Who Won the 3rd Obama McCain Debate? Obama

The third and final Obama-McCain Debate from Hofstra University is over and the world wants to know who won. Focus groups on CBS, CNN and FOX gave a big win to Obama. Additionally, snap polls at CBS and CNN found Obama the clear victor by a two-to-one margin.

My take is that Obama was steady, unflustered, and gave detailed responses to questions about his plans. McCain was more aggressive, emotional and presented a Republican program of more corporate tax cuts, free trade agreements and against a woman's right to choose. Obama was a bit cautious but relaxed; while McCain was overly anxious and a bit angry.

The big news--if that's what it can be called--is that McCain denied that he's George W. Bush (duhhh!!!!) and that he didn't care about an "old washed up terrorist"; and Obama dismissed the Ayers question as a McCain obsession and distraction.

Additionally, the intimate setting of the two men sitting at a table in front of a televised audience was not the forum forum for harsh partisan red meat. Obama was focused on calmly presenting his plans to undecided independents; while McCain came off as the prickly ideologue of the past appealing to his base.

The winner? Obama

Who Won the Obama-McCain Debate 2? Advantage Obama

The 2nd Obama-McCain debate is over -- and so is the race for president. Barring a direct meteor hit, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

McCain needed a game changer and he didn't come close. Instead, he looked old, sounded cranky at times, and even looked infirmed. But more importantly, his grasp of the issues and his solutions were at best too general, and at worst, too much of the same.

McCain needed a knockdown but be barely landed a punch. It's no wonder that the Republican pundits on television are unhappy with McCain's performance. For example, Leslie Sanchez and Alex Castellanos were frustrated with McCain, complaining that the senator missed numerous opportunities to score points.

While the debate was as I expected, fairly genteel, and the candidates stayed largely within the talking points, McCain did offer two surprises. One is that he believes that Social Security benefits will have to be curtailed. Ouch!!! This seems like an especially tone-deaf proposal given the poor stewardship of his party and the resulting levels of insecurity.

The other McCain proposal, which would costs 100s of $billions just for teetering subprimers, is to have the government purchase all the bad mortgages and reissue new ones at the diminished value of the homes. And which agency would buy the loans? FannieMae and FreddieMac -- the agencies McCain and the rightwing has been railing about?

This mortgage purchase proposal (which, btw, is along the lines of my own alternative bailout plan) must have conservatives re-evaluating their support for "mavericky" McCain. But it also clashes with his point that it's Obama that's the big spender. His mortgage bailout idea, together with the cost of more wars, and his huge tax cut proposal for corporations and the rich, hugely dwarfs the costs of Obama's proposed investments (in energy innovation, health care and education).

Bottom line, Obama showed well; McCain, not so much. Verdict: Advantage Obama

Related Links:
Obama-McCain Round 2: Wingnuts Need a Knockdown

Who Won the Biden- Palin VP Debate? BIden Now, Palin Later

Senator Biden was the clear winner in tonight's VP debate. The gap in readiness to serve as vice president, and president if needed, is wide.

While Governor Palin performed to my expectations, i.e., she was spunky and likable. However, she spoke in generalities, stuck to talking points, over did it with the folksy act, and repeated many of the McCain misstatements about Obama's record. Palin lost points by:

• Failing to identify a single area where she or John McCain would change George W. Bush's economic or foreign policy positions.
• Refusing to defend John McCain's record as a deregulation hawk.
• Pandering to the Jewish vote by promising relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem--a move that would escalate tensions in the Mideast.
• Seeming unmoved by Biden's emotional moment re: the near death of his son.
• Talking a great deal about corruption on Wall Street and blunders in the mishandling of the war, but offering no specifics for fixing any of the problems.
• Supporting Cheney's dangerous idea that the office of the VP is not part of the executive branch and, therefore, not subject to the laws governing it.
• Believing the VP is entitled to a significant legislative role.
• Refusing to directly answer many of the questions.

