That was great. He combines eloquence and clarity so well. Never have I so looked forward to a C-Span broadcast.
Here's a decent article on dean
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/N...tory/
64897.html
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
Dean's strategy of asking Graham a question about a policy on which the two agreed was smart. He asked about the desire of the two of them (constrasted with a bunch of their competitors) to repeal Bush's tax cuts, and thereby bolstered himself with Graham's answer.
Contrast with Kucinich choosing to ask Lieberman about supporting Bush's war, which enabled Lieberman to lecture Kucinich about defending the American people after 9/11 - and Kucinich couldn't respond, because of the format!
Bad move for Kucinich - shrewd move for Dean.
Earlier, I thought Dean was sloppy about handling Kerry's attack (Kerry asserted that Dean didn't really provide health insurance to many more Vermonters than were already insured when he entered office). Dean was a little clumsy, possibly because the attack came so far out of left field. It sounded like Kerry was using phony numbers to me.
According to the "Expansion of Health Insurance Coverage to Uninsured Vermonters report" from 2001, insurance coverage increased during the 90's. I could find hard numbers, but it looks like Kerry was talking out of his behind.
From page 57.
- - - - -
5. Coverage Expansions in Vermont
Vermont has implemented expansions in its Medicaid/VHAP/Dr. Dynasaur programs that have reduced the number of the uninsured during the 1990s. The increase in the number of people with health insurance is likely to have resulted in increases in utilization, because insured people
utilize more health services than uninsured people (Figure 36). Thus, increases in health insurance coverage in the state probably had a direct effect on health spending.
- - - - -
http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/
statepla...vermont2000.pdf
That should be "I couldn't find hard numbers".
Here's another document about health care in Vermont.
- - - - -
By any measure, Vermont has made tremendous strides in the past decade in expanding the availability of health insurance coverage to its citizens. Nevertheless, the continuing increase in premium costs may be jeopardizing the ability of employers (especially small businesses) to continue offering insurance.
- - - - -
http://www.ahs.state.vt.us/
PDFfi...reHealthIns.pdf
The Uninsured In Vermont states that Vermont uninsured was as follows, according to state surveys:
1993 - 11.0%
1997 - 6.8%
2000 - 8.4%
The Vermont numbers use a larger sample size than the Current Population Survey, which is used to compare states with one another.
Also, the uninsured rate isn't the same as the rate at which insurance is available.
shux,
I couldn't agree with your suggestion more. Dean has the ammo; he just doesn't have the guns. I think he has to polish himself up better for the debates. The blunt talking style is good for the campaign, excellent for the bully pulpit, and in no way am I advocating he become platitudinous, but with this format (so little time for each candidate) he has to develop concise and substantive 25 and 55 second answers.
The governor is attractive as much for his ideas and vision as he is his style and criticism of the party. When the doctor gets on the stage with the other eight he needs to be showing the people how strong his arguments are. This is especially important when he's discussing the war and foreign policy. He does not (and will not) get as much national face time as the other front-runners, so he has to make the most of these debates.
Candidly speaking, he didn't look as prepared as he could have been and that's as much a reflection on the staff as it is the candidate. We can do better guys; I know we can. So let's learn from this debate, make adjustments, and keep getting better. We're 8 1/2 months from Iowa.
We democrats better wake if we want our country back!Dean and Graham are the only one's to beat Bush in 2004.
The rest are Bush democrats with no backbone!GO HOWARD DEAN
In style points Dean and Kerry were not as good as everyone else. Both seemed stiff and uncomfortable. Both read their closing statements.
Edwards was very smooth, so were Lieberman and Gephardt.
People will pick style over substance most of the time. Edwards, Leiberman and Gephardt were very seductive. I had to say to myself, "Hey wait a minute, what have these guys done in the senate, supported George Bush at every turn."
Prescription for Howard Dean. You're probably doing too much. It can't be helped in your situation, but when an event comes up like this, may be you should take two or three days to rest up, clear your head and relax. Learn your closing remarks if you aren't going to say them off the cuff.
Your style works well most of the time, but in these canned and very controled environments you're going to have present youself somewhat differently.
One saving grace this time. Hardly anyone will see this debate.
For those thinking I'm too harsh remember, I love this guy. He is the best and will be a great President. I just want to see him make it there.
This has been said several times before by others but it bares repeating for it's sound advice.
