Who Won The Debate?

Originally, I said that the onloy winner was those people that went to bed and got some nookie, but it appears that there was more to it than that. It was the most watched debate to date. In some areas it was more popular than American Idol.

Onward and up ward......most media pundits, newspapers ands such are saying that Obama had is worse debate to date and Clinton was clearly on her game. Good analysis for the most part, but there is a disconnect.

Contessa Brewer on MSNBC's afternoon news show said that they had received 12,000+ text messages saying that Obama had won the debate. But yet I have heard no other pundit mention this fact.

Why the disconnect from pundit to people? Difference in my opinion, that is not the story the media wants. The texters are most likely voters and will probably vote for Obama. Yet the media will not report on that, instead that keep thumping their chests for Clinton. The disconnect is what the media wants you to believe and what is reality is seldom the same, especially in politics.

As I keep saying, IMO, the media appears to be deep into the Clinton pocket.

The Last Democratic Debate

There has been much said about this debate. From Obama was wounded to ABC was petty to mods were just fanning the flames of dissension. IMO, ABC was wrong to let the debate go on for 50+ minutes before asking any real issue questions.

Then Bill Clinton is trying to be cute again, letting his arrogance show through. Nothing new there.

But MSNBC held a text poll on the winner of the debate and it was a majority for Obama. So that is contrary to all pundits views that Obama lost the debate. So that shows me that the media corporate stooges are just trying desperately to keep Clinton in the game.

The mass media wants Clinton to be the nominee and it will do what it must to see that she is at least in the game until the end.

At Last! The Final Debate!

Can I have an amen? With luck and God's help, will not have to go through another debate until the Fall. We can only pray. Is that because I am bitter? You bet your ass I am! I am full of the crap spread by the candidates.

On to the Dem Debate of last nite. If you have made up your mind on which candidate you will vote for, then this debate did nothing but waste your time. Issues were rehashed, that is a lie, few issues and more about personal stuff. about lies, mis-speaks, condescending,, yada, yada.

Clinton was Clinton--she was sorta nice which leads me to think she is bi-polar. She hot and cold running on Obama. Obama was Obama--he tried to stay above the personal crap, but as usual got sucked into it by the media.

If you were looking for a winner--then it was those that went to bed and got some nookie. All in all, if you watch the news regular then the debate was a total waste of time.

The Last Democratic Debate?

We can only pray that it is. After 20 or was it 30, debates the people are energized to snooze. The big question last night was which Clinton would show up, the one from the last debate with her warm and fuzzy tone about Obama or the one from the weekend with the ranting and raving. Deep down, everyone wanted the latter. They wanted her to come off the ropes with a folding chair and brain Obama.

Clinton gets first question and she finds fault with it. Everyone held their breath waiting...waiting...and then..nothing! It was the same as the last debate and the one before that. Niceties were everywhere, complimentary BS was everywhere.

At first there was a bit of the snippys on health care, they went back and forth, but nothing new. Then it continued with the ping pong match on Kosovo, war, NAFTA, everybody's past votes,and support for Israel. The only part of the debate that was a bit hostile was a short piece on personal attacks. Clinton did however, almost apologize for her vote to go to Iraq. It was a around about way of saying that she may have been mistaken.

Ok, since Americans have to have a winner and a loser, I will give this debate a DRAW! Nothing new, just a rehash of every damn thing you have heard up to this point. Just a way to get the stump speeches out there. No real specifics, just the same vague generalities of what to expect if they are elected president. The real winners were those people that went to bed and got a good night's sleep. The losers were people like me that are waiting for something to happen that will make this interesting....we are still waiting.

Obama is leading in the polls, that did not change with this debate. He did get to play his little warm fuzzy for Clinton, saying what an honor it is and that she is a fine person and candidate..yada..yada...please let the voting begin.

CNN Democratic Debate In Texas

First of all, I was mistaken, I know hard to believe, huh? Clinton did not attack! She apparently has seen the light. But she hangs on to the tired old argument that she has experience. It has not worked in the past, why continue?

How many have there been? At least CNN had the good sense to put Blitzer on the sidelines. But they for some reason they really like the applaud thing. I have a suggestion for them. They already have a feel-o-meter installed with undecided voters to check the reactions. Next they could install an applaud-o-meter. Then they would not have to pay analysts and the viewer would know immediately who won. No talk, no analysis, just statistics.

Back in 2007 I said there was little difference between Obama and Clinton positions. If you were listening last night then you saw the lack of difference. They are similar on Cuba health care, etc. Both candidates were poised and presidential looking. I give the edge to Obama here, he is more poised than he has been in the past. He handled all semi-attacks with calm reactions. The voter learned nothing new, if they have been listening in the past.

