• Spazeboy is yer man, if you want video.
• Lamont Blog was drinking it all in at O'Neill's.
• Firedoglake live blogged the debate and then engaged in some excellent post debate analysis.
• And the rapid response team at the official campaign debate headquarters nailed Joe point by point.
Enjoy!
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
It will be interesting to see the local paper polls. If this was even close (like 55-45 Lamont or 60-40) you could say Joe won on a biased sampling. That he wasn't even close makes these results look even more legitimate, in my view.
About 5 min later than the other one (took me awhile to find it).
These are internet polls though, and should be taken with a grain of salt. They nearly always skew liberal.
I'll be back to let you all know when it's online. |Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|
I was surprised at how long they kept it on the screen, a good 5 seconds.
Anyways, good to be here! :) "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore
I completely agree with your ideas on ways Ned could have hit the message home more vigorously, but overall I completely agree that Ned won the image war.
I love the contrast in pictures, BTW. Ned looks eager and enthusiastic while Lieberman's fake grin is a thin veneer over his palpable resentment.
Joe Lieberman needed to hit this one out of the park. He had 30 years as a professional politician behind him and he could have approached this in a polite, confident, competent manner. Instead, he came off as shrill, defensive, and downright rude. He repeatedly broke the debate's rules while Ned was polite and stuck to all time limits and the agreed-upon format.
But Ned was hardly passive. He showed that he is in this race to become our next Senator, and that his candidacy is about many issues in addition to the war. His initial nervousness only heightened audience awareness that he is a regular guy challenging a career politician, but he got beyond that initial uncertainty to demonstrate that he is intelligent, forthright, and able to think on his feet.
I wanted more red meat, of course. I wanted Ned to score more home runs, but he hit lots of great triples, while Lieberman was sending out foul ball after foul ball.
Lieberman's palpable sense of entitlement showed Connecticut Democrats exactly why we need a change of leadership in Washington.
Lamont held his own and kept to his message, presented an optimistic outlook, and offered a positive vision for the party. Came across as reasonable and polite in comparison to Lieberman. A bit nervous and shifted his gaze too much.
Lamont's missed opportunities: * Highlighting more differences aside from the war * His question to Lieberman - should have asked him a tougher question that would box him in
Best one-liner of the night went to Lamont when Lieberman interrupted him: "This isn't Fox News, sir." Every Democrat had to love that, and the room I was in erupted in laughter and applause.
No knock-out punches either way.
Tonight, especially in a week that saw Lieberman essentially officially depart from the Party should he lose, Lamont had a pristine oppurtunity to make this debate about the "heart and soul" of the Democratic Party as the moderator alluded. Lamont failed at doing this. Whether Lieberman was lying or not is not the issue - for those of us watching this debate rooting for Lamont, we knew he was lying and being good ole' Joe. For those who supported Lieberman, they believed he was defending his record. But for those few CT Dems who had somehow not made up their minds, the national press corps, and the general voting population of the state not voting on the 8th, Lieberman framed the debate brilliantly - I am the man who can get the job done, this is the man who is running a single issue campaign, and you know better than that.
Nerves are one thing, message is another. Lamont sounded like a broken record. In almost every answer, he insisted on replying to Lieberman by talking about the Iraq war and how costly it is. He would follow that up by saying that we needed universal healthcare, better education, and more jobs. But never did he really make me believe that he would be the leader of that movement - he merely seemed like a guy standing up a stage using the same lines over and over again.
I went into tonight's debating knowing how I was going to cast my vote next month. I didnt watch the debate seeking answers to questions about their policies - I know where they both stand. I went in to tonight's debate looking for Ned to stand up and inspire not only me, but the whole state and even the national party. I'm sorry to say he failed. We can have it so much better. We can motivate the party. We can change things. But Lamont didnt make me believe it and if he wants to win in August and November, its about time he starts making people believe in overal change, not just change in Senate seats...
Joe is looking past the primary vote with this performance.
Since your own other comment here at MLN is this:
he's not going to run independent (0.00 / 0) unless he loses the primary against Lamont on August 8 and based on the polls quinnipiac is dishing out these days there will be a D next to his name during the general election and all will be well for joe liberman yet again. by: publius1220 @ Thu May 04, 2006 at 11:40:28 AM EDT
..I sort of wonder where you're coming from.
Lamont's performance reminded me of Stewart's character who filibustered against a corrupt machine. Yeah, Lamont was awkward at times and failed to deliver knockout punches that a more seasoned debater would have, but overall, this debate was a more exciting debate than I thought it would be. My favorite line from Lamont was when he told Lieberman, who was rudely interrupting him, "This is not FOX News, sir!" That stunned Lieberman into a temporary silence and it showed that Lamont would not be bullied by Lieberman.
The onus on this debate was on Lieberman to knockout Lamont and Lieberman FAILED. Also Lieberman was rude to Lamont by breaking the rules of the debate and trying to cut off Lamont's responses. Lamont played by the rules of the debate and Lieberman didn't.
Lamont does have work cut out for him, but Lamont's strength is his campaigning, grassroots support, and TV ads. Lieberman does not have a great ground game and his ads are mostly pathetic.
I don't want a polished politician anymore. I want a real person who gets nervous in front of cameras, but rallies his own resolve to stand up to a bully. I am more committed now to Lamont than before the debate.
Ned probably could have destroyed Lieberman if he were more at ease with a timely rejoinder and a smile or two. The peevish Lieberman would not have reacted well. (Notice how he reacted to the Fox News quip in particular.)
Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.(What is Spotlight?)
Connecticut's War Dead
MLN is powered by