Dean's organization needs to identify the talking points of their campaigne. They then need to put each one into a compact statement that is clear,informative and distinctive.
In doing that, the usual political double speak must be avoided. Perhaps at least two version or three could be devised for each statement so that they don't become stale.
Howard Dean has been good in the politics of retail, person to person, face to face. The politics of whole sale, talking through the media in sound bites has to be mastered. I'm not sure Howard has done that yet to the extent of being most effective.
The media spotlight such as television has begun and these techniques are important for success.
Good words smiths would be invaluable to the campaigne. Not that they don't have any now, but I do see a need for more attention to this area.
Let me agree with Robert Deeble above. I wish Dean had the polish and skill of Edwards. Dean has a great sense of confidence, but too often it comes across as antagonistic. Edwards's confidence, by contrast, is a quieter, more seductive appeal. Were it not for Edwards support of the Bush War Machine, I'd think Edwards would make a great general election candidate on economic issues. I'm still for Dean, but I want him to improve.
I thought Bob Graham looked and sounded good until his disastrous closing remarks. Heck he was so sad Kerry patted him on the back at the end of the speech.
If Dean wins the nomination, I would not Graham on the ticket. On the other hand, Edwards really impressed me last night. A Dean/Edwards or Dean/Clark ticket would be excellent. I'm off the Graham VP bandwagon indefinitely.
Dean/Edwards would be great. I had not seen Edwards much until last night (actually this morning--my ABC affil didn't play it until midnight), and I now believe he deserves a second look.
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.
More thoughts on Howard.
This election cycle is starting earlier than ever before. I believe there will be a winnowing out of candidates sooner than ever before.
I don't know what personel the Dean organization has at this point, but a SKILLED MEDIA GURU is now a must. You need to look no further than the 2000 election to see the value of image. Gore had the good ideas but Bush had the image makers. They taylored an image that would mesh well with Bush's personality. That's the only way it can work or else it all looks like pretense.
Dean's performance in this debate read well in print, but was at best lack luster in person.
Adding to my previous post, the Dean campaigne must be better prepared for the next debate. In this day and age of public attention deficit disorder as well as the compressed time frame that most of us live in, it's imperative that a solid and distinctive impression remain in the public's mind after the event.
There is no time left to make a second good impression. One good effort by the candidate, on national TV is worth more than 100 good performannces on the daily circuit.
The message is important, but how that message is delievered is more important.
Great ideas delievered poorly dooms them. Howard Dean does need image help in crafting the delievry of his message so that the wider audience can say, "Wow that's great, that makes such good sense!"
Howard's great at retail politics, now Howard be great at wholesale politics!
All this feedback is excellent. Remember when Bush had the "smirking" problem?
Dean can overcome the few problems listed above.
And no doubt, the Dean team will be better prepared for the next debate an other important wholesale public appearances.
'and' above.
I agree wholeheartedly with NB. Any candidate who says Iraq was a "test of national security moxie" will be saying the same thing when he authorizes force in Syria and elsewhere while the other 8 oppose it and step back aghasted at Lieberman. Thank you for saying what you said NB.
Edwards won this debate. He was charismatic and thoughtful. He really shined in this forum and I think most objective people will agree that he left the best impression of the so called 'mainstream' candidates. He had one glaring flub when he said Gephardts health plan hearkened back to Reagonomics. He is my second favorite and did I mention that his wife is uber cool 
Lieberman probably did well with Republicans in SC. His comments did not reflect a real Democrat rather they were near indistinguishable from someone like Lincoln Chafee.
I want to like Gephardt and I respect his opinions and issues, but the guy doesn't have what it takes to win. Gephardt is the Bob Dole of the Democrats. The other candidates hammered him good on his health care proposal and somewhat unfairly. I am more confident that Dean will be able to produce since his plan is more practical and modest. He is a distant third on my list.
Kerry did not do well at all. His sniping with Dean did neither any service. He gave the predictable, 'No one should attack me because I'm a war hero' line and it backfired when he misquoted Dean. His voice was rough and harsh. Kerry tried desperately to link himself with the Kennedy family and it just came off as cheap. He really brought nothing to the table except his spat with Dean and his coveted CW that he is the front runner.
Mosley Braun is a gem. If all else was equal I would place her first on my list, but sadly, they are not. I will nurture my optimistic side by hoping the eventual nominee will have the guts to make her the VP. Don't ask my cynical side how likely this is.
