Pretty good debate...Hillary did very well, as did Edwards, and Richardson...finally

[SaveElmer]

Hillary - Great as usual...no mistakes, definitely making the case that she is the most prepared. Answers questions concisely, on point, and without the "um" and "uhhh" alot of people use when answering questions.

Edwards - Very good, showed energy not in previous debates. Clearly making a play to the left...

Obama - Doing fine until his blunder on the question about whether he would meet with Kim Il-Jung or Fidel Castro in his first year...definitely showed his inexperience on that one. He can get away with it in these debates as the audience is narrow and predisposed to forgive those kinds of gaffes. Had it happened in the General Election debate he would have been roasted alive...I can see the ads asking if he had set the date to travel to Havana yet?

Biden - Very good as usual, though I'm not sure how his jab at the gun guy will go over

Richardson - Finally got off the schnide and gave a very good performance, not polished, but his answers were much better and he showed alot of passion, particularly on the Darfur question...

Dodd - Did ok

Overall another great night for Hillary, a very good one for Edwards, Obama ok for a Democratic forum...

[wyldwolf]

1. On the Obama blunder...

IMO, it isn't so much that the audience is narrow and predisposed to forgive those kinds of gaffs but that the audience is narrow and may tend to agree with Obama on this, as indicated here on DU.

But you're right - in the general, he'd be ripped a new one for that. In fact, in a narrower field, Biden, Clinton, and even Edwards would have ripped him for it. One of them still might.

[Adelante]

4. Hillary aced that one

I mean, the overall point Obama made of talking to enemies, as JFK did with Kruschev back channel, that was good. But no president is going to be about committing to meet with anybody, never mind anti-American leaders, and her answer was perfectly delivered in pitch.

[Supersedeas]

43. Yes, she and Edwards did very well

[Adelante]

2. Richardson showed good improvement

Biden's schtick: "This is who I am, like it or don't like it" is what works for him. In the fall, we might yet see his poll numbers rising if he is still in. I thought Obama led last night with Hillary close in followed by Kucinich. On health care, following the video of ailing YouTubers, I thought Edwards broke out, but otherwise nothing remarkable in his performance. His own video was good if a few months too late.

[Sparkly]

3. I liked Biden's answer to the gun guy.

I'm seeing the media refer to Clinton and Obama's answers about meeting with other leaders as a "clash." Same word -- "clash" -- in print and on teevee. I don't think it was a "clash" necessarily. And while Clinton took the opportunity to clarify the advance diplomacy required for meetings, saying she couldn't promise it in the first year, I don't think Obama's answer necessarily precluded that same advance diplomacy (which of COURSE would occur in any case).

I liked Hillary's answer to the question of another Clinton in the White House. It's a legitimate issue to raise, and I wondered "how on earth will she answer this" -- and she used her wit in, I thought, a really effective way. I was impressed with that.

[SaveElmer]

8. Personally I liked Biden's answer too...

Just don't know how well it will go over generally...

On the other, policy wise you are right...I doubt a President Obama would do what candidate Obama said last night...

But this is a campaign, not only do you have to know what you mean, but you have to make sure those you are speaking to do as well...

That kind of answer, particularly in a general election scenario, would be very bad for him...would knock him off his game for days...

[iverglas]

42. I like Joe ;)

and his answer. I'm just a foreigner, and I don't count, but I've always liked Joe. His work in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee was just a thing of beauty. He is one very very smart cookie.

He's also to the right of me politically so I wouldn't likely be picking him as my candidate, but I admire his honesty and intelligence quite a bit. He's one of yer real USAmerican liberals. And I was quite stunned to learn he apparently didn't grow up rolling in money and influence.