In contrast, Biden was authoritative -- steadily eviscerating John McCain's record, judgement, and his tax and national defense proposals.

We'll see what the consensus is on the winner --- and whether it can game the game. I don't think so.

Bottom line?

Joe Biden won the debate about who's best for '08. He helped his ticket's cause by presenting himself as someone who understands the need to change Washington -- and is ready to lead.

Sarah Palin won the first round of a longer contest for the hearts of the GOP's critical social conservative constituency with her spirited performance. She's reclaimed her political viability -- and her focus should be on the future since the McCain '08 campaign is but a short-term platform of opportunity.

Palin could very well win the GOP nomination for Alaska U.S. Senator and/or President down the road. But it'll be important now for her to do more interviews with conservative and christian media, speaking engagements with social conservative groups, and fund raising.

In order To fly, Palin will first have to escape from the moldy and confused cell McCain has put her in.

Who Won the 9/25 Presidential Debate? Obama

Video Clip of the Debate's Defining Exchange

Senator Barack Obama won this evening's first presidential debate at Ole Miss for these reasons:

- Obama more than held his own against a 26 year political veteran.
- Obama offered superior judgement in pursuit of national security interests.
- Obama was gracious, respectful and likable.
- Obama offered proposals that benefit middle Americans - tax cuts, smarter foreign policy, energy diversification, affordable college, etc.
- Obama looked and sounded like a commander-in-chief.
- Obama displayed a command of domestic and foreign policy.

In comparison, McCain was overly aggressive, condescending and repeatedly misrepresented Obama's positions. Additionally....

- McCain had surprisingly little to offer Americans on economics.
- McCain came off like an stubborn old man on the issue of the Iraq War.
- McCain was ungracious, condescending, and dismissive. He never looked at Obama.
- McCain became visibly angry when challenged.
- McCain repeatedly threw his political ally George W. Bush under the bus.
- McCain seemed too desperate, repeatedly pleading for support.

Who Won The ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia? Sean Hannity

ABCNews' George Stephonopoulus and his hapless sidekick, Charlie Gibson were reading directly from the rightwing/Clintonista playbook.

The first half of the 2 hour debate involved George and Charlie lobbing many of the baseless allegations and guilty by association questions of today's most rabid wingnuts. The questions were the very ones rightwing screechers have been furiously pushing since they first learned that Barack Obama is a real threat to their continued political dominance. They were tabloid type gotcha questions designed to smear Barack: Bittergate, Rev. Wright, Chicago's Bill Ayers, Hamas, Louis Farahkan.

Along the way the dual gave Hillary the freedom to repeat many of the same charges and then some. Actually, she's the one that brought up Farrakhan and Hamas and purposely left the uninformed viewer to conclude that the associations were Obama's.

Why Sean Hannity?

Hannity has been using his radio program and perch on FOX to smear Obama. Very vile stuff in keeping with his supremacists politics and clear hate for progressive Americans--especially African Americans.

However, with their waning influence -- even with conservative Republicans (e.g., few Republicans listened when he advocated voting for Mitt Romney), Hannity and the other wingnuts' pogrom against Obama has had virtually no effect on public opinion.

Plan B (AUDIO: Hannity Feeds Stephanopoulos Debate Questions)

Hannity had George on his radio program yesterday and quickly learned that he had a willing ally. Hannity offered his tired litany of anti-Obama tabloid questions and George accepted. Not only did George accept but he himself offered that Obama, in his opinion, had not been vetted.

George, a Clintonista pseudo journalist, accepting aid from a rightwing propagandist with an unveiled agenda to defeat Barack Obama is a curious thing.

Additionally, Hillary's smirk and body language throughout the debate made it clear that she very well knew what was going down.

Notwithstanding the withering attack by George and Charlie (on behalf of the wingnuts and the Clintonistas), Hillary herself, and McCain (in abstentia), they did not knock Barack Obama down. He was smart, agile, tough and even graceful.

Obama's still standing. And he's still their biggest threat. And our biggest hope.