Sharpton was good as always. He has a real populist appeal and his oratory is second to none. He really makes these debates entertaining. Sharpton did well, but don't kid yourself into thinking this will get him any closer to the nomination.
Dean was not particularly helped or hurt by this debate. He had a very good closing, but it was marginalized by his lack of eye contact. Deans overall combative message resonated with those looking for someone to really challenge Bush in a direct way. His on the ground retail politics will do well in SC. If pressed, I think Dean has the upper hand in any spats with Kerry because it solidifies his position as a real threat and dark horse. His outsider status and the curiosity he engenders is beginning to really take hold.
I've heard many people complain about George's moderation, but I disagree strongly with this. He did a very good job with such a large number of candidates and I was glad to see such a free flowing debate. Many illusions were revealed in this debate and we all will have to take another look at these candidates.
Hehe, Graham should really try rehearsing
next time. He even stumbled over his catch
phrase "electable wing" of the Democratic
party.
Btw, on ABC "This Week" this morning,
George Will credited that line to Leiberman,
not Graham. Stephanapolous failed to correct him.
I wonder if maybe there was a problem with
the teleprompter when Graham was reading
his closing remarks - that would explain
Dean reading from a printed page in front
of him. Next time though, I think Dean should take the time to memorize it.
Adam,
good analysis of the candidates. I agree that George did a difficult job well.
I gotta say that I loved Sharptons quip, "I'm gonna slap that donkey, I'm gonna slap that donkey till he kicks George Bush out of the Whitehouse!!"
love Dean's closing nremarks. but don't love the lack of eye contact (neither did the other two people i was watchign with). i trust by the next debate, he'll have that sucker memorized and be able to knock em dead.
Now that Dean is considered one of the "Big Five", I can say without guilt or fear- this field's gotta thin out.
Dean still needs delivery coaching but has improved a lot from his "Meet the Press" appearance. I was shocked at US Senator Graham's stumbling delivery. I'm really sick of Kerry's distorting attacks. If he wants to attack on the merits of Dean's positions, fine. I'm turned of by lies. It's so Bush. Liberman seems to be running for Cheney's replacement on the GOP ticket. Edwards was good but needs a new hairdresser, it's distracting. I keep wondering if it's a rug. Carol Mosely-Braun beat the Hell out of Graham and might bring in just as many Southern votes. Gephardt sounds good, but if he is really so gung ho for health care, why couldn't he put Clinton's plan over? Why didn't he propose an alternate when Clinton's plan failed? He has been MIA on Health Care for 11 years. Dean is the only true Health Care candidate. Just wish he would talk more about jobs. I liked that about Edwards. Kuchinich was off the wall about repealing NAFTA and WTO.
Impractical. They need modification but there never will be the votes for repeal. I like Dean's going for the possible instead of the ideal.
I started out thinking that the way Dean came across last night might be good, because he won't appear to be a "slick" politician who has been groomed for TV.
I've changed my mind. I had been thinking that we shouldn't be spending time worrying about "electibility" and gimmicks to sway voters. That's all about style and not substance and I respect substance and I think Democratic primary voters will also.
But then I realized that a President needs to be able to easily and quickly communicate ideas on TV - and be able to persuade people using TV. It is important to accomplishing things in the job and to getting public support when necessary. So I think TV communication skills are a necessary qualification for the job. That's about substance.
And on a more practical matter of getting eleted, you have to be able to communicate your message. Otherwise it doesn't matter how good your message is because people won't hear it. Dean's "stump speech" was great a few months ago and is an order of magnitude better now. Seeing him speak just blows people away! But I realize that is in the controlled environment of speaking to a roomfull of supporters. I had thought that would somehow translate into success in this different format - and it did not.
Dean needs a lot of work. I thought he did quite badly in the debate, not just in style but also in content. He failed to make important points, and what he did say was said unconvincingly.
Also, I watched C-SPAN's coverage of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner that took place on Friday and appeared immediately after the debate's first showing on C-SPAN today. It was one of those very inside, follow-the-candidates-around deals. Dean made a big faux pas. As he was speaking to Dick Riley, he said: "I'm going to cover the microphone now so I can speak to Dick about a policy question." Yeah, sure. That looked so, so, so feeble. C-SPAN just cut and left Dean. He looked bad _and_ he lost the camera. Dopey! Somebody has to tell Howard NEVER to do that again.
