I thought Braun did a fabulous job. Sharpton was very passionate too.

Dean was a little too stoic and not really enthused(shameful for when he is enthused he is awesome) last night. His closing statement was good.

He blew it by not attacking the other candidates on the issues enough. Come on? Asking a question to Graham? He could have attacked anyone with a solid question but he gave a half-decent question to Graham? That whole interchange(and his stoicness during reading that question as well) was just a real let down for me.

He should have blasted Lieberman for being the warmongering, Israeli supporting, satan worshipper he is.

Better luck next time Howard.
John | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 7:15 pm | #

No one watched, no one wins. Status quo maintained. Strictly an exhibition game, mere spring training.

The real contest starts once some candidates drop off, and the 9 candidate dais narrows to 4 or 5 at the most. Dean just has to stay in the game, and his performance, I believe, was enough to do so.
Joe Mariani | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 7:25 pm | #

Good point, an exhibition game.

But why is Lieberman vying for the democratic nomination? I guess because a republican already occupies the Whitehouse so Lieberman can't be the republican nominee.
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 7:46 pm | #

I posted this on your site, Matt, but I'll post it here, too:

It's hard to say really who won. If you remember 2000, Gore and Bush were--unfairly--judged on different criteria. Al Gore "lost" because he said "lock box"; George W. Bush "won" becuase he managed to sound no quite so stupid as he is.

From right to left:

Kerry: LOST. Went negative too hard too fast. Blame the moderator? Maybe, but he never recovered. A nice RFK line at the end, but the early impression stuck. I will say I'm less reticent to vote for him than I was for Gore.

Graham: WON. He nicely positioned himself as a VP candidate. He offended none and smiled aplenty.

Edwards: LOST. Yes, he looked pretty, but his slam on Gephardt--without something of substance to back it up--belied his looks. In fact, he lacked substance throughout; even his closing remarks were repeats of earlier statements, mostly word for word.

Dean: TIE. Couldn't find a camera to save his life, but the fact that he totally set the tone for the first half hour or so of the debate is something. I mean, six or eight of the first ten questions were to him or had his name in the question! Plus, since Kerry went after him so hard (and not just on the war--on health care, too), it leant real credibilty to his kind-of-out-of-nowhere campaign. Plus Dean had the most original, populist appeal in his closing, as opposed to the self-serving vote-for-mes of everyone else.

Mosely-Braun: WON. She was intelligent, focused, non-plussed, and comfortable on a stage full of white men. Her invocation of her mother seemed real, not like Edwards or Gephardt, and her harping on U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was needed.

Lieberman: LOST. (He would have won if it were a Republican debate.)

Sharpton: TIE. Zingers, aplomb, hair--what more can you want? He's bringing some life to the party (if not the Party), but I think at this stage his personality may be hurting him. Primary voters want substance, not flash (that's why Edwards's poll numbers are low even if his fundraising numbers are high). He burned Lieberman on the Bible thing, though!

Gephardt: LOST. He loses on policy and general loserhood, plus his Bush-lite crap, lifted stright from Dean's playbook. Yes, he looks comfortable on stage, but he was rejected in 88 for Dukakis--Dukakis!--and there's no way he can make it this time.

Kucinich: LOST. Someone on another board said, "Kucinich needs to stop yelling at me." Sounds about right. He may have a progressive thing down, but he's not going to be a populist like Dean or Sharpton, he doesn't have Edwards's good looks, and he lacks Kerry's and Gephardt's experience. Go home now, Dennis.

So the only flat-out winner, from where I sit, is Graham, and all he won is a VP nod! Other opinions welcome!
folkbum | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 8:14 pm | #

John, you said:
He blew it by not attacking the other candidates on the issues enough. Come on? Asking a question to Graham? He could have attacked anyone with a solid question but he gave a half-decent question to Graham? That whole interchange(and his stoicness during reading that question as well) was just a real let down for me.

I totally disagree with your analysis. Dean's use of the Q&A was brilliant. He asked Graham a question on which the two of them agree, which was a subtle attack on the other candidates. Best of all, he allowed Graham to make his point for him.

