Internet Trolls Make Appearance at Debate

January 11, 2008

Fox News’ Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina just ended. The network’s focus group and talking heads gave Fred Thompson two thumbs up, though I felt he was upstaged throughout by Huckabee who did a great job considering he was on the defensive most of the night. I also caught a glimpse of Romney finally understanding that he may be able to push the other candidates around a bit when it comes to the economy. Romney has to assert himself as the Republican candidate who can help Americans feeling the pinch. I know this sounds a little ridiculous, but none of the other Republicans are any closer to pulling it off either.

As usual, one of the best analyzes of the debate comes from NBC’s Chuck Todd. And while I personally think he should be allowed in every debate as long as he’s polling above 5%, I also agree with Todd’s characterization of Paul as a “distraction.” Ron Paul’s supporters in the audience were even more detached from the real debate than he was and their predictable boos and cheers were never rooted in rational, analytic reactions to that debate - an interesting case of life reflecting virtual life.


A Re-Airing of Grievances

January 7, 2008

Thanks to CNN for re-airing Saturday’s debates - these are fun, but not 4 hours of my Saturday night fun. Good times too, with Charlie Gibson doing a great job, some actual contrast emerging, and some really interesting strategic and perhaps not so strategic fencing. The latter refers to the Republicans ganging up on Mitt Romney. I suppose everything is strategic, but this felt personal. It wasn’t the typical ‘going after a high-profile candidate’ (remember, he’s no longer leading in New Hampshire) and the body language (by all) and laughs (by McCain) bordered on fiendish, particularly at the end when Romney wondered around behind the tables while the other candidates shook hands and embraced. Also, I recall a few commentators saying things like “the other candidates simply don’t like Romney.”

On the Democrats’ side, I thought things were more restrained and there was some nice back-and-forth on issues and some of the candidates even managed to differentiate themselves: Richardson on his experience (finally), Richardson on Iraq, Obama/Edwards on Health Care, and Hillary on the rhetoric of the other candidates. That last move by Clinton was bold and seemed emotional and unscripted - I know, probably impossible in these debates, but check it out again (for the third time) from the transcript:

Clinton: Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.

So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.

You know, what we’ve got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the over-due influence that they have in our government.

That was directed at Edwards and there was another on “change” directed at Obama.

For his part, Obama did a good job of not getting into it too much with the other candidates and I thought he did a great job of speaking to New Hampshire independents, here’s the culmination:

Obama: But the larger point is that we have to get back to a notion that opportunity and bottom-up economic growth is what the president should be fighting for.

And what we’ve had is a top-down agenda that is skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. It is making worse some of the trends of globalization that are already out there.

And one of the benefits of this campaign has been to listen and talk to the folks all throughout New Hampshire who are tired of it and want to see something change.

Now it probably had a lot more to do with Iowa than how he was received by independents on Saturday, but lo and behold Obama just got a big bump in the polls - now with a double-digit lead.


Weekend Wrap

December 3, 2007

Just some links to wrap-up some of the themes that wound their way through the weekend talk shows and wider press.

It’s NYtimes.com’s most-emailed story, so you’ve probably read Frank Rich’s Sunday piece - but the salient theme, that Barack Obama is poised to “upend the beltway storyline,” is important because of how it emerges in other contexts.

For example, Garrett Graff in the Washington Post opines about the importance of technology policy for the next presidency and wonders why we’d want someone in office who can’t “work the machine.” He also mentions this interesting fact: “Part of the problem is simply generational. According to the Senate historian, the Senate is the oldest it has ever been, with an average age of 62 during the 110th Congress.” As I’ve said before, Obama is leading the candidates when it comes to tech. policy and as Andrew Sullivan has made clear, the candidate pundits are really talking about when they talk about generational change is Barack Obama.

This all makes me wonder how helpful it is to be billed as the revolutionary candidate? Perhaps it is in the primaries, but my bet is this ’storyline’ kills any candidate who makes it to the big show.

Meanwhile, plenty of talk about the Republicans going after each other on immigration following last week’s debate and The Wall Street Journal [no link, subscription only] does that debacle justice in today’s editorial while getting in their usual pot-shots:

When not fielding questions from Democratic moles at last week’s GOP Presidential debate, Anderson Cooper and CNN had a grand time portraying Republican voters as Bible-thumping, gun-wielding Confederacy hold-outs. On immigration, however, the candidates didn’t need any media help as they continued their descent into self-parody.

Mitt Romney persisted in attacking Rudy Giuliani for turning New York into a “sanctuary city,” an accusation that even the restrictionist editors at National Review have come around to dismissing as “spurious.” Mr. Giuliani shot back that Mr. Romney ran a “sanctuary mansion” as Governor of Massachusetts, because the landscaping company that maintained the grounds of his home employed illegals. Mr. Romney replied that he couldn’t be expected to verify the immigration status of everyone with a “funny accent.” Normally, you’d have to seek out a high school cafeteria to hear such repartee. Well done, gentlemen.

