CitizenSugar -- Breaking News, Together.

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the Last Presidential Debate

CitizenSugar — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:45:25 -0700

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the Last Presidential Debate They may have very well saved the best for last. This was the most direct, most on task, most like an actual conversation debate we've had thus far. And not a moment too soon. The candidates were juxtaposed beautifully and answered questions not only on specific policies, but on the conduct of their campaigns. It was nail-biting, uncomfortable at times, but deftly handled by moderator Bob Schieffer. Check out what we thought.

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the Last Presidential Debate

CitizenSugar — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:37:58 -0700

They may have very well saved the best for last. This was the most direct, most on task, most like an actual conversation debate we've had thus far. And not a moment too soon. The candidates were juxtaposed beautifully and answered questions not only on specific policies, but on the conduct of their campaigns. It was nail-biting, uncomfortable at times, but deftly handled by moderator Bob Schieffer. Here's what we thought:

Citizen: Wearing each other's "team" ties in what I hoped was a nod toward cooperation, the economy was ripped open right at the start. Both candidates spoke straight at the camera, directly it seemed, to me. It was eerie and wildly effective, with Joe the Plumber becoming an instantaneous celebrity, the cornerstone of their duel over small business taxes. Earmarks and pork barrel and budget overruns, oh my. I do like Obama's line of needing a "scalpel, not a hatchet," if only because it comforts me that he intends to cut spending as well.

When Schieffer pinned the candidates down on the negative aspects of the campaign I was breathless. It was baldly frank (seeming, I mean it is politics) talk, and when McCain whipped out the stat that Obama had spent the most money on negative campaign ads, it hit home — but was parried well by Obama's stat that six in 10 perceive McCain as negative. Then, the politest knock down-drag out on Ayers and ACORN. We knew it was coming all day, but when it did it was all the more potent. When Roe v. Wade popped up, I was actually heartened to hear civilized talk of the difference between choosing judges for their ideologies, and choosing judges for their adherence to the Constitution — it could be the most cogent debate on the issue we've had thus far.

To see the rest of my thoughts, and what Liberty has to say,

Debate Rebate: Reactions to the Second Presidential Debate

CitizenSugar — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:53:44 -0700

The much be-hyped town hall debate brought the candidates close together on the bright red carpet, the people closer to the candidates, and perhaps the undecideds closer to a decision? Between the discussion happening here, and the sparkily veiled tension on the stage, how did this match up fare? Here's what we thought:

Citizen:
The biggest shot in the arm this debate format provided was bringing the issues down to the individual level. The audience was intimate and the scrutiny felt equally as close — both from the questioners and Tom Brokaw, who proved to be a ruthless but level moderator. I was nervous about the "real people" questions (you saw the snowman debacle, I don't always like a Pro-Am) but some of them were great.

One in particular from an 80-year-old who lived through the Great Depression — she asked what kind of sacrifice we as Americans should make that wasn't just the blood of our Armed Forces. McCain's answer focused on spending saying, "We're going to have to tell the American people that we're going to have to have a spending freeze. . . we can establish priorities and full transparency. . . and I'm going to tell you Americans that we'll get to work right away." Obama continued the answer speaking to civilian service and expanding the Peace Corps, a different take on it to be sure.

To see the rest of my thoughts and what Liberty had to say,

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the Big Biden vs. Palin

CitizenSugar — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:57:11 -0700

Whoa. That debate was like running a half-marathon at a 5k pace. It was hotly anticipated and proved to be even more intense than expected. Your fantastic comments during the debate came almost faster than the candidates' answers themselves. Here's what we thought of the big #2 showdown:

Citizen:
This was a fast and furious debate. It barely paused long enough to get questions uttered before zooming on. Perhaps the questions over Gwen Ifill's motives were wildly unnecessary as she was competent though mostly periphery to the sheer pace. The questions she asked were fair and the candidates only really loosely followed them anyway. Sarah Palin was firmly self-assured as soon as she settled in, and both Palin and Biden hammered home a 100-mile-an-hour back-up of the arguments for their respective presidential candidates, exactly what they were supposed to do.

Joe Biden brought a similar performance to what we're used to seeing from him, the wild card of course was Palin. Her grasp of foreign policy facts was bullet-point perfect tonight, and her accessibility and — I'll say it — personality really shone through. Republicans were facing an uphill climb, stymied a bit by recent poll numbers and Palin's interview performances — Palin took that challenge, and especially in the first half of the debate, hit it home.