Obama struck me as an empty shirt, by the way.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Keep dreaming dude

for all of her competency, your gal came off as self-serving and remote. Obama not so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6QhMV0MbUU

Her one moment of "greatness," the "I won't talk to dictators without preconditions," also cuts both ways. She gave the technically correct answer, but, fairly or not, it also reminded many people of Bush. If you don't believe me, go to any number of threads about this last night. Also, CNN brought the questioner on-air after the debate and he said he didn't like her answer, further dulling the near-term impact. The National Review loved it, though:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQzODcyNWE1OTU0YWIxYzRiNDhiNTIzZTk2MmMxYjg=

[SaveElmer]

6. How many RPM's is that spin...

Obama is lucky he gave that answer now and not next year...

As it is he could still pay a price...and may be spending the next few days explaining his answer...

Obama did fine, but he was outshone IMO by Hillary and Edwards...

[BeyondGeography]

7. Then show me a link with voters saying what you say

Talk about spin. Focus groups in NH and SC went big for Obama, that was on the telly, by the way. Ordinary people saying the most compelling things about Obama in front of lots of other ordinary people...and he was outshone? Funny.

The best you could come up with, if you were so inclined, is clips from Jeff Toobin and David Gergen playing the MSM frontrunner game. Last night's advantage goes to Obama.

[SaveElmer]

9. Or post debate polls which showed Hillary winning the debate...

And as the clear choice among the candidates when asked which candidate would make the best President...

I know you probably think an unscientific selection of 24 people is more accurate than scientific polling...but it isn't...

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111&q=41501

[BeyondGeography]

12. SurveyUSA, eh

Those 24 people weren't trapped in a room somewhere, they were broadcast around the country. It must hurt to hear people say things like, "Hillary is only out for Hillary," on national TV.

Have fun playing with your data points, though. I know how much they mean to you.

[SaveElmer]

13. Whatever...

Fact remains, Hillary is viewed by a significant plurality of those watching the debate last night as the winner

And the fact that someone in a focus group said something bad about Hillary in front of the literally thousands still watching the post debate analysis at 10:00 at night is really irrelevant...

But I know you Obama supporters need something to hang onto...so I hope it give you comfort...

[BeyondGeography]

14. Oh yeah, we're desperate

especially now that Elmer says televised focus groups mean less than one-among-a-hundred SurveyUSA polls and Obama was outshone by Edwards and Richardson last night.

Who will tell the children?

[SaveElmer]

16. I know facts are tough...

When they don't show what you want...as I said, if believing an unscientific (as noted by CNN) focus group is more accurate than scientific polling helps you...then by all means, keep on believing...

[BeyondGeography]

26. SurveyUSA gave the SC debate to Obama, lotta good that did him

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=ba1ebc70-a734-4185-8532-2e4a9ba45d96

Your "Obama flopped" spin is nonsense. Even mainstreamer Chuck Todd thinks so:

*** Obama: While Clinton bested him on that one question (and it was important because it exemplified her experience argument), Obama has really improved from his earlier performances -- he's much better answering questions in 60 seconds, and he did a very good job tonight of getting key parts of his biography in his answers. Perhaps more importantly, he unanimously won the post-debate instant-polls. Why did Obama do so much better in the various focus groups, but Clinton did better among the pundits? It's realism vs. idealism on display. While the chattering class watches these debates with an eye on the general election, many of us may very well underestimate the pull of idealism among Democratic primary voters. Also, Obama may have also done better in the focus groups, because the last 30 minutes of the debate were his strongest -- and last impressions can have a greater influence on these people.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/24/286430.aspx

See that? Polls, facts, to go along with those focus groups that were so unkind to Her Majesty.

[SaveElmer]

27. South Carolina voters...nationwide SurveryUSA has Hillary winning...

You might want to read the entire thread before commenting...

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111&q=41501

[William769]

32. Check out the National poll from the same polling Company.

Wanna try again?

[Ethelk2044]

19. Who won the debate?

http://www.wyff4.com/politics/13208381/detail.html


Margin of Sampling Error ± 5%

Who won the debate?

31% Obama
24% Clinton
14% Edwards
13% Not Sure
6% Biden
4% Richardson
3% Kucinich
2% Dodd
2% Gravel


Who lost the debate?