The GOP exception continues to be John McCain, who is calling for reform that balances stepped up border enforcement with a guest worker program for future labor flows. And Mike Huckabee, who’s been rising in the polls, at least tried to explain to Mr. Romney why it’s inhumane to punish the children of illegal immigrants “for what their parents did.”

Interestingly enough, Mr. Huckabee appears to be the only candidate not going after his opponents. He passed up taking down Rudy for the Hampton Fling Security Detail scandal and didn’t battle back against Romney (who said Huckabee lacked vital private-sector experience) in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC Sunday. However, he did a nice job of subtly attacking Mormons, gays, and women when talking about Romney, Giuliani, and Clinton respectively. Huckabee will charm the pants off of an influential minority of this country and it’s comical that these folks think he is fit to lead the US in the global arena.

 Finally, living within broadcast range of New Hampshire, I can assure you the campaign ads are cranking right now - you can get a good wrap-up and review of most of them at Slate’s Damned Spot. Slate’s review of Joe Biden’s latest campaign is favorable, though it took them long enough - it was apparent from the first debate that this should have been Biden’s strategy all along:

joe-is-right.jpg


Debatable winnowing

November 15, 2007

ODB’s post poses an excellent question - how should we winnow candidates who get to present their views to the mass audience?

Why wasn’t Karl Krueger up there with the other guys? He’s filed with the FEC, and is an official candidate. If he’s too much of a long shot, why was Gravel there? Now that Gravel is gone, why not Kucinich?

These decisions are fraught with difficulties, but the current non-decision of letting everyone (well, almost - sorry, Mike) up there dilutes our opportunity to hear from the people who are the ones who might have a shot.

Tough call. Anyone have a good suggestion?

We’ve had tons of debates - it would be nice to see more winnowing, faster. The month of January will effectively be the time in which everyone will make up their mind - and when we have to split the limited attention of the populace all these ways, there’s less chance to be informed.


Now That’s How You Debate

November 14, 2007

CNN is not allowing Mike Gravel to participate in Thursday’s debate in Vegas because he doesn’t have a category on eightfor08.com…that and he hasn’t raised $1 million yet. Gravel’s camp claims it’s really because he ‘called Hillary out’ at the last debate (yeah, nobody’s doing that these days…) and the former Senator has opted to hold his own protest debate instead (thank, CM).

Seriously though, using the funding as a criteria highlights the sad state of play in campaign politics, but it’s really not a bad metric - it’s at least transparent, difficult to fudge, and does in many ways measure how visible and prominent you have made yourself. The down-side is, by that measure, Bloomberg or Gore could declare today and debate tomorrow and I’m not sure how fair that would be to someone like Gravel who has battled hard for the last six months.


“It’s a bit like Law & Order…”

October 10, 2007

I missed tonight’s debate, but The New York Times Caucus Blog didn’t. Thanks to our Canadian operative for the heads-up on a funny and not at all biased take on the debate. Some highlights:

Mr. Giuliani even used a question about policing the Internet (against child predators and pornographers) as an opportunity to say that he opposed taxing the Internet.

The Constitution has been invoked again, this time by Ron Paul for why a president shouldn’t go to war without Congressional approval. Interesting idea. The Constitution! I’ve seen it under glass here in D.C. at the National Archives and dream of the day when American presidents and our elected representatives actually believe that it’s something to honor rather than something to circumvent for the “public interest.” So we’re up to two mentions of the Constitution to limit the power of the President. Don’t know the record for a presidential debate. We must be close.

This is going to be awkward—nine Republicans being asked if they’re in favor of unions.

Mr. Matthews follows up by asking Mr. McCain how he’d catch Osama bin Laden. What’s the answer? Look harder?

John McCain has just invoked Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations. Not sure if it had anything to do with the point being made, but it’s always refreshing to hear one of the finest books ever written. It’s the earliest mention of an 18th century book in a presidential debate ever. He also goes out on a very short limb and earns a round of applause for suggesting we should reform the tax system.

Cachunk! | 5:57 p.m. Mr. Romney, known for delivering scripted and memorable sound bites at these debates, offers one that the audience loves. He says this campaign is a bit like “Law & Order,” in that it has a huge cast, it seems to go on forever, “and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.”

Mr. Thompson has a quick comeback: “And to think I was going to be the best actor on the stage.”


Lack of Debate

September 25, 2007

Not at Columbia University - at Morgan State University:

 The Republican candidate “All-American Presidential Forum” moderated by black journalist and talk-show host Tavis Smiley will feature GOP presidential candidates but not the party’s frontrunners—former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

 

The four candidates all cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for their absence. The top Democratic presidential contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University. Republican leaders are saying they’re concerned that the party appears to be ignoring communities of color.