The real winner?

Barack Obama and decent Americans everywhere.

Yes, we can!

Related: Hannity Spoonfed Left-Field Debate Question To Stephanopoulos

Who Won the MSNBC Ohio Democratic Presidential Debate? Democratic Nominee-To-Be Barack Obama

The Ohio Democratic Presidential Debate is over and it was not a good night for Hillary. Her campaign's negativity and race-baiting was exposed. Her flip-flop on NAFTA was laid bare. And her inconsistency on the Iraq War was, again, made painfully clear.

(Although new ground was broken when Hillary camethisclose to taking responsibility for authorizing the Iraq War.)

Additionally, Hillary's effort to denigrate Obama's plan for health care fell flat, and she was unable to answer why she's not released her financial and schedule records as First Lady.

Hillary also lost big points in response to a few unexpected questions re: successor and Minister Farrakhan's views. She jumped at Russert's Putin question and then flubbed it by mangling First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. And then she inexplicably jumped into a question to Obama regarding Farrakhan--a moment which ackwardly concluded with Obama agreeing to Hillary's demand that he reject that which he'd already denounced. Very weird.

However, Hillary's worst moment came right at the top of the debate when she both whined about getting the first question--and then went on to say that she's fine asnwering first. What? It was a very strange and confusing moment--one which the talking heads afterwards couldn't figure out since most debaters prefer to go first in order to frame the debate.

Bottom line? Obama was masterful, in control, presidential. Hillary was, well, Hillary.

Who Won the CNN Univision Texas Democratic Presidential Debate? Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama

The debate is not yet over, but it really is. The fat lady has begun to sign.

Hillary just flubbed the critical question about being commander-in-chief. She seemed to equate that role with issues of domestic programs and policies.

In contrast, Obama addressed it with a powerful response about protecting the nation while conducting a smart use of the military. He went further and welcomed a debate with John McCain--the war hero--for supporting a successful tactical manuever in the surge but failing to understand that the Iraq War itself was a huge strategic blunder--a historic blunder that has hurt America around the world and Americans in very personal and painful ways, particularly members of military families.

It's over. It really is.

Obama wins the LA debate overwhelmingly

The good thing about today's Democratic Presidential Debate from Los Angeles was that the two remaining candidates--Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--gave voters a clearer view of themselves in regards to leadership, vision, policies and personality.

In terms of who won, I believe that Democratic voters won as did the cause for better politics. However, while both did well, I thought Obama stood out. He articulated a better understanding of the times, and his principles and proposals a better fit.

It seems that Luntz' focus group agrees. Check out the video.

The Clintons Use Their Race Card Advantage

Coming off a dramatic victory in Iowa, the Obama campaign suddenly found itself deep in the fog of a concocted battle with the Clinton Camp over race.

It's vintage Clinton Machine politics--a politics that calls for the use of any device, no matter how low and despicable, to gain political advantage.

They are such masters of "slim & hide" politics that many in the media--and therefore the public--seem confused about which camp is responsible for inserting race.

So there was Hillary sounding all saintly in yesterday's debate in Nevada--and incredibly it was Obama who Tim Russert keyed in on until forced to apologize.

Apparently in American politics, if the Clintons and their surrogates cleverly stroke the race chord, and a campaign helper for the Obama Camp documents it for lazy reporters to read, according to Russert that's race-baiting by Obama.

As a veteran reporter and former political operative who knows the game, I expected better from Russert.

Hillary sat there looking like the cat that swallowed the canary!

But in politics there's a simple test used in determining who's behind a particular tactic: see who benefits.

Who benefited from raising direct and indirect questions about race on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary--a primary which had Obama in the lead?

Hint: It wasn't Obama.

How exactly does Hillary benefit from use of the race card? And would the "nonracist" Bill and Hillary Clinton stoop so low as to allow its use? For answers to those questions by someone who understands political combat Clinton style, read former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris' In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card.

I challenge Clinton supporters--especially those Latinos shilling--to prove us wrong.

