Fellow progressives, hate me if you must

[JeffR]

but Senator Clinton was in complete command of tonight's Howard University debate on PBS. I still do not support her candidacy, and she will not get my primary vote. But she was good. She was damned good.

For the record, I find these "debates" pretty silly, but Tavis Smiley ran a pretty good forum, especially compared to CNN's recent shams.

And FWIW, Hillary Rodham Clinton was impressive. This may be the last kind thing I have to say about her, but I have to say it.

[MalloyLiberal]

1. She's a good debater. But she means NOTHING she says!!

And I will NOT vote for her in the general election!!!

[JeffR]

2. Perhaps she doesn't

I tend to think you might be right. But my subject was simply tonight's little "dog and pony show".

[William769]

4. Oy vey, here we go again.

I'm Sure SCOUTS and the neocons will thank you. :eyes:

[MalloyLiberal]

14. F off.

One vote will not matter. Bite me.

[William769]

17. LOL!

Your answer says it all! :rofl: :applause:

[usregimechange]

19. Bingo

[welshTerrier2]

3. there was NO DEBATE tonight

each of them just answered questions ... that's not debating at all ...

[JeffR]

11. which is why I described it as a dog and pony show

I agree with you.

[ripple]

5. I agree. Hillary won hands down tonight

And I still hope like hell she doesn't get the nod.

[rucky]

6. I agree with you.

But still I must hate you.

[JeffR]

10. I'm cool with that

:hi:

[durrrty libby]

7. She is terrific

[Ethelk2044]

8. The Media stated Edwards and Obama had the stage

She was ok.

[JeffR]

12. Compared to Edwards & Obama, though it pains me to admit it

she was way beyond OK.

[Mind_your_head]

9. Of COURSE she's 'good'.....

You don't think that the "truly ruling powers" (the elite, Federal Reserve, Bildeburg's, Carlyle Group, CIA, not to mention the Saudi's, the Chinese, and the Russians) would PICK A SLOUCH!?!?

No, of course not.

Oh I know they picked 'George', but that's a different story......THAT one caught us ALL 'off guard'.

We're basically naive sheeple....and we 'fell' for it.

ALL of it.

[JeffR]

15. Sorry, I don't, didn't and won't 'fall' for a goddamn thing

I've been advocating revolution for decades; I still do. All I'm commenting on is the candidates' performance in what passes for a debate tonight. I'm not trying to mend fences with the centrists, and I haven't signed on to the agenda of the elite, however you and I might want to define them.

[Mind_your_head]

35. Hmmmm.....Why do I sense hostility in your response?

First, I never said ANYTHING about 'revolution' (nor will I ever)....I'm quite sure that we can work within the ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL framework that our founding fathers gave us - The Constitution of the United States of America. The 'problem' is when members who were SWORN to uphold that same Constitution don't live up to their SWORN DUTY. There is a 'word' for this....can you 'name' that word?

Secondly, I don't care so much how a candidate 'performs'. Candidates are not 'bears in a performing circus' - although those who control what gets put on your TeeVee, and which you GLEEFULLY, LUSTFULLY watch get you to believe OTHERWISE...(note the word 'wise' in 'otherwise' - meaning it's something 'other' than 'wise').

*I* and other citizens want to know what the candidate BELIEVES in, what they will advocate, what they will support, or not support....and, while words are important, DEEDS/PAST DEEDS/PAST VOTES tell more/most of the story.

We are all detectives in a way. Those who don't have a good 'detection' ability don't survive for very long.

*sniff* *sniff*

[JeffR]

37. No hostility intended

And I don't disagree with what you're saying. I was giving an opinion on something neither more nor less relevant than a midsummer baseball game, that's all. It was a rare opportunity to break from what my centrist-Dem adversaries describe as my "hatred", "bashing" and "jealousy" of the senator. I'll get over it, promise.:)

[ShortnFiery]

13. Oh please ... swoon much?!?

:eyes:

[JeffR]

18. simple statement of opinion

If you don't like Clinton, fine by me. I don't either.

So don't start tossing around stupid words like "swoon". It's unfair to me, and it makes you look like an ass, which I'm sure you're not.

[ShortnFiery]

21. The lead-in (southern sigh) "Hate me if you must (Beauregard?)" is clearly a swoon. n/t

[JeffR]

23. I am a Southerner

Sue me, y'all.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Well, that's still not all that tasteful "It pains me to admit" ... hubby was born and raised in ...

New Orleans, but neither his Mother or Sisters are "pained" or preface 180 degree arguments with "Hate me if you must." Sorry, IMO this is just a little (thud!) IMO, over the top. :shrug:

[JeffR]

31. It pains me because Clinton is way removed from

where I fall on the progressive spectrum. But I have to call it as I see it, FWIW. This is the first, and probably last, time I'll speak out in praise of HRC. But she earned the praise, so I'm giving it.

