Edwards Debate Performance Wows CNN And Fox Focus Groups
Though the exchange between Hillary and Obama at the debate was most attention grabbing to the media, it was John Edwards who most impressed the voters who were assembled by CNN and Fox News to gauge reaction.
The Edwards campaign sends over this quote from CNN's Mary Snow, announcing that Edwards won the network's session:
Twenty-three registered Democrats came in here undecided. We asked them who they felt performed the best in this debate and they concluded they felt that John Edwards performed the best, with Senator Clinton right behind him.
Meanwhile, ABC News' Rick Klein kept an eye on the Fox News dial sessions with voters and says that Edwards' answers repeatedly drove voter responses high up and off the charts, live-blogging as follows:
Here's Edwards shooting broad once again – ‘join together to take this democracy and take this country back.’ At least the fourth time he's sounded that theme -- if you're an angry Iowan, you've got to love that message. And the Fox dialers certainly do."
...and, later:
Fox News is doing running dial-testing -- and John Edwards is quite literally off the charts with that answer about the tax system being rigged.”
So these voters, at least, call it for Edwards.
Late Update: In fairness, Obama also earned high marks from Fox's focus groups.
Comments (97)
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:obama's numbers start to edge up and here comes the edwards talk....hey, at least it's not the blatant shilling for hrc i usually read here. thanks for keeping us up to speed greg
WHAT A PHONEY ACCENT wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:It was the hair cut
and 2000.00 wingtips
Geek, Esq. wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:I watched the Luntz focus group, and Obama was at least a co-winner.
Hillary, on the other hand, lost.
votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:10 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Well I didn't get to see any of the post-debate wrap-ups that you are refering to, but there is a clip on YouTube showing a very positive reaction from assembled voters to Obama on Fox News ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdaROq57qsg ). Not sure how that jibes with your story. It was also quite negative on Hillay. Maybe they discussed Edwards before or after this clip?
loki wrote on December 13, 2007 5:11 PM:If anybody was looking for something to knock the Clinton/Obama snit off the pages...this might do the trick.
"pages" ????? wrote on December 13, 2007 5:16 PM:loki
Who the hell watches fox news except for
christain right
What "pages" are you referring to.
nogo war wrote on December 13, 2007 5:18 PM:The sheep are beginning to look up.
When the sheep at Fox look up that is important. John and Elizabeth along with the Obama's will be the change.
An Edwards/Obama ticket would restore my faith.
If the media gives Edwards any attention at all it will propel him to the nomination because he's the only one talking about helping regular people in this country.
The two overblown egos driving the Hillary and Barack pissing contest have little or nothing to offer the average American except mealy mouthed rhetoric about change. The more they carp and snipe at eachother the better Edwards will look to voters because he's talking about them instead of himself as the other two are.
Edwards actually wants to fight for change and help average people. Go Edwards!
bob smith wrote on December 13, 2007 5:19 PM:what a great new ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBPMKyyaBA
Edwards is a fake Rich boy wrote on December 13, 2007 5:23 PM:-
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:25 PM:That is the thing about populist rhetoric--it tends to be very popular.
Note that isn't a dig at Edwards. But I do think the central question for his candidacy is whether his populist rhetoric will translate into enough votes.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:25 PM:sure, go edwards, but its annoying that more people dont see this for what it is....greg shilling for hrc (what a surprise). i thought we were smarter than them?
a fake Rich Trail Lawyer wrote on December 13, 2007 5:25 PM:-
who worked in a lawyer factory wrote on December 13, 2007 5:26 PM:-
Madorsky wrote on December 13, 2007 5:28 PM:I am not an Edward supporter, or a fan (he might be my last choice, not counting Kucinich/Gravel), but I agree he performed excellently today.
Don't think this debate changed the field of play, though, which means it will be an exciting tossup until Caucus Night.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:30 PM:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/live-blogging-the-democratic-debate-4/
Oscar wrote on December 13, 2007 5:31 PM:Edwards will win Iowa. He is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate.
Pandora wrote on December 13, 2007 5:35 PM:I hope Edwards wins in Iowa. That will the end of Obama..