I think Howard Dean is just beginning to heat up. He has a long way to go, but I am confident that this guy will improve with every month. He has a certain substance that is missing in the other candidates and his sharp edges will become more polished without losing his inate and unique charm. How many think Dean is only going to keep getting better? His stump speech was sooo good and such a breath of fresh air, but this is a marathon and I can't wait to see how he progresses and learns from all of this.
I think we all agree Dean could have been better prepared.
Anyone else abhor the long table? I would have much rather seen them standing or sitting independently.
Dr. Dean: I am 100% disabled vietnam veteran with an understanding of the vietnam war that is much different than the american people were told. Now, I wonder, why are the real issues about iraq are never addressed? Like, oil. It's obvious that the american people are terminally apathetic, self serving, self-righteous, and ethnocentric. Unfortunately, they believe all the propoganda placed in front of them via the media (by the people who really run this country - oil, insurance, pharmacutical companies, etc.). I remember what a lie vietnam was. Telling the people one thing and doing something different. How long are we supposed to tolerate the lies of our political personnel? I am not saying that you are a lier. All I'm saying is this, "If you're going to be the new savior of the democratic party, you have to do more than have a stern face and disagree with your colleagues". How do we know that you're not setting up the american people again? Saying one thing and doing something else. How about doing something really special? Like setting the media free of governmental control. I truly admire you're health care plan in vermont. Though it doesn't affect me directly, I have compassion for those people that it does help. However, there is more to political life than health care plans. Until the american people receive the truth about iraq, as to why we're really there and why we've wanted to be there for over 30 years, we cannot make a moral decision about this war or anything else. So, where does this leave us, as american people? In the gray areas between truth and lies. Just more smoke screens so the people cannot see a clear picture and make an informed decision.
I am from the Cherokee Nation, North Carolina. We know about terrorism. We know about small pox ladden blankets given with a smile to keep us warm and hope to make us sick and die. We know about the Trail of Tears, and we know about the massacre at Wounded Knee. Same approach with iraq, people of color dying needlessly because of american greed.
I would wish you good luck with the presidential primaries and ultimately to beat bush. However, by then, he'll already have accomplished his goal. That is, his self serving goals for his oil buddies no matter what it took to do it. We won't even go into all of the lives taken and the billions of dollars in governmental contracts to his friends.
Bush stole the election, deomocrats allowed it. He committed an immoral act by invading iraq, democrats allowed it. Rolling over and playing dead does not help this country.
Please, be a part of the solution, not the problem. Blue
I've always considered myself a democrat. After the last two years I've been dismayed as to what has happened to them. It's hard to still want to be associated with the leadership.
Many years ago I was proud to be an American. Not always with how our government did things, but at least about the idea of America and what it meant to others and the idea of what is could become.
Now that idea has been ground to dust by the Bush doctrine. There's a laundry list of transgressions that the Bush administration has committed. We all know what they are.
Howard Dean is just about the only candidate willing to tell the American people what's going on. That is why I support him.
I wrote a letter to him in November, shortly after the election debacle. I wrote that " I am not an idealogue nor am I looking for some savior as so many others seem to be. What I want is an intelligent, common sense and empathic person to lead the country."
Empathy is what too many political leaders lack. It is a rare quality. I've become too cynical over the last few years yet I believe that Howard Dean believes in what he is saying. I do not think it's a scam. Howard is real.
Just got back to Burlington from the debate in SC -- just a couple of points -- first, this was the earliest debate in the history of either party's nomination process -- second unlike Gephardt, and Lieberman who have several National debates under their belts from previous Presidential campaigns -- This was Howard Dean's first National debate -- and having been with Dick Gephardt at his first Debate in 1987 I can say Gov. Dean did extremely well.
On the closing statement - The Governor had a different closing statement -- but an hour before the debate the thought hit him that he wanted to make it clear whose hands the future of the country rested in -- He wrote down the new closing statement -- and decided he may have to read it -- but it was what he wanted to say.
I agree with many of the thoughts and suggestions mentioned here -- but I also hope the above gives you some insight as to why or how things happen.
The Debate gave Gov. Dean an opportunity to say what he wanted to say -- without any other campaign telling you what he meant.
Gov. Dean's closing statement is really what this campaign is all about -- and more and more American's are signing up everyday.
Joe Trippi
Dean for America
Campaign Manager
Robert Deeble - I agree 100% with what you said originally.