 

Smiley’s “All-American Presidential Forum,” which will take place at Morgan State University in Baltimore and is scheduled to air Sept. 27 on PBS, is not the first debate the GOP presidential contenders have skipped. Only McCain accepted an invitation from Spanish-language network Univision to attend its GOP presidential forum. Republican candidates did not participate in the gay-and-lesbian television network LOGO’s presidential forum. And they skipped the annual conferences of the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.

I’m watching Tavis Smiley right now, he’s discussing the non-debate with Jack Kemp and they’re both simply astonished, frustrated, and disapointed. There’s no vitriol against ‘racist Republicans’ or anything like that, just pure shock that these guys would pass up such an opportunity and just plain embarrass their party. This is simply incomprehensible and politically inept.


Links of the Week

September 21, 2007

It says something when the media struggles to even consistently frame their debate coverage. Listen to this discombobulated report on last night’s AARP debate from NPR.

Obama missed that debate and this vote - yes, the vote was a bit ridiculous (so was the ad), but why not just show up? Seems like this will be difficult to rationalize if other candidates really start pressing Barack on it.

We haven’t been able to report on anything regarding Giuliani outside of his over-hyping the terrorist threat in about 6 weeks.

Apparently Mitt’s willing to follow Rudy’s lead when it comes to such hyperbole. They also do a nice job of writing another page in the playbook that continues to confuse America about who was responsible for Sept. 11th.

And Fred Thompson just can’t seem to get his off-screen life as a consultant in order. It’s amazing that Fred is doing better than just surviving in the polls, because he seems to be stumbling all over the stage since he drew the curtain on his candidacy. The polls are nice, but the Republican base that has so much riding on Thompson’s candidacy can’t be too enthused.


When Do We Get to Mash?

September 13, 2007

A busy week and I totally missed this entire “mash-up debate.” Probably a good thing, because it angers me almost as much as it does Glen Greenwald. I thought this campaign might be a good way of introducing democratizing technologies and new approaches to political expression, but now Yahoo, Slate, and the Huffington Post go and completely redefine mash-ups for the worse. Let’s be clear, nothing was mashed. This was simply a remote debate. Public participation was not enhanced.

However, mash-ups are fueled by debacles like the mash-up debate - creative people will innovate and utilize these here Internets and do what they want with what the candidates have given them to express their frustrations. How about we take all of the candidates standard talking-points and combine them to make the politicians look really ridiculous? Oh, thank you Onion:

Clinton Blasts Obama For Slamming Edwards Jab

WASHINGTON, DC—Dissent continued to plague the 2008 presidential campaign this week, as Sen. Hillary Clinton had harsh words for Sen. Barack Obama’s recent criticism of blunt remarks made by former Sen. John Edwards over what he called “petty Democratic-party infighting.”

“I am dismayed and outraged by my opponent’s baseless accusations in response to my other opponent’s crude mudslinging tactics, which were inappropriate and which the American people will not stand for,” Clinton said, echoing the criticism of criticism that has become a key element of this race. “The sheer effrontery. Destructive. Barb. Vitriol.”


AFL-CIO Forum: Gut Reactions

August 8, 2007

Um, Hillary: “I do not believe that people running for President should engage in hypotheticals.”

Ok, let’s take our time here Hill. Considering your husband introduces you as “the next president of the United States” at every rally, I think everyone is guilty of engaging in hypotheticals here. More to the point: you can’t be a good policy maker without making hypothetical statements. After all, policy is, in essence, anticipation.

Obama: Yup, it’s working. Despite a risky strategy of advancing concrete foreign policy this early in the race - and a risky policy at that - the people are only hearing: “I’ll end the wrong war and bolster the right war.” I’ll say it again, that’s easy to vote for. Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is turning out to be the glistening public speaker that many had hoped for.

Clinton: Not much to lose, so she’s constantly sharpening her image in the eyes of the liberal blogosphere by scrubbing her campaign trail with the dish-rag that is the Bush administration. This is smart and she does it well.

Edwards: Held strong as the populist candidate despite another Joe Biden surge.

Kucinich and Richardson: A good performance that will garner some funding and press, but no more votes.

Dodd: His message is getting through to no one.

George W. Bush: Remember when people criticized Al Gore for not utilizing the popularity of President Clinton (which of course wasn’t even that high in 2000)? Contrast that with this race where Republicans are avoiding him and the Democrats tonight, every time they stumbled or encountered a tough question, could simply mention Bush and insert some vitriol to make whatever they said sound like music to America’s ears. That’s the kind of unpopularity that opinion polls simply cannot convey.

Keith Olberman: Should moderate all of these. Not that he’s ‘asking the tough questions’ or anything, but realistically, the best a moderator can do in this overly-scripted age is to move things along, lighten it up every once in a while, and not be annoying throughout. Olberman gets dangerously close to violating the last rule, but on the whole, he seems completely natural in this most unnatural of roles as the contemporary moderator. Oh, and he does it all while sitting down. Has Anderson Cooper ever sat down?