Sherry Rogers-Frost wrote on December 13, 2007 5:37 PM:I hope at last the media will start paying attention to what Edwards has been saying! We no longer have a democracy - policy is decided by the corporations with their lobbyists. They even _write_ the legislation to "help" the Congress. One could pray that Edwards gets elected, but I just hope that the media will pick up on his message and let the public know that it isn't crazy alone when they think they have lost voting control over our government.
Edwards will win Iowa. He is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate.
"Most Electable" gave us John Kerry last time.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:38 PM:Pandora,
As I have noted before, I don't think anyone really knows what will happen if Edwards-Obama-Clinton finish 1-2-3 in Iowa.
Zach wrote on December 13, 2007 5:38 PM:Clearly Luntz' silly dials put in front of focus groups gathered from exactly where no one knows are worth reporting on. Even better to reference by hearsay. I'm pretty certain Hillary was way up on Obama in Luntz' group when she piled on him about meeting w/ NK/Iran/Syria, too. That panned out. Every segment I've seen him do is him focusing on quick jumps stemming from emotional pleas. He's invested in proving that sound bites = success (ie words that work), but there's little correlation b/w his focus groups' determined winners and reality.
Bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 5:43 PM:Errr....I just watched most of the focus group session and Hillary was totally panned. She had like 11 or 12 supporters going in and only 2 said she won. The whole group was way down on here, they unanimoously practically shouted that the drug thing was "dirty politics," she was called "tired" and "status quo" while Obama was called "fearless" and they cited that he has "less political baggage." I agree Edwards probably had the best overall response, but between Hill and O, there was absolutely no comparison and this site is really dropping it's credibility. By show of hands, I'd say 80 or 90% responded that they felt better about O than they did going in.
agfalk wrote on December 13, 2007 5:47 PM:yeah this is completely bunk....call it for edwards based on two focus groups from fox and cnn, now thats crack journalism greg!
Daniel wrote on December 13, 2007 5:50 PM:Every candidate was right on message and people's impressions are likely to be confirmed. Insofar as Clinton needed a strong showing that would slow down talk of her slide and vulnerabilities, she got it. Insofar as Obama wanted to avoid major showdowns that could reverse the storyline of his momentum, he got that too. And insofar as Edwards's hope in the next three weeks is to capture the spirit of Iowa nice, he still has every chance of prevailing on January 3rd.
Read the full analysis here.
MIRROR LAWYER wrote on December 13, 2007 5:50 PM:Edwards I fear will spend so much time in front of the mirror he would not get anything done as president.
And then we got that whole picking out his shoes thing which will take time.
And then the hairdresser.
We just simply don't have the time
sary wrote on December 13, 2007 6:23 PM:Mirror Lawyer, Jealous, much?
Seems kind of pathalogical and obsessive.
Why don't you go back to your closet and try on your Ann Coulter outfits.
Looks like some Hillary shills on this thread are very unhappy with the current state of affairs. Aaaaaaaw!
John Edwards is more real than any other candidate. He made his money on his own and he worked his way up from nothing. Now that he's rich he's doing what our greatest Democratic leaders such as FDR, JFK, RFK, and other priveleged people have done: he's standing up for regular people. That's something that neither Her Majesty nor Sen. Obama are doing from their middle of the road, corporate Democratic positions.
So, be nasty all ya want Hillary folk. It's what you've wanted to do and be all along anyway isn't it? Sure it is. It will be cathartic for you to just admit it and move on cause guess what? She's toast!
Hank Essay wrote on December 13, 2007 7:01 PM:But I thought Edwards got a haircut and lives in a nice house.
ribbit.
Maxwell wrote on December 13, 2007 7:05 PM:It's just jaw-busting at this point that TPM footnotes these articles with a one-liner linking to video of the actual response of the focus group. And prefaces the statement with "In fairness..."
You gotta be kidding me.
"So these voters, at least, call it for Edwards."
Actually, no. When asked who they intend to caucus for, at least half the crowd indicated Obama. Let's indeed be fair.