Dean has had a problem with Q&A formats for a while. He does not come across like he does in the big convention speeches. I do not view this as a new problem that he can now start working on. It's an issue I've been aware of for several months. He is neither smooth nor focused nor impassioned in these formats. I was very worried about this debate. I think it's inexcusable that he did not prepare more, that he didn't specifically hone his debate style, that he looked at notes constantly. I thought he should have taken off several days to focus and prepare for this debate. Instead he left it to the day of the debate, and apparantly changed his closing remarks at the last minute. This is not a responsible way to run a campaign. I felt that he let me down. I'll repeat that. I felt that he did not adequately prepare, and he let me down.
I watched the debate with people I was trying to convert to Dean fans. They were exactly the kind of folks who would fall for Dean. And I was embarrassed that I had talked him up so much. He didn't come across as an outsider; he came across as a little leaguer. There is a difference.
Let me say this. I am a very strong Dean supporter. I have been spreading the word since last summer. I was amongst the first 600 people to join MeetUp. I've donated money. And last night, he may have lost my support. I'm seriously questioning whether I'll go to MeetUp this week.
I still like Dean, and support his stances on the issues. But if he flopped on the basics on a nationally televised debate, I'm worried about what mistakes he might make as a nominee. This is not the time to take a risk on someone who is not prepared for the bigtime.
I've been very passionate about Dean and I really, really don't want to give up on him. I will give Dean another chance. But if Bush is vulnerable in 2004, and we lose because our nominee makes performance errors again, that will not be acceptable to me.
And if Dean loses someone like me, I think that's a very bad omen for his campaign.
Contrary to many of the posts here, I feel that Dr. Dean did quite well. I think his closing statement was superb. I found it interesting that not a single question was directed toward him when the candidates questioned one another. Perhaps that is an indication that he is becoming the "dangerous candidate" -- sort of like the team no one wants to meet in the playoffs.
At least I hope so. He is certainly a refreshing change. And to make two suggestions:
1. I think he should grab onto the point Sen. Edwards made -- that we need to hold W. to account for not just winning the shooting war, but winning the peace. He is accountable not just while standing on the deck of the Lincoln, but 6 months and a year from now for this precious opportunity we have to reshape the Middle East. Everyone on this forum knows he is not the man for the job, and this is an area to capitalize on -- "It's the peace, stupid"
2. Dr. Dean's point on invigorating the youth of this country is critical. There is a large untapped mass of potential voters who need to be energized. A simple suggestion -- buttons which say "Ask me WHY I support Dean for President".
I was so sickened watching that "draft dodger" pretend he was his father in the flight gear etc. For Heaven's sake, he personally held up the return home for these sailors by a day just for the purpose of getting some campaign footage for 2004. How unbeleivably transparent.
The way to beat Bush is to call him on every single ridiculous thing he has done. And remember, with regards to national security, just two years ago this "warrior President" was known as a dimwitted governor who didn't know the names of world leaders and could barely pick out Afghanistan on a map. Dr. Dean will come to the White House with FAR more raw ability than that.
I agree with CTDem2 that Dean's failures at the debate are very serious, and that he needs to do a lot of work on being able to shine in the Q&A format.
I contributed $200--my first political contribution and a pile of money for a Ph.D. student like me--to take myself and a friend to see Dean at the SF fundraiser last week. My friend and I were both tremendously impressed--he wowed us and everyone there, and I thought "This is the guy who can beat Bush." (See my website for more commentary and photos on the SF speech.) My friend, who's very politically active in SF, went home and started calling all her friends and encouraging them to give time and money to Dean.
I send out a regular e-mail commentary to a couple hundred people, many of whom have time, energy, and money to give to a Dem who can beat Bush. Since I saw Dean in SF, I've been sending an almost daily harangue talking up Dean. I was hoping to have a video clip from the debate to send around today. Instead, with no star moment from Dean, I wound up sending the 2-minute CBS interview.
In his debate appearance, Dean failed to project any of the fantastic energy and charisma he showed at the SF speech. Sure the format was mediocre, but he's got to learn to stand out in that environment.
I still think Dean is the only one who has a chance to beat Bush, and I'm so excited by his candidacy that I'm thinking about spending the summer working for his campaign before starting my new job this fall. But I think it's crucial that the Dean campaign use the debate as a springboard to fix the weaknesses that he displayed last night.