20% Not Sure
17% Gravel
12% Clinton
10% Kucinich
9% Dodd
9% Obama
9% Richardson
8% Biden
5% Edwards

[SaveElmer]

21. South Carolina only...Nationwide, SurveyUSA shows voters believe Hillary won

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111&q=41501

Also I did not say Obama flopped, I said he flopped on that question...and he did...

And you will notice from my original post I was simply giving my opinion...

Why the defensiveness? The hostility?

I guess that your candidate has been behind in so many polls for so long is upsetting to you...

[William769]

30. That was immediately after the debate this well the bigger picture and the same polling company.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111

[William769]

29. read it and weep.

Both Before & After CNN YouTube Debate, Viewers Say Hillary Would Make the Best President of 8 Democrats: Americans who watched the YouTube Democratic Debate 7/23/07 on CNN went into the debate thinking Hillary Clinton would make the best President of the 8 Democrats on stage, and came out of the debate even more convinced, according to an exclusive SurveyUSA poll. Before the debate, 40% saw Clinton as the most Presidential Democrat; after the debate, when the same respondents were re-interviewed, 43% saw her as the most Presidential Democrat. Movement in Positive/Negative Numbers: Debate watchers were asked if they viewed each Democrat positively or negatively. Comparing the before and after answers: Biden went up 38 points, from Minus 6 to Plus 32. Obama went up 17 points, from Plus 24 to Plus 41. Clinton went up 16 points, from Plus 34 to Plus 50. Edwards went up 16, from Plus 22 to Plus 38. Dodd went up 15, from Minus 21 to Minus 6. Richardson went up 14, from Minus 1 to Plus 13. Kucinich went up 7, from Minus 21 to Minus 14. Gravel went down 3, from Minus 29 to Minus 32. Separately: CNN went up 4, from Plus 67 to Plus 71. YouTube went up 30, from Plus 2 to Plus 32. To see to the graphs that show the changes before and after the debate, click on the Triangle T where it appears in the Question number. Who Won? Who Lost? 39% of debate watchers say Clinton won the debate. 33% of debate watchers say Gravel lost the debate.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111

Also it's safe to assume your not going to be happy with any of the numbers.

[wyldwolf]

10. Joe Biden called Obama's answer "naive" and Obama's political advisor backtracked

... at least according to a conservative source, and I have no reason to disbelieve them:

...after the debate, speaking to reporters in the spin room, Axelrod claimed Obama didn’t mean any such meetings would actually take place.

“He said that he would be willing to talk,” Axelrod explained. “And what he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.”

Axelrod said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took sharp issue with Obama on the question, was “trying to make a distinction without a difference.” If Axelrod seemed a bit sensitive about the issue, it was because Clinton, when she was asked about meeting Ahmadinejad, et al, showed a much firmer grasp of what a president should and should not do when dealing with rogue states. “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year,” Clinton said. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse.” While criticizing the Bush administration for its alleged diplomatic failures, she concluded: “Certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”

Afterward, other candidates echoed Clinton’s criticism. Sen. Joseph Biden, who has emerged as the clear-eyed antiwar realist in the Democratic race, told National Review Online that the idea of a president meeting with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and others was “naïve.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQzODcyNWE1OTU0YWIxYzRiNDhiNTIzZTk2MmMxYjg=

see also:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/24/2007-07-24_youtube_yackfest_does_dems_some_good_.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5082.html

[Tellurian]

37. Actually, if we're keeping score on Obama's (huge) blunders..

His naive response to meeting with US blacklisted dictators was his second fatal response due to his lack of experience.

Obama's first mistaken response happened at the last SC debate:

When Brian Williams asked:

"Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Senator Barack Obama responded:

"Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

When Brian Williams asked Senator Clinton:

"Senator Clinton, same question." (He also previously asked it of former Senator Edwards, but his response wasn't discussed by the analysts.)

Senator Hillary Clinton's response:

"Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

Technically at this point, another 'inept' response to a presidential question would be Obama's Third Strike against him.