Contrast that with Kucinich asking an attack-style question to Lieberman, which Lieberman smashed out of the park, and which Kucinich was not permitted to rebut, due to the constraints of the format.
Paul Stone | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 8:52 pm | #

Let me try that again...

John, you said:

He blew it by not attacking the other candidates on the issues enough. Come on? Asking a question to Graham? He could have attacked anyone with a solid question but he gave a half-decent question to Graham? That whole interchange(and his stoicness during reading that question as well) was just a real let down for me.

I totally disagree with your analysis. Dean's use of the Q&A was brilliant. He asked Graham a question on which the two of them agree, which was a subtle attack on the other candidates. Best of all, he allowed Graham to make his point for him.

Contrast that with Kucinich asking an attack-style question to Lieberman, which Lieberman smashed out of the park, and which Kucinich was not permitted to rebut, due to the constraints of the format.
Paul Stone | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 8:54 pm | #

This anti-israeli stuff that I'm seeing on here is really beginning to bother me. If you'll note, Dean supports Israel and wishes to resolve the conflict, and if we continue to include israel bashing in this campaign then we'll be damn sure to alienate jewish support. Stop it. Thank you.

~Adam
Graff4Dean2004 | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 9:01 pm | #

On a different note however, I agree with folkbum's analysis...except that I felt that edwards did rather well. I am definitely committed to Dean, but I was very pleasantly surprised by his performance. He did rehash parts of his stump speech, but his demeanor, apparent level of comfort, and consistence reflected well on him. Dean didn't blow me away like he usually does, but frankly, he didn't do poorly either. I think that Trippi's comments on the closing remarks thread sufficiently filled in the gaps. Dean's not done yet!

~Adam
Graff4Dean2004 | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 9:11 pm | #

Dean supports the Israeli troops occupying Gaza and West Bank?

The slaugheres of thousands of palestinian people(most of them children). Those who do survive their homes are destroyed. Those who survive both of those attacks their food supplies and wells are cut off. And even then these people live under curfews everyday, and pay the ultimate price of FEAR.

Dean supppors this? Looks like I will have to find another candidate if he does.

Where is Nader when you need him?

Ariel Sharon and his military should be put on trial and left to rot in jail for eternity.

President Bush is absolutely dispicable that he hasn't stood up to Sharon's incursions...if Dean doesn't stand up to sharon either, he is just as dispicable.

There is nothing to love about Israel in its present day. My hate is justified. Especially when 3 peace workers, clearly labeled in bright orange jackets get either shot in the head or murdered by Israeli troops. Take a look at their pictures and tell me Ariel Sharon deserves the US's support.

http://www.palsolidarity.org/

Israel deserves to have its nuke program discontinued. It deserves to have all of its US funds disappear. And Sharon should be put on trial right after Milosevich!

If Dean supports this...you can count my vote goodbye...I'll go back to supporting Nader.
John | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 9:45 pm | #

John,

Wow, you are really heated up about the Israeli/Palestinian issue. That's just what we need to fix things in the Middle East, more blind passion and lack of resolve to compromise and see all sides in the debate.

I supported Nader in 2000, but I won't be signing up this time. While I disagree with some of Dean's issue positions I am not going to bury my head in the dirt and take my ball and go home. Perhaps, you can calm down, bottle up some of that anger and come to a more reasonable and practical mind set... I hope so, but if not... I feel sorry for you.
Adam in MA | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:03 pm | #

That was a very biased post. I strongly disagree with Israel's government right now, but the Palis are not without their share of blame for the further perpetuation of this vicious cycle of violence. I'm not going to argue Israel on this thread, for that is not the point of this blog, but John, before you make such outrageous claims, you should do your research on the subject. I'm not going to go into specifics, and you wish to discuss this with me, feel free to e-mail me.

Bottom line: Please keep this biased crap off this board. Thank you
Graff4Dean2004 | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:03 pm | #

Well said other Adam!

~Adam
Graff4Dean2004 | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:04 pm | #

Biased crap...fuck you.
John | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:06 pm | #

If you want to be disrepectful and swear at me because I want to avoid dividing Dean's base over an extremely charged issue, then I don't even want to try to have a constructive debate on the subject. I'm done with this, and I don't want to waste anyone else's time or blog space discussing it on a thread that is meant to discuss the aftermath of the debate. You want to fight? E-mail me. Thanks to all who have put up with this exchange.

