DebateScoop.org: October Democratic Debate

October Democratic Debate

By Ross Smith 10/30/2007 07:22:45 PM EST

The World Series is over, the academic debate season is in full swing (slowing down my blogging), a chill is in the air and maybe the long debate season for the Democratic primary contenders will shift gears tonight at 9 pm ET from Drexel, a two hour affair on MSNBC.

Since the first debate last spring, little has changed. We've lost only one of the eight candidates, curmudgeon Mike Gravel. Hillary Clinton is still the front runner.

Obama claims to be going on the attack. Tonight's debate is worth watching for voters who are just now getting interested and for those of us who have been judging the debates all along.

The intercollegiate debate topic is on U.S. policy towards the Middle East. At the Harvard tournament this weekend there was much more sophisticated debate on the range of options we should consider with regard to Iran than we have heard from the candidates. The Iran issue is rapidly unfolding as a great test of candidates' foreign policy chops. Perhaps the questions can be as good as the cross-ex was at Harvard even if the answers aren't.

Tags: debate, debates, presidential primary, 2008 elections, democratic

< North Carolina GOP holds First Gubernatorial Primary Debate | Drexel's Digital Divide - Post Debate Spin >

October Democratic Debate | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)

It's only the first round of speeches, but (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama have only had one speech each so far, but they're already teaming up on Clinton! They both are calling her a flip-flopper... I remember people calling Kerry that- is "flip-flopper" a typically Democratic insult?

by Lauren Orsini on 10/30/2007 09:07:03 PM EST

More on Clinton (none / 0)

First thing I notice about Clinton in this first close up is her outfit. She's dressed very conservatively in brown and black (do those even match each other?) I notice that she's wearing a very high neckline, and I wonder if that's in response to the negative publicity she got last time she showed cleavage. With her short hair, minimal jewelry, and modest makeup, Clinton's going for the androgynous look for this debate.

by Lauren Orsini on 10/30/2007 09:10:15 PM EST

clinton (none / 0)

agreed, lauren. but in addition to how visually sharp she looks, i think clinton is the most well-spoken of the group. she's so clever and calm and knowledgeable. my money is on her, all the way.

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 09:17:04 PM EST

im so excited. god bless her!! (none / 1)

look at how self-posessed she is, how in control. her voice is so assertive, and her intonation grabs the veiwer's attention. whereas i could drift to sleep listening to these men drone on and on.

she's a riviting speaker: people have to notice her.

she is the most experienced, knowledgeable one of the dems; she's making edwards and obama look like rookies.

im so excited for her right now, actually. my heart is racing. is that so wrong??

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 09:24:33 PM EST

other candidates (none / 0)

I find myself zoming out when anyone but Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is talking. I feel like they're a bit insignificant at this point. Does anyone still think that they have a chance against the big three?

by Lauren Orsini on 10/30/2007 09:25:11 PM EST

Iran & Kucinich (none / 0)

Sigh...Even Peacenik Kucinich doesn't know the difference between preemptive & preventive war!

by JP Lacy on 10/30/2007 09:27:49 PM EST

nope (none / 0)

if you arent edwards/obama/clinton, then you are comically negligible. some old man in a red tie is speaking right now. does anyone care? no.

(all who believe in telekenesis, raise my hand!)

haha i love this.

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 09:30:16 PM EST

: oops (none / 0)

*telekinesis
:-/
by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 09:33:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Clinton Again! (none / 0)

Gwen, I think the reason Clinton is so powerful is her speaking style. Here's what I see her doing.

First, a strong statement (I believe this war is wrong)
Second, a nice statement (But I do not oppose the brave men and women fighting out there)

In this way, she's able to be tough and forward as well as kind. If she had just one or the other, she'd be too hard or too gentle.

by Lauren Orsini on 10/30/2007 09:36:07 PM EST

Edwards on "If you believe . . ." (none / 0)

Good way to create a contrast and "attack" Hillary.

Especially when he adds the insult about "if only we knew then what we know now."