And apparently my proviso of "hate me if you must" was entirely appropriate, given the vitriol I've already received for daring to praise a candidate I don't like, for once. So I'd say I had it sussed in advance, pretty much.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Wow. With due respect, we reside on different planes. OK - you win.

:hi:

[JeffR]

39. Nah, don't worry about it

I just knew this wouldn't go over well with a lot of people I agree entirely with.

As I said in the OP, this doesn't make me a Clintonista. Ain't gonna happen under any circumstances.

[Forkboy]

25. good grief

[ShortnFiery]

27. What? You want me to hold the football for you again, Charlie Brown?

:hi:

[Forkboy]

29. I'd like you to try some decaf,Gunga Din.

[ShortnFiery]

30. No, but perhaps since you're slow on the upswing, you might wish to switch back from Sanka?

;)

[truebrit71]

16. I don't hate you..far from it..was this the same debate that Dennis Kuicinich won tonight?

'Cos he was absolutely on fire...HRC was very impressive, but far from the 'winner'...

[JeffR]

20. DK had me cheering, as he usually does

and he has my primary vote one way or the other, since he's the only one of these folks who comes close to representing what I believe. He was very good.

[goodgd_yall]

44. Seems like it to me

Although I think the audience responded well to Edwards too. Black Americans appreciate Kucinich's recognition that there is a disease in the whole system.

[Sparkly]

22. I agree -- she's very poised, strong and articulate in debates. nt

[JeffR]

24. Thank you, Sparkly

that's all I was commenting on. She was good, and even as a socialist, I have no problem admitting it.

[illinoisprogressive]

28. bwahahahahaha. it's already being said she did not do so well.

[JeffR]

32. Which is interesting -

perhaps she didn't. I thought she did, but maybe I'm mistaken.

[ripple]

33. I thought she performed well.

But I still consider it a performance.

I hate the time constraints, because Obama isn't a one line, red-meat type of guy. That's one of the things I really like about him, but it definitely works to his disadvantage in the debates.

He did well, but I don't think it was his best night.

[Telly Savalas]

41. Specifics?

[durrrty libby]

47. Oh she did fantastic because she is the one everyone is talking about, as usual

[BeyondGeography]

36. MSNBC's Todd: Awful format, no winners, Edwards sucked

<As I wrote about constantly during the live-blogging session, this format was awful. I understand what the organizers were trying to do but it didn't work. And that means it was hard to view this debate as having a real impact on this campaign. None of the candidates came into this debate with an intent on creating a contrast. If you twisted my arm, I guess I'd say Biden, Clinton and Obama stood out a bit. Gravel stands out, but for all the wrong reasons (and what was with the casual khakis). Richardson, once again, had some uneven moments; he's lucky these debates haven't impacted him much; he certainly didn't act like a first tier candidate tonight. Edwards was more robotic than he has been in the first two debates. It could be the format that contributed to it for him. Dodd actually seemed to be better with the 30-second limit than during the 1-minute portion.>

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

I mostly agree, though I liked Edwards more than Clinton. At least he tried to answer questions directly before he gave speeches about himself; Clinton was driven by the sound-bite more than substance. Obama's big picture view was very much to my liking. Clinton totally avoided a direct answer to the first question (is racism still an intractable problem) but, as she has done in previous debates, got stronger as the night went on. Still, I rate this as the least impressive of her three debate performances.

[JeffR]

40. The format was really awful, as these things tend to be

especially when responses were shortened in the last half.

I was hoping for a more spirited performance by Edwards, but I couldn't help but think he seemed a little pro-forma tonight. Obama had his moments, some of them excellent, but I was hoping for more rhetorical fire, especially in front of a largely African-American audience. The audience appeared to want to connect to him, but he seemed to be holding back, somehow.

One thing I take away from this, again, is that the Democrats put forward a batch of thoughtful candidates. By comparison, the GOP is running idiots, as is their standard practice.

[MalloyLiberal]

42. And I care what a Republican asshat has to think?

No. I have never liked Chuck Todd.

[AtomicKitten]

38. you are a brave man indeed

and I agree about HRC. She doesn't have my primary vote either, but if she is chosen by a majority of Democrats as the nominee, so be it.

[MalloyLiberal]

43. I won't be voting for her in the general either.

I'll just sit it out. Less effort for me. You don't like it , tough.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Why don't you take that 'tude to the park

... where maybe the squirrels will care.

What makes you think I care what you do?

[DeepModem Mom]

45. She's not my candidate either, but, IMO, she's ACED every debate.

She's prepared and articulate, she can fit her answers into whatever format is called for, and she damn well knows her stuff. This has impressed Republican men I know who could once barely say her name for the contempt they had for her. Some are now considering voting for her, having seen her smarts and competence on the stage.