To see the rest of my thoughts, and what Liberty has to say,

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the First Presidential Debate

CitizenSugar — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:54:16 -0700

Did you watch? Were you with us all commenting? If not, don't worry, here's the whole transcript of every word of the first presidential debate. Want to know what Liberty and I thought of the whole event? You're in luck!

Citizen:
First of all, Jim Lehrer did an excellent job. His ruthlessness and tenacity to get the straight, specific answer he was looking for, especially in regard to the economy, made his presence incredibly valuable. McCain stayed very consistently on message, railing against wasteful spending and solidifying his position against it. In terms of conflicts abroad, McCain's personal experience inside of Iraq gave him practical credence during the the segment on the wars, though Obama was very well prepared for it academically. I loved that McCain acknowledged history in terms of Afghanistan and the trouble caused by leaving the region before the job was finished early on, and he was clearly well focused on what needs to happen militarily in a global sense.

To see the rest of my thoughts, and what Liberty had to say,

Presidential Debates Coming to Twitter

CitizenSugar — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700

Presidential Debates Coming to Twitter Here are the pretty loose ground rules for the event, organized by Andrew Rasiej's Personal Democracy Forum: Sometime today, moderator Ana Marie Cox will start lobbing questions to two officially sanctioned stand-ins for the rival campaigns. The debate is supposed to focus exclusively on tech, but since it's completely in the hands of Ana Marie, best known as the original Wonkette, we're betting it's going to be quite lively.

Debate Rebate: Democrats Debate Scandals of the Campaign

LibertySugar — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:00:09 -0700

Well the debate got off to a hard-hitting start, discussing crucial issues facing America, including 1990s Bosnian sniper fire, Reverend Wright, and bitter-gate.

I found one of the early questions especially insightful. Moderator George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton adviser, asked Obama: "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" I immediately had a "what is going on here ahhhhhh!!??" moment.

After moving on from topics such as whether Obama "believes in the American Flag," ABC decided to bring up some legitimate issues.

Both candidates seemed dedicated to perusing a responsible policy toward Iran and the Middle East, which emphasizes diplomacy, but does not rule out any option. As for taxes, both candidates embrace a pay as you go fiscal policy, and would roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy, without raising taxes for the middle class.

Overall, both candidates seemed exhausted. The early debate about the campaign seemed to keep Obama on the defensive, and eager to get back to the issues. Even though Obama was a bit off, I'm not sure Hillary snuck through the cracks enough to stop him.

Who did you think was stronger on the issues? On the politics? Can you see these two holding hands at the Democratic Convention this summer? Did the utterly irrelevant questions drive you guys crazy, too?!

Source

Debate Rebate: Do the Differences Matter?

LibertySugar — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:30:19 -0800

Liberty: Last night in Ohio, the sparring over health care revealed a genuine policy difference as well as a genuine difference of debate style. Hillary's plan is more pure. A mandate would cover many more people. Barack's plan is a little more convoluted. He must explain — if mandates are so bad, why does he have them for children?

But, I felt that Hillary's point got lost in her delivery and her frustration was palpable. Hillary attempted to highlight the merits of her plan:

We have enough money in our plan. A comparison of the plans . . . found that actually I would cover nearly everybody at a much lower cost than Senator Obama's plan because we would not only provide these health care tax credits, but I would limit the amount of money that anyone ever has to pay for a premium to a low percentage of your income. So it will be affordable.

Wow. Those are strong, but complicated, arguments. And, Barack continued to dodge a square punch. To see how

Debate Rebate: Putting the Oh! in the Ohio Faceoff

CitizenSugar — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:00:23 -0800

So yes, last night was the big 2-0. The 20th Democratic debate of this election. And though there were, shall we say, instant replays of answers and sound bites we've seen before, Liberty and I have ransacked the transcript looking for those two exchanges that made us sit up and say "oh!" Here's mine; Liberty's is coming soon!

Citizen: I'm going to call it the "first lady question that launched a Russert naildown of NAFTA positions." During the "potentially embarrassing videos" portion of the evening, Obama's video showed him criticizing Clinton of claiming a "co-presidency" during her years as first lady. When asked to respond, Obama made me sit up and take note. He said,

I have not in any way said that experience is not relevant, and I don't begrudge her claiming that as experience. What I've said, and what I would continue to maintain, is you can't take credit for all the good things that happened but then, when it comes to issues like NAFTA, you say, well, I — behind the scenes, I was disagreeing. That doesn't work. So you have to, I think, take both responsibility as well as credit.