My conclusion from this whole sordid affair? The Clintons know that their opponents--be it Al Gore and Jesse Jackson in 1992, or Barack Obama and John Edwards in 2008--are more honorable. Politically, the Clintons--whom are less so--gain the advantage. Just witness what's happened this week.

Enough said!

Who Won The ABC N.H. Debates? Change

Winners of the back-to-back GOP and Democratic presidential debates by ABCNews/Facebook in New Hampshire were those candidates most convincing in their claims to be a true change agent for a weary nation.

Who were those candidates?

I believe they were John McCain for the GOP and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

John McCain - Senator McCain won the mantel--albeit in Republican form--by detailing how he took on the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and forced the Bush administration to change its war strategy in Iraq.

The GOP runner-up? Mike Huckabee for his populist focus on average Americans.

Barack Obama - Avoided Hillary's bait to get into a tussle while keeping his eye on bringing about a more constructive political dialogue.

The Democratic runner-up? Edwards also for his "personal" commitment to pursuing a politics on behalf of the little guy.

Transcripts:
N.H. Democratic Debate
N.H. Republican Debate

CNN's Hill Shilling

The Nevada Democrat Debate was even more of a travesty than I originally understood.

It turns out that CNN tried every tacky trick in the book in an effort to bolster their preferred candidate: Hillary.

Pathetic!

Not only was the viewing public terribly ill-served, but CNN may have caused real harm to the nation's democratic process as a result of its naked manipulation.

Here are just a few of CNN's journalistic sins:

- stacking the audience in favor of one candidate
- Wolf turning deaf and dumb when it came to questioning Hillary
- serving up Democrat party operatives as "undecided voters" and allowing them to ask questions (including the infamous "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?' question to Hillary
- pretending that Hillary campaign advisor James Carville was an unaffiliated pundit during the post-debate review (Of course, Carville thought Hillary won.)

Related:

Questions About Carville and CNN
CNN's and Carville's lack of ethics
Diamonds and Pearls and Girls for President
“Random” questioner at debate was Arkansas Democratic Party officer in 2003?

CNN Nevada Debate: Hillary Gets What Hillary Wants

Thank goodness few people watched last night's Democratic debate from the campus of UNLV.

It was a dreadful 2 hour demonstration of:

1) why CNN has been in a tail spin as a "news" organization; and

2) how Clintonites get over on CNN's hapless Wolf Blitzer.

Evidence?

1) After flip-flopping on the question of drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in New York, Hillary got away scott-free when the question was revisited last night. Dumb Wolf accepted Hillary's newly adopted opposition to licensing undocumented drivers without so much as raising an eyebrow.

Unfreaking believable!

It's like McCain or Giuliani suddenly announcing absolute opposition to the Iraq War and Wolf ignoring it and moving onto another question.

Pathetic!

2) The audience was clearly stacked for Clinton because a chorus of boos would descend upon only Obama and Edwards, but Hillary's silliness would be applauded. Pretty obvious what was going on.

3) Nothing better captures the farce of the so-called debate than the final question posed to Hillary by a very silly Nevadan Latina: "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"

Clinton's answer? "I want both."

The Clinton camp's assessment of Wolf's performance? "Outstanding." No wonder so many people refer to it as the Clinton News Network.

Related:

What you missed while watching "Project Runway" - The Democratic debate in Vegas: Fire-retardant pantsuits! Hecklers! Mysterious booing! GOP-style mudslinging! And a bizarre photo op by Salon's Michael Scherer. Pretty funny.

Hillary's Halloween Moment

Since it's Halloween and one of my girls dressed as the cutest Wicked Witch of the West in all of the East, I just couldn't resist posting this last (i.e., for the week) photo of Hillary from last night's Philly Debate.

The photo is humorous by itself, but rabidl bad boy McCullough made it hilarious when he added this caption:

"I'll get you my pretties.... heeehaaahaa haa haa!"

I'm still laughing.