Wordie wrote on December 13, 2007 7:05 PM:I thought Edwards won too, as he just seemed to connect more than the others. Still, I was very surprised to see that the Fox focus group had the same impression, which seems significant in terms of Edwards' ability to attract non-Dem voters.
But the media coverage after the debate seems more focused on the Shaheen drug comments (not to mention the baseball report - did MSNBC really postpone the debate coverage to air the commission news conference?)
Actually I thought all the candidates did very well, and in the "second tier," especially Dodd. The comment by Obama about Biden seemed statesmanlike.
ok sary wrote on December 13, 2007 7:08 PM:Sary, Your right,
but you gotta spend two hours every morning laying out his suits,
and ironing his jeans
Edwards will win Iowa. He is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate.
By taking federal matching funds Edwards has put himself at a real disadvantage if he is the nominee. There are limits to how much money he can raise and spend and the Republican nominee will likely not have such limitations.
The nominees are likely to be known after Feb 5th when there are a whole slew of primaries, including big states like California and New York. If Edwards is the Dem nominee he'll have to stretch his dollars from February thru August. The Republicans will spend seven months hammering him and he'll be too ill funded by comparison to respond effectively. The 527's would certainly jump in and help him out, but it's not the same as having a well funded campaign.
Because of this, I think Edwards is actually undesirable as the nominee. I think the money problem makes him unelectable. Why pick a nominee that has such an obvious and serious liability?
DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 7:33 PM:I mean for god's sake, when you click on the link the title of the video is "Focus group discusses Obama's success." The vote breakdown was probably something like 15 for Obama, 13 for Edwards and 2 for Clinton. If Edwards won among that group, I didn't see it watching them discuss it.
That said, Frank Luntz was spinning the shit outta that room. Did you see then end when he "forgot" to ask how many were caucusing for Edwards and fucking Brit Hume had to remind him...Fox is such a joke.
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 7:37 PM:Whether or not you think Edwards won the debate, one thing is clear, nothing he said changed the media narrative. He's not getting any "Mo" off of this debate or changing the two-person nature of the discussion--both of which he sorely needs.
It's 2007/2008, if you think we are going to see a repeat of 2004 you don't know much about Iowa Caucuses.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 7:39 PM:Any enterprise that involves Frank Luntz should be immediately suspect and taken with a whole bag of salt. Honest focus group researchers spend a lot of time learning how not to unconsciously "coach" a group by inadvertently dropping cues about the answer they're looking for and falling prey to people's natural inclination to be helpful. But that's only if you're looking for an honest result.
There is simply no question that guy like Luntz, who is the Republican party's absolute, unrivaled, premier spinmeister, can get easily get a roomful of people to give him any answer he's looking for. So the only question would be, what answer is he looking for? An honest, unbiased result, or something more specific?
This is the guy who came up with some of Republican's greatest hits including:
"The Death Tax"
"Partial-birth Abortion"
"Tax Relief" (a.k.a. tax cuts for the rich)
"Marriage Penalty"
"Personal Accounts" (social security privatization)
and who could forget perhaps his crowning achievement, "9/11 Changed Everything!"
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Debra wrote on December 13, 2007 8:09 PM:That's right, Edwards won the debate. More importantly he has consistently put forward a platform that advances all working people. We need change and we need it in actions, Edwards has proven he is willing to do that.
Pandora wrote on December 13, 2007 8:23 PM:DTM,
If Edwards win over Obama in Iowa and Hillary comes in 3rd the talk on MSM will be Obama's loss and not Hillary's 2nd or 3rd place.
There are 6 likely scenarios
1. Hillary-Obama-Edwards
2. Hillary-Edwards-Obama
3. Edwards-Hillary-Obama
4. Edwards-Obama-Hillary
5. Obama-Edwards-Hillary
6. Obama-Hillary-Edwards
Hillary would likely prefer Obama to come in 3rd but it is probably won't happen. But I believe with so much hype around Obama in recent weeks he has to win in Iowa. He is in a position that Hillary was few months ago. The pressure is clearly on him to win.
