I followed the discussion on the Democratic Underground thanks to phil's link on the zonkboard.
From what I read, the good Doctor had an excellent evening.
I can't wait to see the real thin in about 45 minutes.
Deans closing statement is on the official Deanblog. It looked effective. As usual full of the kind of truth no one else wants to admit or say but Dean.
AP take here:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/
MG...GA7HBTDAFD.html
For quick reference, here's that closing (deancalltoaction.blogspot.com):
In the closing remarks of tonight's debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Howard Dean said:
We can't win this election if we worry so much about electability that the American people can't tell the difference between us and the Republicans.
The great unspoken political lie, which comes from stages like this, is elect me and I’ll solve all of your problems.
The great unspoken truth is that the future of this country rests in your hands, not mine.
You have the power to rise up and take this country back. You have the power to give this party the backbone to challenge this President, and all of the harm he has done to our country. You have the power to create jobs, balance the budget, and bring us our dream, which Harry Truman put in our platform in 1948 – health care for every American.
The reason people don’t vote in this country is that we don’t give them a reason to vote. This campaign is about giving all of you a reason to vote.
Abraham Lincoln said, "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." President Bush has forgotten the ordinary people of this country.
It’s time to take our party back and it’s time to take our country back.
Bob Graham:
"I think it's going to take a combination of someone who is a centrist and someone who frankly can bring states in from the South."
Thanks Sen. Graham, that was just sooooo inspiring.
My initial reaction:
Well, George "stepped on all of us," again. At the beginning, George seemed fixated on stirring up shit between Dean and Kerry, rather than asking meaningful questions that allowed the candidates to differentiate their position on the issues. The candidates quickly chastised George for misusing their forum opportunity to focus on the minor squabble.
I thought that the debate format was terrible, especially for the non-establishment (non- senator) candidates. In the first round, it appeared that most of the initial questions were given to establishment candidates Kerry, Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt, and to a lessor extent Edwards. These "congressional club" candidates were allowed more time to make lengthy responses. The remaining candidates were called upon to either defend a counter statement from another candidate, or to provide a brief secondary or tertiary response to the main question.
In the second round, where each candidate asked another candidate a question:
- Four questions asked by establishment candidates went to other establishment candidate (Kerry to Gephardt, Graham to Lieberman, Edwards to Graham, and Gephardt to Graham).
- Graham received four questions.
- Four candidates did not receive a question: Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Kerry.
The third round was interesting. George asked each candidate to respond to a popular (although misinformed) concern why he or she cannot be elected president.
All of the candidates were disadvantaged by both the poor debate format and the large number of participants. I don't think anyone, short of Sharpton's quick humor, stood out. However, Dean delivered a powerful closing statement that, I feel, clearly distinguished him from the rest.
Here's a nifty rundown of the debate from a Dean perspective, from the Times Argus (Tracy Schmaler, VT press Bureau)
Waiting till TOMORROW to see it on CSPAN (Seattle ABC suxx)...
NY Times' (very annoying) take here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/0...gns/
04DEBA.html
How did Dean's comment at the end of a long speech about all candidates needing backbone turn into a personal attack on John Kerry's Vietnam record?
Oh wait, I know--it was Lehaned.
I missed the first 20 minutesof the debate. I listened to the last 70. In that time span, Dean was ble to talke for maybe 2 minutes. The only times he spoke in the 70 minutes I listened were when he asked Graham a question on why Graham voted against the $350 billion tax cut, when George asked him about his perceived weaknesses and his closing statements. In the meantime, I heard plenty of Lieberman (in a very annoying preachy voice), Edwards, Graham, Gephardt,and even Kucinich. This was simply a terrible format for the debate. How can any candidate stand out with so few chances to speak?
Not sure what's to be done about the format, since I can't think of a good basis for excluding people (especially not this early). Maybe as we get closer to the primaries we should alternate between having all candidates, and having 2 or 3 leading in the polls in that state, or everyone who's clearing 15%?