~Adam
Graff4Dean2004 | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:11 pm | #

Please, think about what you've said and why it does not work to persuade anyone of your position. Seriously try to calm down or go elsewhere. You called Joe Lieberman a Satan worshiper. While I am no fan of Senator Lieberman I'd hope that you could understand that this is not productive and speaks very badly of you and your positions. Hate such as yours is exactly what is causing all the terrible suffering in the mideast. Both sides have perpetrated unconscionable acts in the name of this hate.
Adam in MA | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:12 pm | #

I'm a firm believer the US shouldn't even be involved in the whole mess to begin with. Both sides are terrorists...the US is supporting terrorism by supporting Israel. Not to mention the School of America's a terrorist camp is here in AMERICA! 60,000 terrorists trained. Pretty fucking hypocritical to say you're fighting terrorism when you have terrorist camps in your own fucking country.

I'm sick of the USA and Israel charging the palestinians of being "terrorists" and supporting terrorism when Israel and the USA are just as guilty.

Lieberman IS EVIL. That is clear.

Since it looks like Dean is supporting TERRORISTS...I'll send my vote to a more peaceful candidate.
John | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:17 pm | #

Note on the tactic of Dean questioning Graham on an issue on which they both agree to make a point about the other three: this tactic, like many others, was borrowed from McCain's playbook. McCain's signature question, when given the chance, was to ask Gary Bauer to join him in pledging an end to campaign finance corruption -- forging a one-two left-right attack force against Bush on campaign finance reform. Kudos to Dean for learning from the best!
Nonpartisan for Dean | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 10:51 pm | #

Wow, defensive much?

Before anyone blows out of the Dean camp permanently, please do re-read Dean's positions on foreign policy and national security. Personally, I don't recall seeing or hearing anything recently which would indicate that he supports any of the violent groups in the Mid-East.

What I *DO* remember seeing is that he feels that diplomacy backed by UN force is sometimes needed to separate warring factions or isolate groups that threaten others, and that he does not support the US making those decisions without the rest of the world.

Everyone, please try to keep a cool head about these sensitive topics, otherwise we become just another symptom that diplomacy can't win.
kealoha | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 11:17 pm | #

Spring training is the perfect analogy. Puts in all in perspective. And remember that as Joe Trippi said, this is Dr. Dean's first national debate & practice really does help. (Remember how badly Lieberman flubbed the 2000 VP debate, or Edwards' first Meet the Press appearance?)

I do think Edwards was helped, but I'm actually fine with this--we need him to take out Lieberman in the south. (Not, needless to say, because Lieberman is Satan or because Lieberman supports Israel, but because Lieberman is too conservative and too non-charismatic to win.)
Katherine | Email | Homepage | 05.04.03 - 11:22 pm | #

Yes, loved the Dean question to Graham...clever method for attacking. And I thought the closing statement was quite effective - he just needed to find the camera.

Also, although not applicable to the closing statements, I can't stand it when politicians when asked a question by a person answer to the camera - it always feels more comfortable if they answer to the person asking the question. The problem seemed to be exacerbated by Dean not being able to find the camera to save his life. Better luck next time Dr....
Ken L | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 7:39 am | #

The great unspoken truth about and potential immediate downfall of Lieberman's campaign may be how Palestinians will view him. Even if Lieberman turns into Ehud Barak, the Arab world will still not trust Joe and suspect there are ulterior motives to his solutions, whether justified or not.

This assumes of course he has a shot. Since he is the epitome of Bush Lite, I would argue pretty strongly no.
Scott G. Medford, MA | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 9:06 am | #

posted on another thread:

i finally got around to watching the debate on tape last night.