It appears my weblog address that I put in the above post is too long for this posting software to process correctly. You can get there from my homepage, or go to
http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~g...og/
blogger.html
One more observation, since it looks like Joe will read this:
Besides looking down and not making eye contact with the camera, Dean had other body language problems. He looked tense and this was accentuated because he kept himself small, rather than using the larger gestures I saw in SF. In particular, he kept his arms in tight and gestured by bending at the wrists. He would have looked much better, like the tough and confident guy that he is, if he moved in a wider space, bending at the elbows and shoulders.
(No, I'm not jostling for a Dean media consultant job.)
CTDem2,
This debate was one event in many that have taken place and while we should expect that the campaign will learn from this... we would all do well to remember the many times where Dean has absolutely shined!
This campaign is a first for me and I am learning right along with Governor Dean about just how intense and emotional a national campaign for President can get. This is a marathon and we all need to pace ourselves. In my opinion we (Dean supporters) would all do well to take some of Dean's advice and try to develop some more backbone.
Okay, I've finally been able to watch the debate in full -- as I've mentioned previously, I thought his closing summation was great ... but... why the OVER-reliance on notes? It is not that hard to memorize such a tight closing, and his breaking of eye contact with the four wall was pretty weak. It made him look unprepared (which we can argue about for days as to its veracity) - even though I could care less what Lieberman had to say, he played well to the camera.
ON EDIT: I just read Joe Trippi's remarks about the changing of the closing. If that was the case, it would certainly be understandable for him to not have it memorized.
let's not be so harsh people. Dean is on a learning curve. 99% of the AMerican people don't give a hoot about the Dem nominating process yet. so let's cut the criticism, give him some slack, and move on.
i think Kerry looked soooooo petty during the debate by constantly attacking Dean, esp. with the health care "statistics."
I missed the opening battle between Kerry, but I thought Dean did pretty well on the content of what he said. He kept it mostly short and simple, and didn't bore me to tears (unlike a few other candidates).
Most of my criticisms would be on his style. Basically, he needs to sit up straight, get he elbows off the table, lose the notes, and make more eye contact. I think a lot of people are being a bit hyper critical about his perfomance because he's been built up so much from his past speeches and such.
Not bad for his first debate, but not his best performance. He can do better.
Dean didn't do that well. One positive though is that John Kerry(Dean's closest rival) probably did worse. I am sure Dean can do better, he would do well to listen to the critique here on this blog. Dean had a very good point though in recognising that the TV media will be veiwing this election more as an entertainment piece rather than presenting the canidates as who is best to lead our country. John Edwards did very well(a big turnaround from the Chidren's Defence Forum). Liberman did well too but i will not be voting for a democrat if Joe wins the nomination(expect the Greens to come back strong then in 2004 and because of our primative electoral college system, throw the Presidency to the Rebublicans, IRV would prevent this kind of thing). Check out IRV if you are interested in a more democratic voting system which Dean and McCain support. http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
I've put a transcript of the debate on my weblog which you can reach from my Homepage link below.
Some observations and thoughts about the debate and Dean's performance
1) Dean looked and sounded more "Presidential" at the DNC winter meeting and in California.
2) Joe Lieberman is a Republican. He may well be as far to the right from the median Democrat as Kucinich is to the left.
3) Dean made some excellent points especially on national security ("as Governor I was involved with the Homeland Security bill" "98% of containers into the U.S. aren't checked") but his delivery of these points was matter of fact or defensive. They did not resonate as much as they should've on the key issue of Dean's ability to be commander-in-chief.
4) Kerry is afraid of Dean. If Kerry loses NH, he knows he's finished. This battle won't end anytime soon even with the diplomatic intervention of Edwards.
5) Speaking of Edwards, his delivery was great. He's heavily lacking on the policy side and plays too much to his humble roots, but he is a prime contender with Dean for the "retail vote." This bears watching.
6) Al Sharpton is damn entertaining.
7) Dean's cockiness in the debate (I didn't see this at all in Wash. and Calif.) may be both appealing and a turnoff at the same time. His speech in California was both powerfully and humbly delivered. I didn't see that this time around. He appears to be impressing voters too much, a little over the top.
Considering this was Dean's first national debate, he did very well. Had he been one of the Beltway veterans, I would be less enthusiastic.
One last observation
9) Unlike Lieberman and Gephardt, Dean did not appear comfortable. This is a subtle but very important image to project.