There were two parts that were not good. Both candidates were asked about earmarks, Obama has had 91 million and Clinton has had 342 million, but both did not address the earmarks but rather what should be done in Congress to make it more transparent. Then Clinton when she made her "change you can xerox", which referred to her campaign's accusation of plagiarism. The audience booed.

If one watched waiting for Clinton to go on the offensive and attack, you were sadly disappointed. The civility was almost nauseating at times. Clinton's best moment was her closing statement and all the illusion she gave about wounded soldiers, her life and her vision.

Obama is closing in on Clinton in Texas and the debate did not change the fact that her campaign is in trouble and the contests in Texas and Ohio could well be her swan song. The debate did not give her a boost that she was looking for.

Note: To me Clinton sounded like she is expecting to lose the race for the nomination. She seem to be conciliatory toward Obama. If she does not win big in Texas and Ohio, I look for her to throw in the towel, for her funds will dry up. Just a thought.

Democratic Debate Tonite

Before I speak of this new debate I need to report that Obama won the hawaii Caucus 75% to Clinton's 24%. That makes 10 in a row. Clinton needs a good night at the debate. She is losing support in Texas and Ohio may go the same as Wisconsin.

Tonight is the debate in Austin, Texas, but what will we see? The confrontational style from January or the warm fuzzies of the last Dem debate? IMO, Clinton has got to go after Obama, she cannot afford to be warm and congenial.

She will hit him on his Congressional record. He will hit her on the same type of government if she wins. CNN will be the moderator and we will see if they also will kowtow to the Clinton machine. I also look for Clinton to use the fear card, but will disguise it in the form of Obama's inexperience with national security. Also she will thump her chest about the health care proposal, but as usual will be nothing more than vague generalities. Obama needs to stay calm and above the attacks. If he can pull it off, she will appear pathetic and desperate.

Obama will most likely have a long night. He will be hit from all sides, Clinton and CNN, if they smell blood he could be in a pickle. The media wasted no time piddling on his win in Wisconsin and I look for much the same in the context oif the debate.

I offered a list of questions to CNN and MSNBC that will educate the voter, but I do not see it working out that way. It will once again be a popularity contest with little moderation. Ratings will be more important than voter knowledge.

Questions For The Next Debates

By now the American people are up to their collective asses in debates and debate results. Let's see there has been about 50 separate debates and I have watched most have have yet to see a real difference in the candidates positions. I sat around a thought of a couple of questions that I thought would help the listeners learn more about the issues and the candidates.

I also have sent them to CNN and MSNBC with the hope that either or both organizations will ask them or some similar to assist the voter in their upcoming decision.


For both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.

If either of you are elected president, you have said that troops will withdrawn within the first year. the questions is with the returning troops to the US and the increased pressures on domestic services like unemployment, entitlements, and such programns. How will you, as president, deal with this increase in demand for actions?

Along the same line, how will you deal with the medical needs of returning troops? It will no doubt be a drain on the budgets of several institutions.

For Sen. Clinton:

You have stated that your health care plan will be universal. But, if people do not sign onto your plan will there be a penalty? and if so, what is that penalty?

Sen Clinton, your camp has recently stated that the Supers should vote "independently". What does that actually mean?

For Sen Clinton and Sen. Obama

Since the delegates from Michigan and Florida may not be seated at the convention, because of their defiance of the DNC and moved their primaries, what, In your opinion, should be done with the delegates from these states?


As I have said, these are the types of questions that need to be asked at debates. in the past there has been little specifics, just letting them spout more stump rhetoric. The voter needs specifics. Truthfully, past debates, to me, appeared that the candidates had prior knowledge of most of the questions.

Latest Democratic Debate

To begin with, the media finally got its way: There are only 2 candidates; the two that the media has always wanted. Clinton and Obama. With that said I shall go on. CNN was the sponsor of this debate and the moderator was Wolf Blitzer. On the best day, the two of them are lame. Their Repub debate was lame and nothing changed with the Dem debate. Why do I say that? In his intro Blitzer said, "This is the first time a woman and a black man have been the vying for the nomination to represent their party in the presidential election." Thanks, Wolf, I had completely missed that fact all these months.

On to the debate. It was a lot calmer than the previous Dem debate. The two candidates made nice, they disagreed, people applauded, and Blitzer was asleep. As usual, I do not think it was a debate at all. It was more an introduction Q&A. Clinton at times looked mechanical. She gave a stump speech and seldom answered any question with a direct answer. Especially when she was asked why she will not apologize for voting to go to war in Iraq. She rambled on and on about why she voted for it, citing this fact and that, but she has never said the war was wrong. When asked what about a uncontrolled Bill in the White House. She ducked the question as she does most questions.

