Truth or Dare- A Debate Post Mortem

The Annenburg Institute always provides some hard edged analysis of the political scene. Here is what they have to say about last night's debate:



Cleveland Clinkers
February 27, 2008
Clinton and Obama hit sour notes in the Cleveland debate.
Summary
The Clinton-Obama showdown debate in Cleveland produced several false, twisted or dubious claims, most of which we’ve heard and debunked before.

* Both Obama and Clinton claimed their health care plans would cut costs more than the other’s, and that experts back them up on that. But experts we talked to said the plans are too similar to predict which would save more, and two experts said neither plan can save nearly as much as the candidates claim.

* Both Obama and Clinton twisted the other’s words about support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, again. In fact, the candidates have practically identical positions. They both said during the debate that they would threaten to withdraw from NAFTA unless Mexico and Canada agree to new and tougher terms.

* Clinton said Obama once "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan," a distortion of his statement that he'd unilaterally "take out" al Qaeda leadership there if Pakistan wouldn't act. And that's just what the U.S. did earlier this month, according to news reports quoting official sources.

* Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon."

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

Desktop users

Mobile users



This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Forward to a Friend

Cook's Tour

Charlie Cook also takes a look ahead to November. He is always an interesting read. Try it out here.

Tactical Practical

Ron Brownstein does some numbers crunching and comes to this conclusion regarding Hillary: instead of a new house, it looks like curtains. His look ahead at an Obama- McCain fight provides some interesting contrasts between the candidates.Read it here.

Debating Debates

I’ll leave it to the paid pundits to determine who won last night's debate between Hillary and Barack. This morning I ask myself this question: what constitutes ”winning”?

Are the candidates trying to hit each other over the head with facts so that some independent judge can render a final score, just like in high school?

Are the candidates simply trying to project an image of being “presidential”, of being calm, controlled, in command and unflustered in the face of an opponent’s attack?

Are the candidates trying to reach voters to sway them to come over to their side? If they are, how many people are watching? Why are they watching? Are they watching a debate to see if one candidate commits a fatal gaffe, like Gerald Ford claiming Poland was not behind the Iron Curtain? Is it a political version of NASCAR, just waiting for the inevitable blood?

Any thoughts?

Hillary's Hissy-Fit

Watching the debate. Hillary just went off on Brian Williams for seeming to always getting the first question. She sounded positively paranoid and fearful. She referenced last week's Saturday Night Live skit that had the media as positively ga-ga over Obama. I've got to admit that she sounds like chalk on a blackboard while Obama sounds so smooth. Reminds me of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, where people who listened to the debate over the radio thought Nixon had won , while television viewers said Kennedy won. In truth, television, as a medium of political communication, won that debate and forever changed American politics.

Michael Writes....

I am glad you have found your voice again. I have missed your
bloggings.

While I honestly believe McCain is the best candidate (given the
current choices), I do not believe a Republican can get elected.
While I believe, there is a large contingent in this country that are
not willing to vote for a black man or a woman of any hue, I do not
believe it is a large enough block of voters to overcome the backlash
that has built up over the last eight years. I think Nader's roll as
spoiler is overrated. He is even less of a political force (and a
bigger farce) than he was the last time. Any impact Ralph has will
be lost in the noise.

I almost believe it doesn't matter who the candidates are. I believe
the American people will vote against the party that currently holds
the Presidency. It will be for the following three reasons:

1) The ineffective management of the victory in Iraq (unable to
deliver on our promise of building a free and democratic country in
the middle east)
2) The current downturn in the economy and the debacle of sub-prime
mortgages
3) The Dems was robbed the last two times (I do not personally
subscribe to this last reason, but that is the great popular feeling
especially among blacks and latinos

Again, I am glad you are back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael,

Thanks for your most kind comments.

Unlike some other bloggers who are compelled to add something to their sites each time they sneeze, I don't want to write unless I have something to say. The political noise was overwhelming for a while and I just wanted to back off and sort things out. The lack of pressure is one of the great advantages of writing my own blog. I remember those days from many years ago when I had a deadline every half hour and take my word for it, this is a lot better; the pay may be lousy but I like management.

