TresSugar

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, read more.

As for the "Gore sighs" the nonverbals that will kill a performance: both were guilty of the smirk, if only perhaps to relieve the tension. I know I could barely handle it, it stands to reason it had to express itself somewhere, so to speak. In all, the debate was like a floaty butterfly fairy tale meets a brick wall. The second you got caught up in the story Obama was spinning, then came McCain with his smack down of reality. Even 20 months in, it was confusing and captivating and perfectly encapsulated these diametrically opposed yet unflinching campaigns - and illuminated the very choice we all have to make in 20 short days. Now as Bob Schieffer's mother says, "Go vote now. It will make you feel big and strong."

Liberty: In the most high tension, and perhaps most conversational, debate John McCain came out looking for a game changer. McCain seemed rested and eager (did you hear the Al Gore sighs?) while Obama seemed reluctant and a little low on energy. Still, Obama's calm demeanor allowed him to rise above a potential catty debate, and focus on his issue advantages.

Coming out strong, McCain's crisp statement: "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush" had no matching punch line from Obama, perhaps giving McCain an edge in the sound-bite battle.

In the middle, the candidates spent much time talking about attack ads, leaving me lamenting that this is what the American people get to listen to from their presidential candidates. By noting that William Ayers has become the center of McCain's campaign, Obama made McCain's campaign look deaf to the real issues facing the American people. After setting the record straight about his strained connection to Ayers, Obama then took the opportunity to make a positive and reassuring argument about the capable people who will advise him, such as Warren Buffet and former NATO head Jim Jones.

After a discussion on healthcare, which left me thinking Obama knows more about McCain's plan than McCain does, the two got talking about abortion. Obama called out the McCain/Palin refrain that he supported infanticide, pointing out that there was already a law on the books requiring care to babies of botched abortions when he voted against an Illinois bill for other reasons.

Obama then took the dialogue to another level saying that he wants everyone to work together to reduce the number of abortions and promote adoption. McCain went on to slam the pro-choice movement with the pejorative "pro-abortion." I'm still wondering if considering the country's at war and in an economic crisis, and after eight-years of a pro-life President and more Roe v. Wade, whether the abortion discussion was worth the time.

While this was McCain's best performance by far, I think Obama maintained a presidential and informed presence. Maybe I can find Joe the Plumber and ask him what he thinks.

What did you think?

Source

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, read more.

When the discussion turned to health care the tension ratcheted up several notches along with the interest. McCain lasered in on the government mandated aspect of Obama's plan, and slammed home the choice-and-freedom aspect of his $5,000 tax credit. Then Brokaw asked a point-blank smacker: is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility. McCain answered "responsibility," Obama, "right."

Overall McCain was not shy about going for the jugular, on several instances catching everyone off guard with his good-natured intensity. In particular, his calling out of Obama as "that one," was a heated moment no one missed. The last question, "what don't you know and how will you learn it?" provided the candidates a moment to wrap up. McCain seized the opportunity for his most compelling and lucidly forceful riff of the night saying, "I know what it's like to have your comrades pick you up and put you back in the fight, and that's what this country is all about."

A game-changer it was not, but an inning? Yes, and then some.

Liberty:
Tonight both candidates seemed a little tepid and defensive. I kept waiting to see some spirit or contagious passion.

During the discussion on government spending John McCain kept hitting Barack Obama on "increased spending." Obama defended his position as smart taxing and smart spending. He made it clear that it's inevitable that the government is going to tax and it's going to spend - but what's crucial is giving the tax breaks to the right people, and using the collected money for efficient and fair programs.

The dying debate got a burst of virility during the health care discussion - McCain described health care as a responsibility while Obama called it a right. Obama spoke clearly and concisely about his position. He came off as genuinely concerned about the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions, and pointed to the drastic differences between his plan and McCain's. He landed a strong punch when he noted that the Chamber of Commerce said McCain's health care plan would destroy employer-based coverage. McCain drew up concerns of government mandates and bureaucracy, while Obama said he wanted to preserve choices.

Obama took McCain's theme from the last debate, that Obama "doesn't understand," as a chance to highlight differences in judgment. Connecting the economy to Iraq, he noted that the US spends $10 billion a month in Iraq, while Americans are out of jobs. Noting that no country has maintained military superiority while its economy declined, Obama made it seem like McCain is the candidate that does not understand a complex world.

What did you think? Did McCain do what he needed to? Was there a clear winner?

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, CitizenSugar and LibertySugar, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Sugar Inc.

Source

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, read more.