Obama appeared to be more animated than in the past. He appeared to be more comfortable on stage with his answers and his rebuttals. His best part was his stand on the war. He held to his position on the war being wrong and he told how he would have handled it. On other issue he was clear on where he stands. with that said, his answers were still a stump speech that I have heard time and time again.

Basically, since the American voter has the attention span of a Reese's Monkey, this was just an intro to the candidates before the 05 Feb primaries. People are just now waking up and realizing that they may vote in days. So the people have learned generalities about the two candidates and if the were paying attention, they noticed they were very similar on their positions.

Alrighty then, who won the debate? My opinion it was Obama, he looked calm and comfortable and gave good clear answers. Clinton at times appeared, to me, to be a bit mechanical and her answers were good and clear, but as usual a bit vague. But the real winner in last night's debate was CNN and the mainstream media. Why? They wanted a 2 candidate field for months and they went out of their way to help eliminate those candidates whose message was more different than the two we have now. I congratulate the media on a job well done.

Now the voter can enter into a voting booth knowing that a flip of a coin will decide who will be the Dem candidate.

Republican Debate

Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

Last night at the Reagan Library in Californian the remaining Repub candidates squared off for the final debate before Super Tuesday. And as usual, all want to claim the ghost of Reagan. What does that mean? That is another post at a later date. Of course, they were asked the typical Reagan question--Are we better off today? And just as predictable all but Paul said yes. Apparently, they do not live in the same US that I do.

The night was spent mostly allowing McCain and Romney go after each other and their stands. Which CNN seem to want. Huckabee, when he was allowed to talk, said something cute and humorous, but nothing of substance. Paul as usual was confrontational and said all the things that make Repubs squint.

so who won? Nobody, all it was to let the people see Mitt and John go at each other. Paul and Huckabee were just there trying to get some attention. CNN did its part of not allowing them to say too much. Mitt spend all night with a smirk on his face when McCain was talking. It was irritating.

All in all it was a McCain/Romney showcase for CNN. Nothing more than that. CNN as well as a lot of media outlets have chosen the candidates from both parties. Who lost the debate? The people. Not once did the question get asked as how they would change the economy. Only vague ramblings about tax cuts and corporate incentives. Which is a hope not a solution.

All in all a throughly forgettable experience. Thank you CNN for making it so.

Florida Republican Debate

The best I can say is that they are acted like adults. There was none of the "in your face" tactics of the last dem debate. I will say that MSNBC let Romney have the most time on the air. It was a free ad. All the candidates were polite, civil and on message. Kind of like they were on automatic pilot. They were almost introducing themselves to the people of Florida. They all seemed to be saying that the Clintons were gonna be the candidate of the Dems and they were all running against them.

Ok who won--Mitt, because he was confident and on message looking very presidential. McCain was good but lack a little something. Huckabee was his usual humorous self and defended his stands very well. Rudy was flat and did not have a whole lot of substance. and then there is Paul. What can I say? Paul was Paul!

All in all a pretty good debate. At least there were no shots to the throat of their opponents. They basically looked a lot better than the Dems did on their last debate.

South Carolina Democratic Debate

Now that the media has successfully eliminated all but the three top candidates from the primaries, you would think that there would finally be a debate that focused on the issues. Think again! CNN, "the best political team on TV", their words, not mine, hosted the SC debate and they showed that they are just as disgusting as any of the other outlets. Wolf Blitzer, the debate moderator was about as worthless as tits on a boar, he was never in control of the debate.

Almost immediately Clinton and Obama started for each others jugular. They went back and forth with he said, she said, Bill said; attacking each others integrity and voting records. Edwards had to chime in and remind Blitzer that there were three people in the debate. Very little was talked about the top 2's issues. Edwards did well by trying to inject "real" issues into the debate. The best line of the night was by Edward's when he said, "this squabbling willnot help children get health care....."

The media got what they wanted--a bullsh*t knock down argument about each other and not the issues. Nothing was said by Clinton or Obama that would have helped the voter understand their positions on issues. The dumbest question was ask to Obama if he thought Bill Clinton was truly the first black president. Obama's answer was humorous and absolutely worthless. There was too much time spent on the issue of race and not issues.

Ok so now you want to know who I think won and lost the debate. Winner was Edwards, because he was the only adult on the stage. The loser was two-fold: First it was CNN for co-sponsoring a worthless two hours of personal attacks and the voter because they learned NOTHING about the issues.

