I like the fact that Russert goes straight to one of the major foreeign policy issues.

Russert tries to tie Kennedy to Bush, not drectly but by asking him toi defend Bush's prior statements.

Note to Klobuchar: bilateral talks with N Korea does not mean a summit.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/15/2006 09:13:00 AM EST

Russert calls Kennedy's prior statement "dead wrong" but Kennedy parrots "central fron in war on terror" and opposes timetable.

Russert persists on the Kennedy has rose-colored glasses. "Great strides"? Kennedy says he goes to Iraq each year, an ethos move that actually used to work with the underinformed.

Kennedy claims Klobuchar is against body armor.

He won't answer the "knowing what you know today question." Stands by his vote.

Russert asks Klobuchar if she is really for rapid withdrawal. She says she is for body armor (without specifics, says she is against permanent bases, Halliburton cost overuns, distances herself from "majority home in 2007," by saying that was dependent on rosy predictions of administration.

Her specifics about how it is a civil war and the problems should resonate with voters.

Russert calls Kennedy "flat wrong." Kennedy is still wrong: he just claimed there are less troops there now when, in fact we are up to 141,000.

Kennedy says he did not vote for permanent bases. Does he favor them or did he?

Russert says Klobuchar's quotes mean she thinks Congress can overule the commanders or the President. She aligns herself with John Warner and James Baker.

Russert: what if we withdraw and there is a full blown civil war? Klobuchar says we need the troops in Afghanistan, and it is a civil war in Iraq that is fomenting more terrorism now. But will she answer the actual question? No.

Russert picks up on Warner and Baker. Asks Kennedy why not keep timetable on the table. Kennedy says Warner rejects timetables and that Kennedy has seen "adjustments" made.

Can this be won militarily? Kennedy dodges: federalism, who owns the oil, see the progress on the ground, young democracy.

Klobuchar calls that "more of the same," and then does the Reagan, naming moms and dads from Minnesota.

Russert lets her ask Kennedy a question, the question turns into a laundry list indictment.

Kennedy asks her how she is consistent when she oppposed body armor, and 3 other items that distort her record. Claims that her criticism is not "support for the troops."

Klobuchar points out she is tough, a prosecutor.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/15/2006 09:31:12 AM EST

Russert asks Kennedy about rolling back cuts for the rich. He does not answer. Says line item veto. Russert points out the GOP is in charge of both branches. Kennedy blames the Senate!

Russert says "pound them with a new tax increase," playing devil's advocate as if she favors taxing working-class people. Klobuchar says the deficit costs us in taxes to pay the interest. Tax shelters for corporation, borkerages, top 1%, no-bid contracts, pay-go, oil subsidies.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/15/2006 09:38:28 AM EST

Kennedy is pro-Bush now distances himself.

The NRSC won't spend for Kennedy. Kennedy says he is happy to win one on one.

Kennedy goes back to immigration. Russert nails him on McCain and Bush support the immigration position of Klobuchar.

Kennedy says he is for keeping spending under control, etc, talking points. "Liberal" "soack the rich, "rationing."

Klobuchar close: grandaughter of miner, mother, wife, prosecutor, will get things done for the people of Minnesota.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/15/2006 09:44:18 AM EST

1. This debate was an example of throwing far more junk at the wall than your opponent has time to scrape off. Kennedy did that.

2. None of the junk seems likely to stick. He threw the standard list of talking points, a list the GOP has used for a couple of years. The voters who favor Klobuchar have heard these indictments.

3. Kennedy did more to confirm the narrative that he was a "rising star" in style, not substance, than he did to gain traction. His attacks on Klubuchar fell flat as Klobuchar calmly responded. Her poise validates the narrative of her being the candidate more suited to Minnesota's electorate.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/15/2006 09:50:05 AM EST

Klobuchar repeatedly used examples from her home state of Minnesota, using names and examples.  I thought this was very effective because she was able to take national issues and relate them back to her audience.  Why didn't Kennedy do this?
Also Kennedy kept hammering home that Klobuchar was against body armor for U.S. troops and that she was for Social Security for illegal immigrants.  She vehemently opposed both of these accusations.  I think that Kennedy could have made these accusations effective if he would have used specific examples.  However since he did not, Klobuchar was able to just say that he was incorrect in the statements and did not have to directly comment on any legislature.  

by AEKirzinger on 10/15/2006 09:55:23 AM EST

Kennedy is finished. Local media coverage has shifted from the Senate race to the governor's contest, which is much tighter, and the Strib has reported that his campaign will not be receiving any influx of cash from the national party. Klobuchar has effectively nationalized the race, and Kennedy's strong ties to Bush are something that he simply has been unable to address.

Both candidates could stand to improve their stage presence--Kennedy needs to look more at the camera and sit with better posture, and Klobuchar gives many nonverbal cues (especially in her hands) when she is angry.

Substantively, the debate was largely a rehash of the two campaign's talking points from the last two weeks or so--no new revelations. One interesting thing to follow is whether Klobuchar's new-ish defense against the "social security for undocumented workers" and "opposes body armor for the troops" claims from Kennedy, will register with the public--she correctly points out that those allegations (particularly the body armor claim) arise from 'kitchen sink' bills that include dem-kryptonite provisions like permanent estate tax cuts, etc, and are designed to force people to register votes against popular legislative items (like body armor) in order to prevent passage of GOP goody-bags.

by cramhelwich on 10/15/2006 07:57:29 PM EST