, and he's as quick on his feet as Hillary.

Christopher Dodd: This guy probably should be President. Very smart, fast and thoughtful. But seemingly, hasn't got a chance.

Dennis Kucinich: The furthest left of the candidates fulfills the wishes of the (much maligned) MoveOn.org crowd. And is one of the lowest rated, disproving the theory that MoveOn is somehow in charge. Still, I hope he hangs in there, if only so his ideas get a wider audience.

Joe Biden: Right up there with Chris Dodd for people that probably should be president. Has some of the best answers, and while a professional politician, has answers that sound very heartfelt. I'd like to see him become more of a contender.

Bill Richardson: Earnest, and smart, but comes off like a lummox. Not as slick, not as smooth, and not as quick as the rest. He just doesn't come off as Presidential, despite his qualifications.

All of that said, there isn't a single person on that stage that I wouldn't vote for over any of the Republican contenders. Put aside the fact that the present administration has been a disaster. The contrast between this bunch, and the group on the right is stark. The Republican debates seem like they're being conducted in an alternate universe. While the Democrats surely have their political calculations, there is a genuineness there to go along with it, with all of the candidates. On the Republican side, I just don't see it.

Democratic Debate Tonight

I'm getting a little bit of a late start posting this evening, because I've been watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC. I may comment more on the debate later, but for now, just a brief comment.

While there are glossy, focus-tested politically-motivated answers in both Democratic and Republican debates, I am struck by a stark difference. First, in the questioning. Republicans seem to be stuck on fear, terror, war, tough-guy talking and testosterone. Whether this is chiefly because of questions asked, or just the way they answer, I'm genuinely unsure.

Democratic challengers differ dramatically--in my view--in their tone, and in their thoughtfulness. Even dark horse Dennis Kucinich, who has by far the most different of the bunch, had well thought out, reasonable sounding answers. So far, I haven't heard abortion questions, or (much) religion questions, which inundate Republican debates. 9/11 may have been mentioned, but it sure isn't a theme.

By watching both sides debate removed from context, you would think they were held at two different points in history.

I'm not sure which candidate I'm for yet. But I believe I'd vote for any of the Democratic slate over any of the Republicans, even if the politics of the last six years had been more sedate.

The Democratic Debate on This Week

Slow posting day for me. I seem to be lacking inspiration again. I guess a triple-dose of Karl Rove can do that to you. I did want to comment on the Democratic debate held on This Week with George Stephanopolous.

I watched the Republican debate on the same program two weeks ago, and if I had to point out the key difference, it was in the overall tone. The Democratic candidates actually seemed to listen to the questions, and (mostly) answered them. The Republican debate--to me--seemed more canned. They seemed to steer the answer to what it was they wanted to say in the first place, regardless of the question.

Now, I will concede that that may only be my biased opinion. But there wasn't a person on the stage today that I wouldn't rather see as President than any of the group two weeks ago. I do still worry that if Hillary gets the nomination, that a sizable portion of the country will be voting against her, not for the other guy. But that's often what it comes down to anyway, I suppose. In any event, she's getting better with each debate.

I'm still torn between Edwards and Clinton. But I think the choice is ultimately going to be made for me, and I can't imagine Edwards taking the #2 slot again.

As for me, I'll have some new stuff up tomorrow. I don't stay uninspired for long!