With 9 candidates, maybe the way to go is having them go down the row answering the same question. Having them ask each other questions obviously doesn't work very well since the temptation is too strong to play it safe and use it to score a quick point....thus Graham gets 4 or 5 of the 9. A moderator needs to be pretty tough and low-ego to tailor the questions well.
It was rather disappointing. I wouldn't fault the format; it's impossible to come up with a good one for that many people.
I'm glad they got the Kerry-Dean flap over with in the beginning; by the time they were done, they both looked like schmucks. But I think it's over now, or at least I hope so.
Just saw the NY Times take on the debate, and admittedly, did not see the debate. Regarding Dean's supposed questioning of Kerry's courage however, he need not back off of this statement. Courage is not some kind of all encompassing term. I do not dispute that 30 years ago, Kerry displayed MILITARY courage. This is quite different from POLITICAL courage - which, based on Kerry's votes for the war in Iraq AND the Bush tax cuts, and then his willingness to criticize Bush for his policies re: the same, indicates that he has none of the latter. How in the hell does the courage involved in going to war 30 years ago translate into political and decision-making courage. Dean is correct, Kerry needs a backbone transplant. He's a formerly brave soldier but a spineless poltician.
Let's not be too congratulatory. Dean misstepped a couple times, in my opinion, in that he gave the impression that he was a little rough around the edges, and even a little pissy.
Hopefully he'll rise above next time, rather than come out swinging unless it's more called for. I think he should work on being a bit less testy.
posted on another thread...
here it is again:
just want to write in my performance rankings from tonight:
1. john edwards
2. dick gephardt
3. joe lieberman
4/5/6/7 (tie). dean/kerry/graham/sharpton.
i am a fan of dr. dean's plain spoken style...but i think he fumbled a few opportunities. by no means was it a bad performance, but there are some areas that could improve.
the long and short of it is that dean seemed more reactive tonight than i would like. i think he would benefit from making a more concerted effort to frame the issues himself. and very openly challenge the way some candidates and the moderator framed certain questions.
for instance, on iraq....dean should have made very clear - and it wasn't clear to me as a listener (someone who knows dean's positions quite well) - that he doesn't view bombing the hell out of third world countries as an example of demonstrating strength (as lieberman implied). now, mobilizing an international coalition - something the bush admin. failed to do - is an example of true strength and it leaves us in a better position on the war on terrorism, yada, yada...we all know this by heart. steal a page out of wesley clark's book..the ultimate success of gw 1 and kosovo was that we had political support...and applied political pressure to saddam and milosiivic (sp?). emphasize that bush's idea of strength is in fact a smokescreen - then articulate an alternative.
from there, it's an easy rhetorical manuever to create a link between international strength to national economic strengh...from economic strength to the strength of our health care system.
you see where i'm going here?
again, not trying to be hypercritical...but i think the speil could be more refined and clear. i hesitate to us ethe word "polished" as i'm a fan of dean's style, but his remarks could have been more focussed.
...
shux
jarvis -
i agree. dean seemed more combative than necessary tonight.
that very combative style got him noticed, but now that he's "arrived" the combativeness is better spent on gw bush - at least while the field is so large.
i think while there are nine candidates, a squable between two of them automatically seems petty and trivial...seven other candidates will say, "stop squabbling". it sounded like a scolding at times to me (a mild scolding, bu ta scolding none the less).
kerry and dean would do well to concentrate on their own messages right now - at least until it really is a contest between just those two.
...
shux
I have not yet seen the debate (damn ABC affiliate), but have read the comments here and over at DU. From the looks of it, pretty consistent criticism of Dean not so much for what he said, but the way that he said it (both in being unnecessarily combative and in not being as concise in his delivery as some would have liked to have seen). I think his closing statement (posted on this site) is a stroke of genius, but am wondering how the other candidates summed up the night in their summations, too. Looks like the CW is pointing towards Edwards and Gephardt coming out best (Holy Joe was getting SLAMMED at DU by just about everyone not for his performance but for the BushLite answers he was giving) -- the two most "country folksy" of the candidates.