Don’t Look to Democrats for Immigrant Rights

Latinos Democrats looking for constructive change on the issue of immigration should pay close attention to what Roberto Lovato is saying in Don't Look to Democrats for Immigrant Rights (New America Media, October 31, 2007).

Lovato's point? That Democrats may not have the stomach to fight the good fight on behalf of immigration reform.

Nativism sells in the current anti-immigrant environment--and it sells just as well for Democrats as it does for Republicans. Consider the popularity of New York's Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy. A popular Democrat, Levy is about to win re-election with upwards of 95% of the vote.

The evidence? Not only links Hillary's equivocating on immigrant licenses during last night's debate to honcho Rahm Emmanual's declaration that immigration is the new third rail, but also to Bill Clinton and his post-Oklahoma bombing efforts at what some call "crimmigration”, the criminalization of immigration.

The bottomeline? The GOP is horrendous and getting worse on Latino immigration, but the Democrats may be no better--and could be worse.

The Philly Debate: The Boys Grow Up and Hillary Stumbles

Last night's democratic presidential debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia was refreshing.

Why?

Two reasons:

1) Hillary's male competitors finally stopped their silly game of not engaging her for fear of being viewed as mean. (Of course, their deference to Madam Hillary did not protect them from being pummelled by the Clinton War Machine and their media allies.)

2) Tim Russert and Brian Williams put away the sexist approach to Hillary and actually asked her tough questions.

This was welcomed progress.

The result was that Hillary, the Democratic Party front runner and likely nominee, was challenged on a number of important points which are sure to become major issues during the next year's general election. Hillary stumbled on all three.

The Iran Vote

Hillary voted this week to allow the Bush administration the first step towards war with Iran. Her response? That something needs to be done and that her vote somehow puts pressure on the Bush administration to do the right thing. What?

Social Security

Hillary's official position on Social Security is that it should not be touched, but privately she has said that payroll tax should be expanded. When asked by Russert to resolve those conflicting views, Hillary herself dug a deeper hole. She said something to the effect that while it's her position that nothing should change, a number of proposed changes will be on the table. What?

Licenses for the Undocumented

This was perhaps the most disturbing response of the night. When asked whether Hillary supported or opposed New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to give undocumented workers drivers licenses, she punted.

What was strange was that the question seemed to take Hillary by surprise. But how could it? After all, Hillary is a senator from New York and it's New York's governor--and Clinton political ally/supporter--who's proposal was being discussed. Either Hillary is so accustomed to the MSM's white glove treatment and expected Russert to not question her non response, or her debate preparation was lacking.

Clinton camp knows that the Republicans plan to use immigration as a wedge against the Democrat nominee, so they want to neutralize it as much as possible. Their strategy is to say little publicly on immigration, while conducting a below the radar outreach to Latinos. The latter explains the recent spate of softball interviews by Latino bloggers.

The question I have is not for Hillary...she and Bill are pretty good at the game of slicing, dicing and parsing in order to win political elections.

The question I have is for all of the Latino politicians, nonprofit CEOs and bloggers that have thrown themselves onto Hillary bandwagon: Do you really want a president who is publicly mute on these most important of issues?

Related:

Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
Clinton feels heat after testy debate

Notre Dame Forum on Immigration: Barletta is still wrong

I just watched the full 110 minute forum on immigration sponsored by the University of Notre Dame. Finally, a constructive discussion of this most important yet contentious national issue.

Moderated by PBS's Rey Suarez, the panel included Senator Mel Martinez, Cardinal Michael Mahony of Los Angeles, Arizona Governor Janet A. Napolitano and Hazelton, PA mayor, Louis J. Barletta. While framed by the imperatives of Catholic social justice teachings, it was not a one sided open-borders forum. Barletta and three white male students from the audience represented the anti-immigrant side, while really only the Cardinal argued a strong pro-undocumented immigrant line. Martinez and Napolitano represented the more nuanced middle ground.