This idea sparked a little discussion in the comments last night. I think it highlights a prickly position for both, especially as the concept of "experience" is hotly contested. While I think the fact that Barack brought it up at all does give credence to the notion that perhaps first lady doesn't count as experience (despite his actual position), it puts Hillary in a tough position. To see if "first lady" should make Hillary's resume,

Debate Rebate: Does This Mean Hillary Won?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:00:22 -0800

Warning! What follows is purely opinion. I'm sure there are quite a few out there who will disagree . . . Let us know, won't you?

Citizen: There's a fairytale that tells the story of a leader who is so taken with the creation of his own image, and his supporters are so equally under his spell, that they'll let him walk around naked, rather than disavow him of the idea that he's wearing a beautiful suit of silken threads. That story haunted me last night.

My mission last night was to watch Barack Obama. (Liberty and I each picked a candidate we weren't voting for, to try to glean a little perspective.) And I tried. Oh, lord did I try. In the harsh light of day, even while the replay of the debate flickers in my face, I'm left empty. I'm not entirely convinced that Obama's continual refrain of "I agree with Senator Clinton" is the basis for a strong case for nomination.

And I admit: I peeked. I paid rapt attention to every detailed, feasible plan Hillary laid forth. Her unflappable competence was more compelling to me than a truckload of platitudes. I listened to Hillary, and though my vote isn't hers, I agree with and apply this, her final sentiment from last night: If Hillary is elected, we will be fine. America will be fine.

After the convention, if Obama walks away with the nomination, I fear his candidacy will be the ultimate political embodiment of The Emperor's New Clothes. His beautiful words nothing but a transparent silken suit, his followers left to choose a man naked of plan and experience because, well, he just looked so darn good on the rack.

Liberty: So, the big Xerox comment . . . Meh? I don't feel as heated as some about the whole "plagiarizing" debate. I assume that an army of advisers and speech writers are contributing to each candidate's material. Did Hillary write the Xerox comment herself? Given the uncomfortable delivery of the YouTube follow-up, it's doubtful. I know it's different than Obama pulling complete passages, but come on — the "silly season" comment stands. Is this the kind of stuff Americans care about?

But now that it's the reigning soundbite, Hillary should use the attention the Xerox zinger got to drive home the idea that Obama lacks substance. Clinton's ability to express distilled yet comprehensive plans that will address specific problems seriously impressed me.

Overall, I left wanting more. Nothing new came out. I know they disagree about a healthcare mandate. I know Barack was against the war, and Hillary voted for it. My parting sentiment mirrored that of Hillary's — My vote has already been cast, it's almost over, and I just hope that whatever happens, as a nation, we will soon roll up our sleeves and start solving problems.

For pointed video of Hillary "recycling" a few campaign sentiments of her own, and the actual quote of Hillary's "Xerox" comment,

Missed the Debate? Here's the Ultimate Cheat-Sheet

CitizenSugar — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:45:08 -0800

Everyone around you is talking about the presidential debate last night and the "Xerox comment heard 'round the world," and you're baffled? Never fear! The New York Times Transcript Analyzer feature practically watches the debate for you, explains the finer points over a nice dinner, and might rub your feet if you're lucky. Okay, not really — but it does have an entire rollover transcript, second-by-second, searchable by word.

Search "Xerox" and up pops a little marker on the exact time it was uttered, how many times, and by whom. It was exactly once, by Hillary Clinton at 51:38, but that one mention is clearly the go-to soundbite from the debate today. Liberty and I will be back in a bit with our reactions, but in the meantime, go check it out. Ooh, and there's video too . . .

Source

Debate Rebate: Democratic Debate the Morning After

LibertySugar — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:45:30 -0800

The congenial tone of last night's debate genuinely knocked my socks off. Thanks for tuning in with me! While I'm still undecided, there was one clear winner: the Democratic Party.

Here's the exchange that really got me thinking: the debate about Iraq. Now, I don't hold Hillary's tortured authorization vote against her, but I found Barack's stance completely compelling. During a monumentally difficult time he had the clarity of judgment to see the folly of starting an unprovoked war, and the leadership to publicly take an unpopular position. Last night he one upped Clinton's standard of "being ready on day one" to an even more important qualification, being right on day one.

Overall I thought Hillary had a wildly strong night. She was likable, knowledgeable, and turned troublesome subjects — like the Bush and Clinton dynasties — into light moments. But, did anyone else feel like Barack convinced them that good judgment is just as important as experience, if not more?

With only a few days before Super Tuesday, I need to make up my mind — fast! Anyone else out there undecided? Anyone want to persuade me one way or the other?