Thanks to Joe for the explanation of the changes to the closing remarks: it makes sense and speaks very well of Dean, even if those passionate supporters like me wanted to hear that home-run zinger. Debates ARE a different format, and we should just chill and be confident that our candidate will make the necessary adjustments. More eye-contact, slightly slower delivery, and a projection of empathy as well as outrage--these are EASILY correctable. The upside was Kerry's miserable performance and Dean's rebuttal--without stooping to Kerry's level. Stay confident: we've got a grass-roots organization that is the envy of every other candidate!
One thing to keep in mind that I have heard other's say: this was Dean's first national political debate. Both Clinton, Bush, and others had roughness around the edges in their first national appearances on the political stage. Hell, Bush was still rough even during the 2000 debates, but the press covered for his faults.
Dean will get better. Whether he will get better quick enough to make a difference remains to be seen.
The analogy to this being a pre-season game is a good one. Acknowledge the faults, but don't sweat them that much. This is good experience for the governor and we can hope that he learns from it.
i just wanted to say that i think it was terrible for george s. to ignore snd marginalize the "fringe" candidates. i know some people would just wish to have a "debate" among the first tier, but w/o Sharpton in there, we never would have heard the words "Hip Hop Generation" (of which i consider myself), w/o Carol Moseley-Braun, we would not have Edwards defending his vote on the PATRIOT Act, and w/o Kucinich, the words "monopolies" and communications would never have been uttered!!! George spent wayyy too much time on stupid insider-Beltway crap (Dean vs. Kerry) and completely ignored the upcoming June 2 FCC vote to further destroy whatever pluralistic media we have. of course given who was televising the debate, i wouldn't have expected the question, which is why i was grateful kucinich at least uttered SOMETHING about it.
This debate was a win for Lieberman, and therefore a loss for the Democrats. Lieberman is Bush-lite.
On Dean, his closing comments were PERFECT in substance yet FLAWED in delivery. While it must be a tricky thing, Dean has to project passion and desire to help the American People and defeat Bush, yet he also has to project warmth.
As for these battles with Kerry, its time to forget Kerry and in some ways, every other candidate. If it comes up in a debate again, Dean fight a Senator from Mass, I'm here to defeat a wrong-headed President. President Bush has destroyed..."
On health care, "Gephardt's plan is wrong because of this (short simple). My plan is the best because..."
The ranking of winners in the debate:
#1. Lieberman - his line of "the Democrats can't beat Bush by appearing weak on defense" will be in the press for months.
#2. Edwards - The guy is smooth. One thing Dumbya isn't is smooth, and an Edwards/Dumbya debate would be a cakewalk for Edwards. If Dean wants to truly move to the head of the pack, he needs to learn all of Edwards smoothness/warmth, yet keep his hard "telling-it-like-it-is" brilliance. Tricky, I admit.
#3. Graham - This guy could really use some of Dean/Edwards charisma... but if you could stay awake while he was talking, he says many a smart thing which would smack W well. And while he's a snoozer, everyone asked him questions which meant he got lots of airtime.
I love Dean, but the only positives I believe he got from the debate was that Kerry was just so awful: sore throat, sore attitude.
My $.02
I think the only thing that Lieberman made clear Saturday night is that "Bush Lite" is a just nickname. We must provide a clear opposition to President Bush's crappola. In order to do that, we need to raise taxes on the rich, FUND the education system(if u listened to the debate you will know that the Teacher of the Year in SC is getting dismissed because of underfunding in her district, pathetic), and damn it, get this country back to where we were just 3 years ago.
As for Dean, I believe he was rather argumentative. The thing with Kerry has got to stop. The Dr. seemed uptight at times and was not real smooth. However, he is not the loser because no one could have done worse than John Kerry did. Where was he? As for winners. It seems to me that John Edwards has what it takes to be elected. His smoothness is akin to a fellow named Clinton. Because of his exceptional skills as an orator, he comes off very smart, which he is. Right now, I would say that the only reason Edwards is not leading all the primaries is because not everyone has heard of him. However, the same can be said of Howard Dean. I'm still a Dean supporter. The things he believes in I believe will get this country back to where we were under Clinton. However, he is going to have to frame the issues in a positive manner and stop the bickering with Kerry, or else Edwards rise to the top will be so very easy.
You're invited to visit my Shop site or my Shopping site, Schmuck.
bm