I think it is going to come down to 2nd choice and 15% rule. Its going to come down to 2nd choice of people voting for Biden and Richardson because it is unlikely that either of them will cross 15%. Second choice of Obama or Edwards is likely going to be for each other but it won't matter because both of them will get more than 15% vote. If I understand correctly in Iowa second choice of only those candidate that get less than 15% vote is counted. I could be wrong so in correction will be appreciated.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 8:27 PM:If any winner, Obama clearly did it. It showed clarity, vision and was particular decisif when asked the question about advisors.
He showed that he thinks on his feet. I was really touched by the fact that he said that Biden's heart is on the right side of the issue. It just showed that the guy is there to solve the problem of the american people and is less interested in sliding mud to other people and in personal ambition.
I liked the candidate performances but HRC because she doesn't seem smart. She doesn't have vision, she just parse the answers, she recites her talking points.
She was just too scripted in my view.
But Barack Obama clearly won the debate.
Go Obama hiiiiiihiii 2008.
C'mon admit it, DTM. Some of these people make you want to hurl, too.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 8:58 PM:Pandora,
The 15% rule is applied in each precinct, and in fact is higher than 15% in some (up to 25% I believe). So, all the second choice trends can matter, because in some precincts even the top people statewide might be under the viability cutoff. Conversely, the people under 15% statewide will likely be over the cutoff in some precincts.
Anyway, I understand you hope that would be the press narrative after such a scenario. But with all the framing of this as a Clinton-Obama contest, and with Edwards being the original favorite in Iowa, I think it is equally plausible that the press would view that outcome as at least a partial victory for Obama.
But the only real way to find out is if it happens.
savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 8:59 PM:Post Debate focus group says Obama won.
http://howieinseattle.blogspot.com/
what is up with this TPM-EC with these horrible headlines for Obama and completely ignoring the focus group until they add it as an UPDATE? wtf
CalD,
Which people?
john mccutchen wrote on December 13, 2007 9:14 PM:Wonder why no mention of the Hillary reaction in Fox Focus Group?
[Mrs. Bill]seemed tired and scripted
Lipstick on a pig
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:18 PM:All the cute little Obama bunnies.
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:23 PM:The czar of Iowa political reporting has spoken. The official winner of today's debate was (drum roll, please):
Joe Biden
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 9:30 PM:CalD,
I'm honestly not sure what you mean.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 9:34 PM:By the way, I'm not sure there is debate Biden hasn't won.
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:38 PM:David Yepsen, of course.
And/or "hurl" = barf.
PS: In honor of the annual war on Xmas* , I have decided to change my name to XalD -- substituting the "C" for an "X," (a.k.a., the Greek letter "Chi") -- until further notice.
Happy Holidays to all!
* (also because I typed it by mistake just now and thought it looked cool.)
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:41 PM:I really only like watching Meet the Press when Biden is on. I just love that startled, cow-eyed look little Russ gets when Biden hands him his ass.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 9:42 PM:"Hurl" and "czar of Iowa political reporting" I got. "Obama bunnies", not so much.
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:46 PM:Sure, DTM. Whatever you say.
john mccutchen wrote on December 13, 2007 9:47 PM:Winner?
Obama?
Edwards?
Biden?
LOSER - Mrs. Bill hands down
Brunehilde she's a change agent
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:58 PM:Of course some of them aren't really all that cute.
GMFORD wrote on December 13, 2007 10:10 PM:Did anyone see the Daily Kos poll? Someone broke it down to see who Kos readers really thought won the poll.
First they did a straw poll before the debates to see how the candidates stacked up. Then they did a poll after the debate to see who kos readers thought won. Then, in order to eliminate people who just voted for their own candidate from those who really voted for who they thought won they did a calculation to see which candidate's percentage increased.
It came out Biden 1.65% then Clinton 1.5% then Obama then Edwards. Not scientific but interesting.