On politics, please note that I have very few problems with Sen. McCain. I think he has the potential to be what I call an "Eisenhower Republican", an old fashioned, pragmatic conservative who is not controlled by the right wing nuts of the Republican party. McCain has made some major blunders, such as being part of the Keating Five. For a guy who likes to proclaim his high ethical standards, this is fodder for the opposition.

His self-touted credentials as a political maverick don't really hold up. Let's look at one egregious example. In the North Carolina primary in 2004, McCain was subjected to one of the worst political smears which was conducted by the Bush men, a claim that McCain had fathered a black child when the fact was he adopted a sicklyBangladeshi orphan. Subsequently, after McCain dropped out of the race, he hugged Bush during a campaign appearance. Well,it was a lot more than a hug. It sort of reminded me of Sammy Davis Jr.'s Steppin Fetchit portrayal during his visit to Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.

If you consider my basic premise that most voters are more concerned about which candidate gives them the "warm fuzzies" versus an analysis of a candidates positions, then McCain is in trouble in a match-up with Obama. McCain is a crusty old coot and he will not look good or sound good on a stage next to Obama.

But a week is an eternity in politics and so much can happen. Will the war in Iraq blow up again? Will the Fed continue to prop up the economy to give a Republican candidate a fighting chance? Will any more photos surface of Barack Obama looking silly in native dress? (He reminded me of Michael Dukakis riding that tank.) Politicians can withstand almost any assault, but they can not afford to be laughed at.


Thanks again for your kind comments.

TRM

Leftist Paranoia

A friend told me today not to discount the theory that GE, through its subsidiary NBC, booked Ralph Nader on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday for nefarious reason. He claimed GE wanted to give Nader more publicity so that he could get publicity for his campaign, thereby eroding support for either Democratic candidate, thus ensuring a Republican victory in November.

Uhhh, interesting.

With Friends Like These....

Louis Farrakhan says Barack Obama is the next great black hope. I'm sure the Obama people will go to court to obtain an order of protection to make sure that Farrakhan comes no closer to Barack than a global hemisphere.

Then this story made me ill.Really just churned my stomach.

On the other hand, a NYTIMES/CBS poll shows Obama as most likely the candidate with the better chance to beat McCain. Men strongly back Obama. Women had been supporting Hillary, but that support seems to be eroding.

As I previously noted, I believe that a significant number of people polled might say that they could, or would, vote for either Obama or Hillary in a general election; I have to polling proof to support my gut feeling , but I do believe that many people, despite what they tell pollsters at this point, will not vote for either a black man or a white woman.So at this moment, I say that, barring anything unusual happening from now until the election, Obama doesn't have as much support as he might think.

Bang! Zoom! To the Moon, Alice! Not Now, Ralph!

Well, well, well. MSNBC reports Ralph Nader is going to announce another run for the presidency.I make this out to be very, very, very, bad news for the Democrats.

Prior to today's announcement, I saw a very close race between John McCain and either Democrat, Hillary or Barack, with McCain barely beating Hillary and a coin-flip against Barack. With Ralph in the race, he surely will take back his whack-pack of voters who would otherwise vote for the Democrat candidate. In a close race, the Democrat has fewer votes, and a greater chance of losing. This is what happened in 2000, when many people still blame Nader for siphoning off enough potential Gore voters to tilt the balance in favor of Bush. it might happen again. John McClain , your prayers have been answered!

I suggest that all dictionaries publish a photo of Nader right next to their definition of "megalomaniac".

Election Choices?

Let me get this straight. Our election choices will boil down to either:

a. one of the most polarizing and cynical political figures;

b. an empty suit who makes great speeches but who has a questionable political history;

c. a "maverick" who has been involved in political scandal.

And my friends thought I was crazy for voting for John Edwards even though he had dropped out of the race!

Sheesh!

FROM NYC LIB

Do you really think the Repubs hold onto all the states Bush won in 2004? Only Ohio needs to flip; let alone that FL, NM, CO, IA and MO are all in play. And, which state do you project falls from 2004 blue to red in 2008?

