A few days ago I registered as an absentee voter, and today I got a letter from the Democratic Party. It was basically a grab bag of political flyers for every Democrat running in my district, explaining why I should vote for them. But here’s the kicker: they sent me a big yellow sheet that lays out exactly who to vote for in each section of the ballot. It doesn’t describe the people at all, simply their names and the fact that they are Democratic Party approved.
There are significant differences between Democrats and Republicans on Iraq. But there are also important differences among the Democrats that are too quickly brushed aside because their proposals are all elements of a broader policy of withdrawal.
These differences are significant because choosing one approach over another may determine whether or not Iraq collapses into a full-blown civil war, requiring the U.S. to return to the region. If a Democratic proposal results in a U.S. return to the region, the policy become consequentially indistinguishable from Republican approaches.
Most significantly, in Sunday's debate Bill Richardson endorsed withdrawing all U.S. troops, claiming that "none of this peace and peace building can begin until all of our troops are out." He claimed that the withdrawal can be accomplished "within six to eight months."
Dodd's "Talk Clock" is the biggest winner and Wolf Blitzer is the biggest loser. Too bad his campaign's great innovation just displays how little time the Senator got in the debate.
Join me below the fold for a interesting links, thoughts, and analysis on tonight's debate from Saint Anselm College.
Eight Democratic presidential candidates debate tonight at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire from 7 to 9 p.m. The debate can be seen on CNN, WMUR, and the websites of these, the co-sponsors of the debate along with the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Read below the fold for pre-debate notes and analysis, and come back soon for live-blogging and post-debate analysis.
Last night and today one question has dominated the post debate spin and commentary about who won and lost. It also was the subject of the last portion of our blogtalk radio show when former National Debate Tournament champion and Jim Webb campaign staffer, Jon Paul Lupo, called in to discuss how the answers portray Democrats as weak or strong on defense and terrorism (you can listen to the archived version here starting at the 44:30 mark).
Listen very closely to the question in the YouTube clip. Very closely, especially to the end of the question.
The video shows the candidates in the order they answered: Obama, Hillary, Edwards. They were the only ones asked. Richardson demanded and received a chance to answer later (an attempt to show he belonged in the top tier?).
Join me below the fold and in comments for analysis on what the answers say about who "won" this part of last night's debate and more. In the YouTube age, candidate answers will be dissected more than ever. We had might as well do a good and productive job of it.
Update [2007-4-26 14:3:51 by Ross Smith]: Look just below for lots of fresh content on tonight's debate. Louden on media frame, me on format and predictions, and still more to follow soon.
Update [2007-4-25 11:45:11 by Ross Smith]: See Bill Benoit's excellent summary of the research below to move beyond punditry "common wisdom."
South Carolina State University hosts the first debate of this new presidential political season, a Democratic primary debate. It's on MSNBC from 7pm to 9:30 pm, and South Carolina Educational Television and ETV Radio will simulcast the debate. WYFF4.com will stream the debate, too (and you can submit questions here even though the odds of your question being selected is low).
Look for the blog to be hopping as we gear up for the new "season." I'll have posts discussing expectations, strategies, and potential questions prior to the debate as well as some of the usual linkfests to MSM and blogosphere coverage.
In addition to a liveblog and post-debate analysis, tune in to the debut of our Blog Talk Radio Show. We'll air at midnight EDT after Thursday's debate. Can't be earlier since new shows there are blocked from the 7-midnight slots. Nevertheless, it's good for all the night owls and those in the west. Plus we'll have time to digest the post debate spin and coverage before going on air.
Just click the nifty button and you're on your way.
While there has been alot of news of Democrats refusing to take part in debates on Fox, tonight's online debate on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org, will be "attended" by all of the Democratic contenders (save Gravel, if you want to call him a contender).
While this event may slip under the radar of all but the most obsessed, the event is significant in a number of respects:
The subject matter is focused on the Iraq war.
It's the first ever live, national event of its kind where questions are answered in real time.
Questions come entirely from the listeners who are, in this case, also highly active citizens who can make a difference "on the ground" in campaigns.
The audience votes on the winner. No one spin room, just 100's of living rooms where MoveOn members gather to listen, plus the internet.
While this is not a debate (MoveOn calls it a "Virtual Town Hall") because candidates will not be directly responding to one another's arguments (each candidate gives an opening statement then answers all of his/her questions at once, then hangs up), candidates who are later in the order will be in a position to respond to the answers the others give. It will be interesting to see if any are flexible and adept enough to do so.
Debates do test ones ability to respond extemporaneously, and the live, phone-in method will do what on-line "debates" via keyboard cannot (who can even know if the candidate is the one typing?).
Future MoveOn "Town Halls" will cover health care and energy.
I'll use the comments to discuss and liveblog the event.