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 10:24 PM:I think Richardson might end up getting some delegates. Did you know that Iowa has five counties with double-digit Latino populations -- none of which are the three counties where something like half of Iowa Latinos live? I looked that up. And I believe Richardson has been courting hispanic communities heavily. I have also read that he tends to do pretty well among rural voters. Both those things could help him do better on caucus day than his poll numbers might suggest.
mac wrote on December 13, 2007 10:35 PM:the real thing we need to focus on right now is the media storyline... and right now that favors clinton, if not edwards (because, basically, let's admit, he's been ignored thus far and probably will continue to be ignored). but right now with three, er two plus, weeks to go, obama is in the lead. if he doesn't keep that lead, the storyline becomes "OBAMA LOSES!!!" Let's say that Hillary wins, by a few points or even by LESS THAN A POINT, the storyline still becomes, "HILLARY THE COMEBACK KID 2" or is it deuce or is it duex... not sure... Anyway, right now Obama's campaign has to surely be worried that they have a second act, that they haven't peaked too soon. I'm writing all this as an Obama supporter... it makes me worried...
The only thing I have going is that every piece of slime the Clinton campaign has thrown at Obama HAS NOT stuck... Even a Clinton supporter has to admit this. They have a more enviable position right now in the expectations race, but honestly, after the $hit they have thrown at him... what else do they have left?
Wait... Don't answer that until after Jan. 3.
Coonsey wrote on December 13, 2007 10:38 PM:Edwards blinks so much while he is speaking, I find myself looking away cause it's nerve racking. His eyes flutter faster then a girl in heat chasing after a boy.
Problem is, the fast blinker stuff is similar to what Bush does when he is lying. If the person is constantly blinking or looking away from you while talking to you, it's because they are usually lying or exaggerating.
Other then that, Edwards lost the Pres and VP campaign during 2004 - that tells me he would lose again this time.
Obama did a fine job. Look at what he said and every time Hillary's answer came AFTER Obama's, she'd repeat something that he said. She tends to do that with other candidates as well, instead of using her own thoughts.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Just read all the posts and Hillary remains the talk of the town. Translation: she remains the one to beat...
Posted in transit...
John McCutchen wrote on December 13, 2007 10:46 PM:Did someone say Mrs. Bill looked tired and scripted
That's being kind
://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071213/capt.68b0f3144f284cdd9a1963cdd6af8afe.democrats_debate_clinton_2008_iasm117.jpg?x=319&y=345&sig=YEO8d.DNyFKls_jVLxiZFQ--
CalD;
You torture me.
What about
Partial Death Drowning
.
lambert strether wrote on December 13, 2007 10:50 PM:Funny, isn't it, how the commenters who disparage Edwards replicate right wing frames or the usual tired press narrative of personal characteristics? Nothing at all about what Edwards actually says. I wonder why that is?
Edwards blinks? So what! I don't care if he has a glass eye if he gets the policy outcomes I want!
Oh, and sure, FOX is FOX. However, the people who point to FOX never point to the same results confirmed by CNN.
I hate primary season. Too many trolls and sock puppets.
Since the Philadelphia debate, Clinton hasn't had very many good hair days. Count em on 1 hand
The Inevitability Bums Rush we endured in October came and went. The Inevitable is no more.
Now she has to campaign and it isn't pretty is it?
Fair question - at this rate, how long before the wheels come off that old bus?
Chris Tucker wrote on December 13, 2007 11:03 PM:John McCutchen, tinyurl.com is your friend, is is learning how to embed a link.
<a href="url here">link text here</a>
Posting a huge, naked URL blows out the formatting AND makes the URL unclickable, too.
DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 11:03 PM:mac,
As an aside, in order to peak too soon you actually have to peak, meaning stop going up.
As another aside, currently I think it isn't clear what happens in NH if Clinton and Obama are a close 1-2 in Iowa.
As a third aside, my sense is that a lot of people in the press are still picking Clinton as the eventual winner, and certainly that is true in the polls I have seen (most people still expect Clinton to win).
But eventually, the bottomline is that if you want to win the nomination, you have to win the most delegates. So at some point Obama would have to start winning states if he wants to be the nominee.
XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 11:03 PM:And of course, some of them are downright disgusting.