February 3, 2008 5:44 PM

TARGET: OBAMA

Nice that Barack Obama gets a free pass from all the media on the substantive elements of his proposals. The only one I've seen to call him out on his health care idea is Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.

Today's Times has a little exploration on a legislative item for which Barack takes some major league credit. It turns out that the self-congratulations are unearned.

Too bad Edwards pulled the plug on his campaign before getting a chance on super duper whoop de doo Tuesday. I suspect that his campaign coffers were drained to the point where he would have been unable to mount any significant advertising effort.

The poor liberals are confused. My friend, NY LIB, doesn't know whom to vote for (just for the record, he voted for Nader in '00, because he claimed Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", both were big time pols in the pockets of big business. With his vote, and others who thought like him, he ensured the election of "Tweedledumbest"!). So NY LIB believes Obama lies too much and isn't progressive enough, and Hillary is "Republican Lite" (Hey, the left really loves that term. If you are not in total agreement with their "progressive" agenda- another term I absolutely loathe- or if you are capable of compromising, then you are "Republican Lite". don't deal with the issue, just denounce those who disagree as being in the enemy camp. Great Stalinist tactic!


What's a liberal to do? (Uh oh! Ralph is considering running again! HELP!)

LOOKING FORWARD

The Democratic Party is about to take an historic step by nominating either a woman or a black man as it presidential candidate. The times they are a'changin'.. but watch out, cause they may not be a'changin' that much.

I have a very liberal friend who believes that this election will be a slam-dunk for the Democrats and, like most extremists of either party, he refuses to listen to any counter-argument.

I've taken a look at the possibilities and the strongest candidate the Republicans have is John McCain. Let's examine why.

The president is chosen by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. That being said, the Democratic candidate has to win significantly more votes in delegate rich states that went for George Bush in 2004, and Florida and Ohio are the prime targets. The Democratic candidate will have to pull at least all the votes that John Kerry did, and since I don't believe the Messiah has yet come, a certain number of those voters will not vote for either a woman or a black man, despite what they might tell pollsters. So I see a certain slippage there. Further, I don't believe that anyone stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004 will suddenly become enlightened enough to vote for either Obama or Hillary.

Hillary is a polarizing figure. She will not show a net gain in the women's vote (if such a thing exists) because while some love her, an equal number despise her. Other people do not want to see a reprise of the emotional melodrama that was the first Clinton administration.

Obama will gain many voters for his historic position, but likewise he will lose some Kerry votes simply because he is black. And don't think the Republicans will let the electorate forget that his middle name is Hussein, thereby stirring up anti-Muslim fears.

On the other hand, if McCain becomes the Republican candidate, many possibilities open for him. It really is mind-boggling. The right hates McCain. The left hates McCain. That means that a lot of people who really matter in a general election, the centrists of both parties, have someone to vote for. Did you see where Ann Coulter says she will vote for HIllary rather than McCain because Hilllary is more conservative than McCain is? How about the article in yesterday's New York Times that indicated many right wingers were forcing themselves to re-examine their opposition to McCain because he will be the only one they might be able to vote for.

McCain will be a formidable candidate. He has many characteristics that appeal to a lot of voters: naval aviator, war hero, two term congressman, three term senator. He has credentials as an old line Republican but he also has a history of pragmatism. He worked with liberal Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He wanted a more liberal immigration policy. He believes that global warming must be combated. He is against torture of prisoners suspected of terrorism while he believes the war must be prosecuted fully. He is an old fashioned tax cutter.

Against this the Democrats will have a one-term senator whose main claim to fame is his race and his opposition to the Iraq war and the Hillary show.

Dems, you will have a battle on your hands.

TAKING STOCK

It's been a while since my last post, so let's take a look back and see how well I did as a prognosticator.

I predicted Al Gore would not run for election, despite so many Democrats proclaiming him the savior of the party. He didn't. Chalk one up for me.

I predicted that John McCain's candidacy was dead in the water. My bad!

I predicted that the voters would reject Rudy Giuliani once they got to know him. That's another one for me.

So I figure I'm batting .666. Thats a Hall of Fame batting average if ever there was one.