Plus, "general election mode."

Wow, three hard punches, and Hillary says she does "not know where to start" with a rebuttal.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/30/2007 09:37:55 PM EST

Hillary dropped two of the three attacks (none / 0)

She answered Edwards on Iraq troop withdrawal but dropped the arguments that her judgment was bad in the past and that she is untrustworthy.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 10/30/2007 09:40:04 PM EST

experience (none / 0)

Hillary did a good job replying to that experience question... but doesn't it also imply that others without much experience (Obama) would also be great in office?

by Lauren Orsini on 10/30/2007 09:45:00 PM EST

"Poor Mr. President"- Nancy Pelosi (none / 0)

Thus far, the debate is centered around anti- Bush foreign policies in the Middle East and the support of engagement towards Iran.

This quotation stated earlier by Sen. Clinton seems a little shady:

"I am pledging that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."

by William Hutabarat on 10/30/2007 09:45:13 PM EST

Reply (none / 0)

Looking through her past (with a can of Red Bull by my side), Hillary Clinton is less qualified to lead a strong American foreign policy towards Iran than most of the other candidates...Hillary can only be seen by Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guards as eye-candy...No sexism intended...

by William Hutabarat on 10/30/2007 10:11:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

so.. (none / 0)

ok, who do you suggest can handle it?

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 10:14:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Reply (none / 0)

I am a strong believer of Stephen Colbert...No not really. Within the realm of these Democratic candidates I support Dennis Kucinich...It's true, America needs "leadership".

Who would you support wen it comes to the Iran issue?

by William Hutabarat on 10/30/2007 10:26:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Dennis Kucinich (none / 0)

of course "america needs leadership." who would disagree except our school's anarchist club? i will be pleased with any Dem in office.
i have to admit that i do not know enough about Iran and the candidates' backgrounds to make a very persuasive schpiel for any one of them in regard to that specific topic.
But I mean do you really think Dennis Kucinich has a fighting chance against the Clinton/Obama/Edwards trinity?
Not to say he might not be a very worth candidate but he just isn't as well-known as the others.

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 10:36:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

shady? (none / 0)

why is that "shady"?

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 09:48:19 PM EST

: UFOs (none / 0)

Kucinich is talking about UFOs!! LOL!!!!
by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 10:57:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

obama on aliens: (none / 0)

Obama:
"i don't know whether there is life in outerspace but i DO know that there is life on earth.[...] so that's what we should attend to, even if there may be some other folks on their way"

>.<

by Gwen Wisnefske on 10/30/2007 11:00:27 PM EST

Stupid me! (none / 0)

Well, I totally forgot about this and just did my own separate live blog. Oh well.

Some thoughts:
Hillary: Shot herself in the foot. Obama and Edwards were attacking her for doublespeak, and that's exactly what she does when asked about giving drivers licenses to illegals. That could come back and bite her.

Obama: Very charismatic and effective attacking Hillary. However, he really didn't offer up a good amount of actual in-depth conversation, sticking mostly with a luandry list of issues. It's kind of what I expected from Obama: all flash, no substance.

Richardson: I was really impressed by this guy. Gave a good amount of substance in his conversation while maintaining a steady, confident, and professional tone without coming across as practiced or canned. Also, in a unique act of graciousness for a politician, he defended Hillary from the attacks of others. I am really impressed, far more than I would've expected. This guy should be the nominee, not Hillary or Obama.

Edwards: Speaking of coming across as practiced or canned, has this guy changed at all from 2004? It's the same "Two Americas" rhetoric regurgitated to fit into every situation. It's class warfare over-and-over, and it doesn't work. His saving grace in 2004 was his charisma and his potential. It won't save him this time.

Kucinich: This guy is even more of a joke than Ron Paul. Tim Russert asked him if he believed in UFOs and he said yes because he saw one. Why is this guy even allowed in these debates?

by Andrew Hoffman on 10/30/2007 11:20:40 PM EST

October Democratic Debate | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)