Also, it sounds like this 9 candidate debate type format was a real pain, but again, how else can it be done.
Q: has a second debate been organized yet and, if so, location?
I missed the first half hour, but that won't stop me from giving my rankings. Edwards is the only one who can be really happy about his performance.
Rankings:
1) Edwards
Edwards is a charismatic and polished speaker. He made his major points, and seemed organized in his thought process. He had a great stage presence, self-awareness, and self-confidence. He didn't speak too slowly or too quickly. His theme of fighting for the working man was a little too simplistic, and sounded like a rerun of a Gore in 2000 stump speech.
2) Dean
Dean seemed a bit tense, but I think that a lot of people would look past that, because he made good points. His closing remarks were effective, as was his statement about ensuring that our military values reflect America's values. Not enough chances to speak, though, and he didn't seem as warm or comfortable as some other candidates.
3) Kerry
Kerry was very bland - a real turn-off. He rambled on and on and on about negotiating strong trade agreements. He did an OK job of throwing Dean off balance with his comment about Dean's record on health care in Vermont, but his attack could easily backfire, if viewers were left wondering about the veracity of Kerry's numbers.
4) Gephardt
Gephardt was far too slick, and he exuded Washington insider. But, he also came across as competent and confident and the kind of person who can play hardball. But, it wasn't an inspiring performance, by any means.
5) Carol Moseley-Braun
What a warm, friendly person! She spoke well and seemed very comfortable. She also seemed intelligent, but maybe too much of an idealist, and too nice a person to be President.
6) Lieberman
I concur with the poster who said that Lieberman's positions are too "Bush lite", plus he successfully re-associated himself with the failed campaign of 2000.
7) Graham
Graham did terrible. He had no message, other than that he is electable, and his delivery sucked.
Al Sharpton
During his closing comments, his position was listed on-screen as "Community Activist," and that further underscored his position outside of the mainstream.
9) Kucinich
He didn't properly handle the question regarding the bankruptcy of Cincinnati (do I have the city right?), because he allowed the perception to persist that he was responsible for the city going into default. Also, he blundered by asking Lieberman about supporting war, which allowed Lieberman to explain national security to him, without Kucinich being able to respond. Kucinich came across as an outsider, a guy who is out of left field and knows he doesn't have a real shot at winning.
LOL! That was supposed to be an "8" before Al Sharpton.
Graham represents the "electable wing", huh? And that be the wing which won 12 senate contests to the Republicans' 22 in 2002?
A few more election cycles like that and the only seat a Democrat will have in the Senate will be the one with the note on it that says "More wax on Senator Frist's desk tonight, please".
The debate format stinks. Dean had no opportunity to shine. When, if ever, will the field get smaller? These candidates will all be there in Iowa. If Dean has to compete for just two minutes of sound bites, I think it will be hard to win without enough money for television ads. It seems TV ads will be the deciding factor since these crowded debates are meaningless. No one stands out. I do agree with a post above that Edwards was very articulate. Must come from years as an attorney. I'd like to see him debate Bush Junior.
Shux and Jarvis have accurate assessments. I have written letters for Dean, sent money for Dean, met up for Dean, yet I bristled with the unnecessary combatative manner. If I am bristling, how are other voters reacting?
I expect missteps; no candidate is perfect. But learning from mistakes is essential. I am hopeful that given Dean's intelligence and vision, that he can refocus on finetuning his message and start demonstrating how different, clever and likable he is soon.
Following the discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos: George Will is saying that 'this election will be less like the election of '92 (when a crappy economy caused Bush I to lose to a Democrat) and more like '72 when Viet Nam caused McGovern to lose to Nixon....'
...who went on to a forced resignation a year an a half later in the face of near certanin impeachment miscellaneous crimes and misdemeanors committed at Watergate. Hmmmm... Something to think about.