i felt, for all the faults of the format, that howard did really well. sure, he could be a bit more polished, but that will come with time. i don't think he has to compromise his straight-forwardness in order to become more "camera-friendly". i sure wish he'd smile more often, though. =)

as for the others, here's my reviews:

carol m-b: somebody give her a cabinet job! i loved how she spoke out in favor or our personal liberties. in fact, i feel that should be a cornerstone of the new democratic platform: the party of personal liberty.
al sharpton: great zingers! i am glad he's there, because he says what most of the other candidates won't.
edwards: my only thought is that we need people like him in the senate. sorry, but i can't bring myself to support someone for president when they've only been in government for 3 years. that's just not enough experience. plus, how can he, as a lawyer, not support repealing the (UN)PATRIOT(IC) act? so much for fighting for the little guy.
gephart: nice job cribbing dean's lines. sorry dick, but you can't beat dean by being dean-lite (do we have a new meme or what?!?!). we need people like him in the house to balance out the right-wing nutjobs.
kerry: lurch. seriously, i was not impressed. why is he the "front runner" according to conventional wisdom? i seriously do not get it. he was very unappealing (except for his closing statement). i do not believe the CW holds true - there's just no way he's the front-runner, money be damned.
kucinich: we need people like him in the senate. i think that's how he'd best serve the people. ohio is lucky to have him.
graham: as a floridian, i have a soft spot in my heart for bob. i think he'd make one helluva vice president.
lieberman: just switch parties, already!! we know you're a republican. why the hell is he running, anyway?
anna | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 11:43 am | #

and let's please keep the israel-palestine issue off this thread. it's way off topic.

i'm sure dean's position will be clarified when the campaign sends us the reponses to the deanblog questions. until then, i'm asking everyone to reserve their judgment. i am no fan of sharon (in fact, i'd agree that he should be on trial), but i also find fault on both sides. i am reserving my judgement until dean issues an official position. can everyone else please do the same for the time being?

we have other battles that need to be fought in the interim. don't lose your focus!
anna | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 11:44 am | #

Watched the debate yesterday after reading a lot of comments online. My take:

Kerry: LOST He’s afraid of Dean and it shows; he can’t keep riding on Vietnam, and his attempts to paint himself as another Kennedy aren’t sticking. Has a real knack for statements that use lots of English words without actually resembling English in any way.

Dean: TIE He’s being taken seriously as a candidate now. Mostly took the high road on Kerry’s attacks, not enough eye contact, often was looking at the wrong camera. Last word on war and healthcare. Final statement was the best of the lot, impact undercut by reading it. Was thrown a little by phony healthcare numbers from Kerry, should relax and smile more.

Kucinich: LOST Fruitloop. Shouts too much and he comes off as an amateur. Flubbed the bankruptcy of Cleveland question and just sounded like he should be running for mayor.

Lieberman: LOST Sanctimonious Bush-enabling Republican. If he was so concerned about disenfranchised black voters in Florida he should have fought for them then. Sounds like he knows the only way he’s going to get in the White House is if Cheney has that sixth heart attack.

Edwards: WON Much better than CDF “I’m running for student council” performance. This puts him back in the running. Smooth, well-spoken, alleged populist, but he still hasn’t shown any real substance beyond the “mill worker’s son” story. Got a little vicious going after Gephardt, but elsewhere kept the focus on Bush.

Sharpton: TIE Twice in a row that he’s smacked Lieberman down for his sanctimonious moralizing crap, and his Jonestown Kool-Ade line was possibly the best all night. He hasn't made the case for himself as a serious candidate, but I'm glad he's running and he’ll help get the vote out.

Graham: LOST Nice grandfather, not Presidential but might still make VP. Mainly a sounding board for other candidates. Flubbed his “are you charismatic?” answer and his closing statement. Too hawkish.

Moseley Braun: TIE I still don’t know what she’s doing here, but she comes off as likeable and raised some important issues (like the PATRIOT Act). Her Clarence Thomas joke was excellent.

Gephardt: LOST Clearly comfortable on camera, but his health care plan got hammered from all sides. Nor can he give a good reason for why this year is different from all his previous years (except, I guess, that he has even more “experience”).

Stephanopolous: TIE He was better than I’d heard (the format sucked) and mostly kept everyone in line. Worst false note was the notion that Lieberman’s biggest liability is that he’s “too nice.”

There’s some disappointment among Deanocrats with his performance, but I think some of that is just heightened expectations – he didn’t get the slam dunk we were all hoping for. But as others have pointed out, this is only an exhibition game.
chase | Email | Homepage | 05.05.03 - 5:14 pm | #