During the foreign policy section, Biden hotly attacked on Afghanistan, saying, "Facts matter Gwen . . . our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principals will not work in Afghanistan." But Palin came right back, directly refuting Biden's claims leaving him quieter and repeating himself. She couched her poison arrows with a huge dose of honey, appealing to the twin desires of her supporters - to love her and leave Biden crippled. Her performance read exactly like that. She turned a question about her weaknesses into a soaring endorsement for what's good about America, "Democracy, tolerance, and freedom." If the phrase weren't already assigned to another point in history, I'd say of Sarah Palin tonight, "Mission accomplished."

Liberty:
Sidestepping Sarah Palin, Joe Biden hit John McCain's maverick reputation extremely hard. On both economic and foreign policy issues, Biden gave some strong concrete examples of how McCain mirrors George W. Bush, and how the Obama ticket differs. While Sarah Palin avoided answering the "how" of many questions, Biden offered details. Viewers may have gotten lost in a (sometimes) unemotional argument, but I think Biden's details helped affirm the narrative that the Obama/Biden ticket is more prepared to face the serious challenges.

Sarah Palin, the maverick's running mate, came out strong on issues like Americans living within their means, paying less taxes, and working toward energy independence. She often got those points by avoiding tough questions and reverting back to her strengths.

I'm sure the fact that they made it through without any major gaffes (maybe a couple minor ones), comes as a relief to both VP candidates!

What did you think? Was there a winner? Was this a game changer?

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, CitizenSugar and LibertySugar, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Sugar Inc.

Source

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, read more.

McCain hammered home naivete over his institutional memory and experience and it stood up against Obama's admittedly impeccable preparation. The direct head-to-head did get tense at times, but they managed to keep it in a constructive arena. With moderator Lehrer springing a no-holds-barred, "are we facing another 9/11?" question toward the end, I think of all the elections, Lehrer may have just won "Supreme Moderator for All Time." McCain wrapped it up cosmically saying, "I know how to heal the wounds of war... I know how to treat our adversaries." As for a winner? Both candidates stumbled at times, did their jobs at others and both brought a serious A-game.

Liberty:
Tonight the candidates clarified, as well as muddled, their positions on many issues. On the introductory question about the $700 billion bailout plan, Barack Obama offered a numbered list of conditions he would require in an acceptable plan, while John McCain said "sure," he would approve the negotiated bailout. It seemed that after suspending his campaign, McCain would have clarified his position.

As for the designated topics - foreign policy and national security - McCain and Obama emphasized their respective strengths: the surge and tough talk on Russia and Iran for McCain and foresight on the folly of an Iraq war, and strong, but smart diplomacy for Obama.

Overall, McCain somewhat effectively painted Obama as naive, while Obama attempted to prevail as a cautious, informed leader. As for the punches, I think Obama's landed some hard ones; he called McCain out on discussing North Korea's extinction, and bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. According to my super-scientific reading of the CNN audience reaction graph, Obama seemed to have higher marks with all groups while he spoke, but what do you think?!

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, CitizenSugar and LibertySugar, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Sugar Inc.

Source

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 read more.

Obama said:

I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.

By raising the debate to a more abstract level, Barack diffused the idea that their differences matter.

I have a feeling that Hillary's fervor for healthcare pleases her supporters, but I wonder if it translates well to undecided voters. A regular citizen, not well versed in policy jargon, may be appeased by Obama's assurances that he will make health care affordable. Hillary's criticisms, backed up with detailed support, may go over viewers' heads.

Are you convinced that differences matter?

And don't forget to check out Citizen's thoughts on the "first lady" question also raised last night.

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, read more.

Of course she wants to claim her time in the White House - she was arguably one of the most involved first ladies of modern history. But in doing so she is saddled with policy that she really didn't get to shape, like NAFTA. Russert jumped on this opportunity to nail down both on their future plans for the trade agreement, and both finally said they would use the threat of withdrawal as a means to reform. (Though if a threat is labeled as such, I daresay it's no longer a threat.)

So does Hillary's first ladyship count? Are you with Obama, she has to claim it all - or should Hillary be able to give voice to just her opinions from that time?

Source

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, read more.

Hillary Clinton:

Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know - you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox.

Hmm . . . roll tape?

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, read more.

Republican National Committee issued its own set of mock Academy Awards. Included among them:

Actor in a Leading Role: Barack Obama, for his performance as Clinton's "friend" after snubbing her three days earlier.

Actress in a Leading Role: Hillary Clinton for her performance in reaching out her hand "in friendship and unity" for three days.

Writing (adaptation of a screenplay): Hillary Clinton for rewriting her record.

Director: John Edwards for dictating the first 15 minutes.

Cinematography: CNN for capturing Hollywood's love of the Democratic candidates.

Source