Dr. Tettrazini wrote on December 13, 2007 11:41 PM:When only about 4% of eligible voters in Iowa bother to show up and vote in the in the laughable process to choose a candidate
why even care what they decide? This method is fraught with
nonsense. Until voting is required for citizenship it will be the
pointless and corrupt as it has been up to now.
Actually a lot of people seem to think that Clinton did the best in the debate...she had some great lines and knew what she was saying. She was good on the economy and reminded people of the great economy during the 90's. Obama was hesitant, and didn't really answer a couple of the questions. Edwards did well, but I think at this point an Edwards voter is an Edwards voter...the people who are "undecided" seem to be swaying back and forth between Clinton and Obama.
Daniel wrote on December 14, 2007 12:55 AM:Pretty bad news for Democrats: Mike Moore will not be running for Senate in Mississippi, pretty much dashing Democratic hopes of getting the seat.
Tim wrote on December 14, 2007 5:22 AM:Policy wise, I don't see how anyone beats Edwards. I like Obama, he's got Charisma. Hillary has the 8 years of peace and prosperity that Bill gave us. But Edwards it seems Edwards has the best policy positions for a Democrat.
After reading Krugman for 8 years, the best way to tell a candidate is by the policies he espouses, nothing else.
Now, I'm a bit of a neophyte when it comes to politics. I'll vote for who ever is the Democrat. But could someone explain to me, from a policy position, why Hillary or Obama would be better?
Hillary might be better from the experience factor, but she also divides Democrats and unites Republicans. Obama might have the best charisma. All of that stuff might be important. But what about the policies?
If its just policy, from what I can tell, Edwards is best. He was the first one with a health plan. Hillary wouldn't of even announced one if it wasn't for Edwards.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 6:36 AM:Tim,
I can't tell you who has the best policies for you because I wouldn't know which solutions you would prefer when it comes to various issues.
I would note, however, that a President largely cannot determine policy on his own, particularly domestically, but rather has to work with Congress. Moreover, Congress is designed to require a broad consensus before significant policy changes can be made.
So it seems to me that practically speaking, you also have to consider issues like which person would be best at generating popular support for their proposals and using that popular support to bring together a broad range of politicians to develop a consensus solution. And you might also consider which person will do the most to get like-minded people elected to Congress in 2008. Again, all that is because President generally cannot make domestic policy on their own.
By the way, note I am not suggesting that these considerations necessarily favor the most "moderate" or "centrist" candidate. Rather, it is a question of their political skills, but in the broader sense (meaning not limited to the skills related to getting themselves elected).
audit the polls wrote on December 14, 2007 7:27 AM:I assume the writer is using the bigmedia 'frontrunner filter' as there was no mention of most of the candidates.
Wil Burns wrote on December 14, 2007 8:14 AM:What is it about the Clinton's years, that gave our country 8 great years, you people hate so much?
Mr.Murder wrote on December 14, 2007 8:14 AM:Kerry was not the "most electable" last time.
Claim your weakness as your strength, classic propaganda.
People will vote their wallet this time.
They'll vote their conscience also.
They'll vote against the war.
They'll vote for a return to law and order, competence.
Laywer John Edwards makes a solid case for all those items...
merryll wrote on December 14, 2007 8:18 AM:They didn't invite Kucinich and Gravel so as to avoid real debate.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 14, 2007 9:30 AM:Seven years of Bushism and two decades of Limbaughian radio freaks have ruined our mental compasses.
Edwards is a moderate.
Clinton and Obama are not moderates: they are right-wing.
Grant wrote on December 14, 2007 9:31 AM:What is it about the Clinton's years, that gave our country 8 great years, you people hate so much?They hate it because most of them weren't around and don't know what they're talking about. They are too young and build their image of the 90's on hearsay only. Those who came of age in 2000 probably voted for Nader over Gore. Then they woke up to GWB and the war and now they think they're doing the country a favor by being against all and everything. Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 9:36 AM:
Gee Grant, I was old enough and worked throughout the 90's. No they weren't that great. Were they better than the last 7 years, yep. So was 1988 to 2002, 1974 to 1980. Should we re-elect carter?