Wasn't Lieberman put on the ticket in 2002 to win Florida for Gore? Wasn't Lieberman the guy who "boldly" refused to give up his Senate reelection campaign in CT that fall, just in case Gore/Lieberman lost the Presidency? Who is this Bush-boosting Republican posing as a Democratic Presidential candidate and how did Gore ever make the mistake of choosing him as his running-mate in 2000?
30 months later this loser is back on stage with eight legitimate candidates, two or three of whom stand a reasonable chance to defeat Bush in 2004, and he systematically criticizes each of them for not unequivocally supporting Bush on national security and Iraq. It's time for him to go.
Every Democratic voter has got to be asking herself or himself how the hell Joe Lieberman has been permitted to get this far in the Democratic Party. The damage he does, the danger he represents to the future of the Democratic Party and its prospects for retaking the White House next year is clear. If the eight authentic Democrats on the stage last night learned nothing else, I hope they learned that their most serious threat going forward is Lieberman. It's time for him to go.
Seconded, NB. 'Joe must Go!'
Thirded with NB. Lieberman hurts us all and would be soundly trounced in a general election. Why vote for a Bush clone when you have the real thing. Joe must go!!
I just saw it. The closing statement aside (and he shouldn't have been looking at his notes) not such a great night for Dean--though we still may be at a point where any press is good press and he'll certainly get press. Even less so for Kerry.
Edwards is probably the winner of the major candidates. He may have passed Kerry as my second choice. Lieberman was Lieberman. Gephardt reminded me at times of his need for a charisma transplant but also did pretty well. (Though I was convinced that his health plan makes no economic sense.) Mosely Braun actually did great, Kucinich not so much. Graham was solid but uninspiring.
i fourth the statement: time to go, joe!
Maybe it's just as well that Dean got so little time to talk. Though I agreed with his *words* I was embarassed about his bridling, defensive stance - though sniping, downward-looking Kerry came across much worse.
Sharpton and Mosely Braun were the only candidates who earned my respect during the discussion. I'll continue to support and give my money exclusively to Dean, and I do want him to win, but during the debate I felt like Dean is to angry liberals as Al Sharpton is to African-Americans: a force to galvanize voters out of apathy, but not much more.
I dunno - i have grave misgivings about demanding that any candidate step down. This is why we have a primary, after all - and everyone has a right to run.
The useful part of Joe is that his pro-foreign hawkishness will influence the party, regardless of who wins. Not that hes right about Iraq, but just in helping to erode the conventional wisdom that Dems are weak on defense. Dean, as nominee, would inherit this too.
--"The debate format stinks. Dean had no opportunity to shine. When, if ever, will the field get smaller? These candidates will all be there in Iowa. If Dean has to compete for just two minutes of sound bites, I think it will be hard to win without enough money for television ads. "--
I can't agree with this. Dean will have to learn to seize the initiative regardles of format. And I don't just mean this about the eletion, I mean that this will be a necessary part of being a good president. His performance does reflect on his qualifications.
Here's an example -- People say that Bush's stealing Florida the way he did might have shown that he was a better fighter than Gore, and I think there is some point to that. I really did feel let down by Gore for not fighting hard enough for MY vote and for the right of the majority to elect a president! It isn't ALL about fairness, it's also about being able to readlly fight for your side.
Who says the Deanites were just mesmerized optimists who could see no wrong in the governor? LOL!
It's early, and we all want to see our guy improve. I think we all agree this was a test run, and are convinced that some changes need to be made. The good news is Iowas is 8 1/2 months away.
I should shoot myself for the numerous grammatical errors above. Even for me, that was horrible.
I apologize to the forum. 
let's stop being so harsh on Dean. it's really early. no one is paying attention except the media elite who don't know jack anyways.
i love George Will and his CW. i remember in 1998 all the GOPers (Gingrich, Will, etc) crowing how it was just like 1974 with Nixon undergoing impeachment and how Clinton's immorality was going to taint the entire party. I remember them trying to beat up Barbara Boxer for being supportive of the Pres...(please tell me how this issue affects my life as a CA voter??? sooooo dumb)