Home › Blogs › Sarah Burris's blog ›

Democratic Primary Debate in South Carolina

I’m about 10 minutes behind (cooking dinner), but the first Democratic Primary debate is underway in South Carolina. It’s on MSNBC if you’re not watching.

I’m watching on DVR, so I’ll catch up as the commercials stack up. Leave your thoughts (now, or after) in the comments.

Update: That was a pretty huge let down. Nothing was said that I would call youth specific. I suppose it should have been expected. Here’s my basic take:

Richardson seemed confused and while he may be the foreign policy heavyweight on stage, it didn’t really come across. Part of that was the format, which did him a disservice. He had the most to gain, so he really ended up as the big loser tonight. Gravel was batshit crazy, in an entertaining way. He somehow succeeded in being to the Left of Kucinich with a furor befitting the most ardent Right Wing hawk. And it was just bizarre that Obama chose to engage both Kucinich and Gravel on Iran at the end of the debate. What good could that possibly do him to mix it up like that?

Wonkette has the best live blogging I’ve seen so far. If I can find video of Gravel I’ll post it.

Update II: Also worth checking out is tonight’s Kossacks Under 35 post by Kath25. It’s all about Young Voter engagement and the candidates.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
April 26th, 2007 3:31pm
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Swish

Submitted by Ryan S Jackson (not verified) on Thu, 2007-04-26 17:56.

I’m writing my own post-debate thing right now.

I thought Richardson came off better (in context, it was a bad night for everybody) than the Big 3, who face planted with panache. Hillary seems to me to be almost a guranteed Republican win in 08, Obama looked green and jumpy, and I’m in my fourth consecutive year of hating John Edwards.

I find Gravel fascinating, both for the fact that he’s a totally distinguished/courageous politician, and that he seems to find this whole song and dance contemptable. It’s weird watching him and Kucinich on the same stage, given that when Gravel was serving in the senate Kucinich probably wouldn’t have seemed all that out of step with the mainstream.

Biden’s only laugh line was Brian Williams noting what a clueless fuckhole he is, which was fantastic.

Everyone should be thankful that this debate is going to be long forgotten by Iowa, but the Republican debate next week will be fantastic. There’s like thirty of them running, and they all are going to be trying to out-conservative the other in an atmosphere turning against ultra-conservative politics. I think we could possibly see one of the front runners fucking implode on live TV.

Big Three

Submitted by Michael Connery on Thu, 2007-04-26 19:47.
I thought Richardson came off better (in context, it was a bad night for everybody) than the Big 3, who face planted with panache.

I thought the three of them were bland and adequate - which was really their goal. Don’t fuck up. That’s why Obama’s engagement with Gravel and Kucinich confused me. It was dangerous for him and it came right at the end.

Agreed, he did seem a little more jumpy than usual - and slightly less eloquent in a spontaneous format.

The Republicans … seriously. did you see all the thumbnails of their headshots? It filled the screen … I didn’t even know there were that many Republicans sans-scandal who merited a spot in that horserace. The price of entry is indeed low across the aisle this year.

a few good laughs~

Submitted by Joshua Gorman on Thu, 2007-04-26 19:06.

nothing too newsworthy and substantive, on point in most of the ways i expected. definitely didn’t expect anything youth-specific, though it would have been awesome if it had come about. for that to happen though it seems like it would take a major shift in the way our society views and values the young voter bloc, and while i’m an active and hopeful optimist like many others here at FM, there is still much work to be done, much of it from our own (young people’s) end of things. i could also see it happening if one of the candidates became a “champion of the youth,” but none, not even the youth favorite Obama, has gone this far in the ways that would be needed to have the type of system-wide affect i’m imagining.

does anyone know who pays for the debate airtime? the DNC? or was it sponsored by MSNBC? i liked that it was commercial-free and it really made me long for more mainstream political dialogue on our mainstream channels.

got quite a kick out of Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel. i found the raising-of-hands questions hilarious…a couple times i swear i saw people in this hesistant indecisive moment looking around rapidly to see who else was raising their hands. i’d love to watch those clips again and analyze it a little closer.

all in all i was glad to see it taking place, far from perfect, but our Republic has seen worse days, worse candidates, and worse deliberation. not that we shouldn’t keep the pressure on for some serious fucking forward marching progressive tally-ho democracy!

Loans and Edwards

Submitted by Michael Connery on Thu, 2007-04-26 19:43.
definitely didn’t expect anything youth-specific, though it would have been awesome if it had come about. for that to happen though it seems like it would take a major shift in the way our society views and values the young voter bloc,

I had some slight hopes of hearing something about the student loan scandals - esp. from Edwards. They’ve been front page news for weeks now. Would have been better than a question about his haircuts.

Airtime

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Fri, 2007-04-27 08:17.
does anyone know who pays for the debate airtime? the DNC? or was it sponsored by MSNBC? i liked that it was commercial-free and it really made me long for more mainstream political dialogue on our mainstream channels.

The airtime is provided by the channel, which is why regular NBC viewers had the end cut off to show “My Name is Earl.” News channels do these primary things so they can build/retain legitimacy, which is why it’s important for the Democrats to freeze out FoxNews.

The actual presidential debates are set up by a commission and simulcast on multiple channels. I believe the channels are required provide airtime gratis for this, although cable networks are not. Broadcasting channels (the big three + PBS) have a public-service component to their charter as they make use of a reserved/licensed public resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) to to their business. Cable networks aren’t directly dependent on federal legislation — though they’d be nowhere without state franchising rights and tons of municipal help in building their infrastructure — and are thus not similarly constrained to do things in the name of public service. However, most of the news channels (again, for legitimacy or the opportunity to do their own spin) will carry debates, presidential addresses, state of the union, etc.