We have major structural problems with our economy that reliving the 90's won't solve. Alot of those structural problems existed in the 90's and nothing was done about them or were started in the 90's. It's time to turn the page and move on. Change the color of your glasses.
kenga wrote on December 14, 2007 9:43 AM:What is it about the Clinton's years, that gave our country 8 great years, you people hate so much?In no particular order: - extraordinary rendition - NAFTA - more Alan Greenspan - Don't Ask Don't Tell - Regime Change in Iraq policy - being a Reagan Democrat
Things I DID like:
- "it's the economy, stupid."
- Middle East Peace Process
- balancing the budget
In fairness, your treatment of Obama's superior performance was pretty damned unfair, Greg.
Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 9:53 AM:Oops. I screwed up on the dates. I meant 1988 to 1992, not 2002. Big mistake.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 9:55 AM:Of course, the most basic problem is that time moves forward, not backwards, so no matter whether or not you liked the 1990s, there is no real way to get there from here.
And of course it is probably worth noting that former President Clinton is not in fact running.
NCSteve wrote on December 14, 2007 10:03 AM:A couple of things people seem to forget after these things.
1. Debates are not game shows and the presidency is not the grand prize for "winning" debates. Debates are an opportunity to influence undecideds or waiverers for good or ill and an opportunity to affect the media narrative. No one, however, votes for a candidate because he or she "won" a debate. If they did, Dodd or Biden would be on top of the polls now. Instead, most people realize they're electing a president, not the captain of the high school debate team. Presidents don't actually have to do a whole lot of debating. If anything, you have to actively force the people around you to argue with you. (Or surround yourself with "yes" men and sail obliviously on into the icebergs, like Bush.)
2. We don't inaugurate policies on the January 20 following a election. We inaugurate a person. Many Democrats seem utterly incapable of internalizing this concept. Over and over again, they wake up on the day after a catastrophic election and begin the Democrat's Lament: "How could he have won? How could we have lost? We had the best policies!"
I believe that anon, Tim and LJ have expressed the most salient discussion of this thread.
For those of us who don't read anything not held in place purely by electrons . . . There are real examples that the ideas espoused by Edwards work. Look at what happened during and after Thomas Jefferson and FDR. To understand the effect of Clinton's and Obama's platforms look at the last the last thirty years.
I think that excluding Kucinich was wrong. Kucinich and Edwards, NOT Obama. NOT Clinton were/are the major voices for repairing America and returning the people to primacy.
The real story in both of the Register's mass debates is who now owns and edits the Register . . . Not the candidates' performances at the debate.
Why isn't that being covered?
Bupalos wrote on December 14, 2007 11:33 AM:In my heart I applaud folks who want to talk issues and issues alone, but once again DTM is right on. When you elect a president, you aren't passing legislation. I'm totally down with John Edwards' strident anti-corporatist tone, as are most Democrats. It makes me feel good. But ultimately I think maybe that's all it does.
Is Edward's strident tone going to help elect democrats to congress, or Republicans? If independents think he is the next president, do they vote to keep or increase both congressional majorities? In sum, is someone offering a very simple anti-corporate, populist oppositional message really going to reduce corporate power? Is someone railing against NAFTA going to reduce globalization?
Everytime I start to get swept away by Edwards (and occassionally I do), I remember he was on a ticket that refused to talk about torture when it could have mattered, and he voted yes on Iraq. He also voted for the China trade agreement, the unpopularity of seems to be the very basis of his candidacy now. In short, I think he's a populist in both the good and bad senses. So while I admit he talks a great game and effectively wins these primary debates with that talk, I don't know that it is any more likely to lead to more effective opposition than Hillary's nearly opposite approach.
In any event, I feel that at some point you have to be able to look at almost-natural forces like globalization and do more with them then stamp your feet and say no. While sometimes voting yes.
I thought Obama gave the most effective and important answer of the debate when he noted that when he wanted to give a speech about raising mileage standards, he didn't go to Berkely to do it. He went to Detroit. I can't imagine Hillary doing that. I can't imagine Edwards doing that. And to be able to do that, and do that effectively, is exactly the job description to me. You need to go to the BushWing and talk about torture, you need to go to Walmart and talk labor standards. You need to soften the forces standing in the way with persuasion, and make real movement in the national debate, not just bang your head against them or give them 98% of what they want to get the 2% you want.