This was a good example of why the media should NOT be allowed to be involved in the debate process at any cost. Debates are for the political education of the voter, not to teach them the proper way to personally attack an opponent. CNN needs to apologize to the voter for the debate and their lack of any actual moderation.

How To Win The Debate

This analysis is from McClatchy News--I put this in so that when I rate the latest debate--to see if the advice was taken.

McClatchy Newspapers

What the three candidates will aim to accomplish in tonight's debate:

Hillary Clinton

To score points: In Clinton's strongest debates thus far she has mastered the facts, calmly disassembled criticism and attacked her opponents in just the right spots. Clinton did all of those things in a nationally televised debate in Nevada last week. Post-debate observers were near unanimous in praise of Clinton's effort, deeming her the winner. Clinton has also scored points when she injected humor or levity into these debates.

She wants to avoid: Clinton's weakest debate moments have come when she has been pressed to explain some of her positions, whether it's driver's licenses for illegal immigrants or some of her votes on the Iraq war. In those moments she has come off as overly defensive and, at times, not completely forthright. This being a Martin Luther King Jr. Day debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, race matters will be a focus. Clinton wants to avoid a replay of the controversy that erupted out of New Hampshire, where she offended some black voters with comments interpreted as disparaging of King's contribution to civil rights.

She can claim victory if: She escapes inevitable attack without being hurt too badly and speaks to the women voters she needs to win South Carolina. A McClatchy-MSNBC poll released last week showed Clinton trailing Obama slightly among women.

John Edwards

To score points: Edwards, who is trailing badly in South Carolina and whose best showing so far has been his second-place finish in Iowa, needs to bloody Clinton and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. He needs to capitalize on every opportunity to attack. If Clinton and Obama spend the night going after each other, Edwards job will be made easier.

He wants to avoid: Edwards has at times been dubbed the angry candidate since he's turned up the heat on the campaign trail. Edwards needs to debate in attack mode, but he also needs to stay balanced. Edwards has done a good job of casting himself as the candidate most attuned to the economic woes of the poor and working class. His populist messages have been fairly well received. Edwards' message is more timely than ever, given the economic news of the past three months. Edwards wants to seize on every opportunity to attack Clinton and Obama.

He can claim victory if: Post-debate commentators are talking about Edwards' consistency of message, his aggression and how he managed to zing both Clinton and Obama.

Barack Obama

To score points: Obama must sound decisive and look presidential. South Carolina is an extremely important state for Obama. South Carolina voters have to decide if he's electable before they cast a vote for him. To do that, he must match Clinton's mastery of issues, show candor and display the personality that has made him a hit on the campaign trail.

He wants to avoid: The hesitant Obama from last week, who seemed to have to search for too many answers and, at times, looked indecisive. Obama is the black candidate in a debate that will have some focus on issues that affect black America. His answers to those questions will be closely scrutinized by voters. Obama must avoid sounding too soft on civil rights issues, something that might alienate undecided black voters.

He can claim victory if: He matches Edwards on economic issues, matches Clinton on foreign policy issues and wins on domestic issues where his message of hope has been most resonant.

The Nevada Debate

Last night the Dems held another in the list of debates. Everyone was holding their breath to see if the race issue would rear its ugly little head. Long wait--No hard crap coming.

The list of candidates was slimmed down to 3, the top 3, no one else was allow into the elite meeting. It was a coffee social--No bickering, no attacks, not nothing. I was , for lack of a better description, a love fest. Was there a winner? NO there was no clear winner. All 3 candidates made their typical points on the economy, energy, yada yada. Nothing new, same song, different town.

Nothing said would have swayed me away from my candidate of choice...So why did I bother? Killing time until the results of Michigan came in. Yawn! Better luck next time guys and gal.

The Latest Republican Debate

OMG! FOX news has a debate. were the tough questions asked? HA! Hell no! But everyone of the candidates there had to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagan. If you had a nickel for everything his name was used, you could afford to fill up you SUV with gas.

I gues you want to know what the Professor thought of the debate. (Long pause) thinking...thinking....I was so f*cking bored with pat bullsh*t answers that I wanted rip my ears off and start painting.

Mitt was Mitt--a game show host
Rudy was.......there and boring.
McCain is just f*cking tired...nothing new.
Thompson was not bad with his answers....had a shot at huck...all in all he looked pretty good.
Huckabee was sweet, likable, and totally boring.
Paul--what can I say--Paul is Paul.

Apparently, Thompson has been designated as McCain's attack dog. He needs to be a little less obvious.

The winner? My pick is those who did not watch the debate. They were the smart ones that show superior decision making process.

CHUQ
11 Jan 08