[Tellurian]

40. K&R

[Flarney]

11. I wish Hillary hadn't run from the word "liberal"...

...but I wish they'd asked everyone that question. I want to vote for someone who's proud to be a liberal. What word are we going to jump to when the right gets around to trashing "progressive?"

Of course, since the right wing owns the media maybe it was smart of her to avoid the "trap"...still, I want to see that word defended and revived.

-South Carolina Liberal

[Forkboy]

18. With very few exceptions the entire party flees from the word.

And when "progressive" gets used as a dirty word,as some here already try to do,they'll start fleeing from that too.Running scared is a party trademark,I'm pretty sure.It's easier to run to a new,safe label than defend the previous one.

[Ethelk2044]

15. He did not blunder on any question get your spin correct. Even the person who

asked the question did not like Hillary's answer.

[SaveElmer]

17. So has Obama scheduled his trip to Havana yet?...nt

[zulchzulu]

25. Only a desperate Repug would use Obama's comment on diplomacy with that spin...

...or others who like to take Obama's statements out of context to try to trash him. Yeah, those people too...

[William769]

34. Take something out of context?

Now thats funny! :rofl: Like no one on DU that suppots Obama has ever done that! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[wyldwolf]

23. Axelrod had to back track for Obama after the debate

[ieoeja]

28. Americans prefer Presidents who look like cowards.

Look at how much the average American hates JFK for going to Berlin. And Ronald Reagan for spending years (because they kept dying) trying to setup a meeting with the leader of the Soviet Union.

Americans hate Presidents who are willing to stand toe-to-toe with our adversaries. We want Presidents who hunker down in the White House.

[William769]

33. I couldn't tell if he blundered or not, I couldn't get past his stuttering!

[frazzled]

20. I thought the biggest blunder was Edwards's response ...

to the black minister's question about gay marriage. (For those who missed it, here was the question):

Sen. Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage has influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?

Edwards's response was so contorted you could feel the discomfort in the room. He said, firstly, that a president's personal faith shouldn't influence what they prescribe as policy for others. But he had said that his faith led him to that conclusion--so he was not only insulting the questioner but denying what he himself has previously said. He then resorted to the "my wife is for it" trick that should insult our intelligence, while saying he was just "uncomfortable" with it. So, we're back to square one: he is personally uncomfortable, so he is willing to use his personal belief to oppose something that should be decided on Constitutional grounds. It was a mess. He would have been better off to simply skirt the issue as some of the other candidates did by reiterating their support for equal rights. As it was, he painted himself into a contradictory corner and had the appearance of both utter pandering and self-contradiction at the same time. This is Edwards's problem: a moderate to conservative Democrat who is playing the political cards to the left is going to get caught in their own gameplaying at some point. This was a first signal at how hard such a strategy is to maintain and, frankly, just how much of a "strategy" it really is.

[SaveElmer]

24. Wasn't a great answer, and he is lucky there was no follow up...

He says his personal view is that Gay marriage should not be allowed...

He also says he will not let his religion influence public policy positions...


So why then is he opposed to gay marriage as a matter of public policy...?


But as it is I don't think it hurt him much

[truebrit71]

22. Richardson looked much better than before..Obama was dreadful IMO...

...not very polished, and too centrist for my liking...seemed more interested in scoring points than anything else...Dennis was awesome as always, Hillary less "cold", Edwards appeared a little stiff, Biden can go fuck himself, Dodd, um why is he still here? and Gravel....grandad, where'd you put the remote...??

[William769]

31. Hillary is 4 for 4.

YOU GO GIRL!

ON EDIT: K&R!

[Alamom]

35. k&r

[TeamJordan23]

36. Undecided voters said Obama won on CNN said Obama clearly won. nm

[William769]

38. So today you don't have a problem with CNN?

You crack me up! :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

39. The Evil Clinton Cabal forgot to send the order to their media puppets at CNN

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. In fairness, the CNN jury was split. BO won in NH while HRC and Richardson tied for first in Nevada

Another focus group showed Edwards as the winner.