I think Obama fits this bill. He is less confrontational, I'll grant, and maybe that doesn't satisfy the anger most of us feel at the BushWing and corporate America. But I think his approach is more effective and most honest. In the panderfest that Iowa neccessarily becomes, I think this strength of his has been overlooked, and it's this kind of strength that I'll be hoping to see in our next democratic president.
Yesterday's debate did make me feel better about all the candidates, I must say.
Kenji wrote on December 14, 2007 11:34 AM:"Edwards is a fake Rich boy..."
Wow, I could have sworn he was a REAL rich boy. But I guess authenticity comes in all stripes -- especially for posters with nothing to say.
nogo war wrote on December 14, 2007 12:13 PM:When Edwards was beating the crap out of big insurance companies in the courtroom it was about sequence.
You have your opening statement
Present the facts.
It is your closing statement the jury remembers.
Edwards knows how to close.
Excellent post bupalos. Edwards is definitely a "good" talker and sometimes sways me as well. I particularly liked the observation about the down ticket dems and the election and what he could and could not accomplish.
Unfortunately, I have always been one of those people that believe actions speak louder than words. His senate record is nothing to brag about as you pointed out. Also, on the iraq vote one of his advisors wrote a book about the discussion. He supposedly was not in favor of the resolution and was planning on voting against it. He had a meeting with his advisors and was allegedly swayed to vote for it for political reasons. I have a problem with that.
NCSteve wrote on December 14, 2007 12:21 PM:DTM,
Not only is Bill not running, he's been reduced to communicating with his wife through leaks to the press.
Anyone who thinks he'll be moving back into the White House probably also believed that Poppy would exercise a wholesome influence on W.
jim wrote on December 14, 2007 1:45 PM:I'll say the tax system is rigged. It's being demagogued. Regardless of the common fantasy floating around and urged on by John Edward's bald faced lies -Big Lies- the top 3% pay 70% of the taxes. 40% of the country pays no taxes at all.
audit the polls wrote on December 14, 2007 2:10 PM:What puts candidates at the top of the polls is money. Them that has shall win the corporate controlled polls. Otherwise, the corporations would have to cover candidates they don't like.
Doubting Thomas wrote on December 14, 2007 3:29 PM:Michael A:
I assume you have even bigger problems with Hilary and Obama then, as their records in the Senate have been atrocious. Obama could have showed up to vote "no" on Kyle/Lieberman, Hilary voted "yes". There is currently a FISA fight today where Sen. Ried will capitulate to the Bushies. Either Obama or Hilary will could publically pressure Ried to go with the Judiciary Committee's bill, but they are both silent, as they have been when torture was passed and impeachment taken off the table. Edwards has apologized for his votes in the Senate and admitted he was wrong. He's grown since 2004, but I don't see that growth in Hilary or Obama.
You are right that actions speak louder than words. Hilary and Obama's actions prove to me that they only have words where Edwards actions prove to me that he is the one who can affect real change.
Doubting Thomas wrote on December 14, 2007 3:32 PM:Jim:
Well since the top 3% make more than 1/2 the money in the country, I think its more than fair they pay the bulk of the taxes. Unfortunately, they don't. The middle class still pays the bulk of taxes regardless of the numbers you pull from your ass. Go vote Republican and leave us alone.
skibumlee wrote on December 14, 2007 5:10 PM:That's nice Jim, The top 3% pay 70% taxes,
How much do they earn, maybe %70 of the income.
"Because of this, I think Edwards is actually undesirable as the nominee. I think the money problem makes him unelectable. Why pick a nominee that has such an obvious and serious liability?"
Because he is a huge and honest heart, is eloquent, inspiring, serious, has a great health plan, will get us out of Iraq, cares about the working man (or woman), and more, and as an added plus, will win the general election.
If taking pubic money means you don't vote for someone...change the public financing rules but don't choose a president based on this kind of argument.