And if you want to read the GOP's playful response to the debate,

Debate Rebate: Republican Sparks Fly in California

CitizenSugar — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:03:40 -0800

A bunch of you watched last night's Republican debate last night with me — and there certainly seemed to be at least one thing that annoyed you: When Anderson Cooper got up from his desk, walked over to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, bound and gagged them, kicked them a little bit, then spent five minutes pointing and laughing at them. Okay, not really, but the lack of time given to any candidate other than McCain or Romney was definitely a sticking point for a lot of you. Understandable.

Here are the burrs under my saddle from last night's debate:

Romney and McCain's clash over Iraq was handled very poorly. If Anderson had forced them to speak one at a time, perhaps we could have better parsed for ourselves whether Romney indeed supports a timetable for withdrawal, or if John McCain was indulging in the "dirty tricks" Romney accused him of by bringing it up. Instead, we got five minutes of nonsensical screaming about people "laying in the reeds."
Now, I've decided where my vote is going next Tuesday, but this distinction still caught my attention: McCain said that Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts, Romney called them fees, and then further explained that he had raised prices on some services like highway signs that hadn't been raised in years, in order to generate funds for the state. It made me wish that there was more room for subtlety with Republicans and taxes. I don't mind giving money to my government, as long as they spend it frugally and wisely. Let's not make it such a litmus test of conservatism, please.

If you want to know the biggest groaner of all,

Debate Rebate: Republicans Sneaky Strategy in Boca Raton?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:28 -0800

Q: What's served in Florida, starts early, and tastes a little bland?

A: No, silly, it's not the early-bird special. It's last night's Republican Debate!

After Monday's brawl of a Democratic knock-down, I was all set for the Republicans to shock us. If not a bold statement, then maybe a little shoving match. Come on! Throw us a bone! Though, maybe to the credit of the Republicans, adult behavior, decorum, and respect for the democratic process, reigned. The debate was measured, stayed far from personal attacks, and focused on the issues, perhaps to the detriment of uncovering new info. At least on the surface. The real story of last night was way under the radar.

With help from tiff58, and divinedebris, we sleuthed out anwers to the following: Was a special someone (or two?) running for vice president? Did someone replace Mike Huckabee with John Edwards? And what was the deal with the mysterious whisper during a Mitt Romney answer? To find out,

Debate Rebate: Democrats Get Personal

LibertySugar — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:05:52 -0800

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got feisty at last night’s debate. On Dr. King’s holiday, the issue of race, previously dogging the candidates, provided fewer fireworks than the onslaught of some brand new personal attacks.
Some highlights — Obama challenged Clinton's dedication to the poor:

While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

Next, he went after Bill Clinton, implying that the Clinton machine has been dishonest, and venting that he “can’t tell who [he's] running against sometimes.”

Hillary took some swipes, too, accusing Obama of representing a "slumlord" when he was a lawyer in Chicago, and accused the Illinois senator of not answering for his record. The Clinton-Obama exchanges let Edwards appear as an issue-focused candidate:

This kind of squabbling — how many children is this going to get health care? We have got to understand this is not about us personally.

Amen, John! For more on the democratic heat in South Carolina,

Debate Rebate: Repubs Rock 'Em Sock 'Em

CitizenSugar — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:04:34 -0800

In the Granite State. It's New Hampshire, baby! Double the debates! Two, two, two parties on one night!!! The Republicans were up first, and it was a sit-down affair, (apparently I should have dressed up!) Six candidates: McCain, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, Paul, and Huckabee, sat down with moderator (more or less) Charlie Gibson to dish the dirt. Here are the highlights:

Well, if they agree on nothing else, everyone hates Mitt Romney. Or at least that's how it seemed as the candidates grabbed chance after chance to slam Romney with doozies like:
"Governor, don't try to characterize my postion." said Romney.
"Which one?" Snapped back Huckabee. Oh yeah. It's on.
Then this from John McCain:
"We disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree, you are the candidate of change."
The barbs could mean that the candidates perceive Romney as the frontrunner—or they could just be trying to point out the inconsistent snake-oil that Romney's been dealing lately. Your choice.
Foreign policy, specifically Huckabee's comment on the Bush doctrine being an example of "arrogant, bunker-mentality," dominated the first part of the discussion. Huckabee clarified (or back-pedaled) on his statement, while McCain and Giuliani both expressed their intentions to strengthen military independence and strength. Thompson came back with a surprisingly cogent description of his experience in foreign policy. Okay, I might get why he slid in third in Iowa.
Border-security received the most nuanced policy debate, with McCain essentially saying, 'Lock down the borders, kick out the criminal illegals, and offer a temporary worker solution. God's children, but we have to be safe. So bothsies.' and Giuliani advocated for technology and fences of all descriptions.

Where were the Democrats? Please