I highly recommend watching the forum. Why? Because the immigration issue is not going away soon, and given what has transpired thus far in the debate, it'll take a much better educated citizenry before sensible solutions will be politically doable.

I did, however, find it interesting watching and listening to Barletta who tried very hard to sound reasonable and even compassionate. But while he struck an earnest and even soft tone, his tactic was the same: Blame "illegals" for every horrific crime that's occurred in Hazelton, while obscuring his ineffectiveness as a community leader and mayor.

His rap didn't sit well with me, nor apparently with many others, including student Michael McKenna who wrote the following as part of a larger reaction to the forum posted online:

Mayor Barletta painted a fairly pristine picture of life in his town pre-immigrant, while glossing over the fact that Northeastern Pennsylvania has been declining economically for decades, arguably since the decline of coal mining after World War II. To ascribe all subsequent problems to immigrants is a classic case of scapegoating. The crimes he described were indeed horrific, but to suggest that they were committed by undocumented people on a scale disproportionate to their makeup in the population is difficult to believe. Also, a large percentage of the Latinos in Hazleton are Puerto Rican, who are by law U.S. citizens. But by creating a political climate of fear, very likely these U.S. citizens will suffer the social consequences as well.

McKenna makes an important point: Barletta props up his case against undocumented immigrants with distortions and myths about life in Hazelton. And a new study by Zogby International provides the evidence. The study found that on all of the negative conditions attributed to the city's undocumented immigrants--crowded schools, higher unemployment, higher crime levels, etc.,--none are true.

Congratulations to Notre Dame U. for the terrific forum. Now, if only we can get the folks on television, radio and the U.S. Congress to follow suit.

Who Won the PBS-Tavis Smiley Republican Presidential Forum? Mike Huckabee, Tavis and the 1st African American Female Combat Pilot

First, this forum was so much better than that travesty in Washington DC last August--even without the big leaguers. The speeches were somewhat contained, the questions were quite good and Tavis kept the whole thing flowing nicely.

However, the set is still somewhat amateurish and the acoustics were not great--which probably is why a number of the candidates had to ask for repeats on questions. And it's pathetic that it took almost a half hour before the panel of journalists were introduced.

The fact that the four leading GOP candidates were no shows was the theme for the first third of the forum. Not only was the dissing mentioned repeatedly by the speakers, but the podiums of the missing were purposely left vacant. Additionally, the first question had to go with why some chose to skip the event.

Huckabee--who received 48% of the African American in his race for governor of Arkansas--actually said that he was embarrassed by the GOPers dissing of the forum.

Brownback said that he's disgusted by the dissing and said, "I'm sorry."

Alan Keyes--who thinks the world revolves around him--said that the leading GOPers aren't necessarily dissing all African Americans--it's just that they're afraid of debating him. Sorry Keyes, but I don't think so.

But who helped their cause and who didn't? Who won and who got burned?

Clearly, the biggest losers, at least with African Americans--and maybe PBS watchers in general, were the no shows. Writing off African Americans may seem like the expedient thing to do but it's wrong, as well as dumb. Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, et al, should be commended for respecting African Americans enough to show up.

Vernice Amour was a winner. She's the first African American female combat pilot who has done two tours in Iraq. She was in the audience and was acknowledged by panelist Juan Williams. A+

Mike Huckabee - I thought Gov. Mike Huckabee did the best job of conveying a command of the issues, demonstrating experience and competence and in establishing a rapport with the forum's target audience. The only awkward moment was when he tried to explain the weightiness of sending death row convicts to their deaths. A

Sam Brownback - The senator from Kansas was also impressive in his knowledge, legislative leadership and commitment to issues such as integration. He also said he's for an official U.S. government apology for slavery. B

Ron Paul - Congressman and leading libertarian Ron Paul hammered two issues: opposition to the Iraq War and his strong support for freedom as the best hope for eliminating racial and economic disparities. Paul received some of the most enthusiatic audience responses. To his credit, Paul reversed himself based on the evidence and now opposes a federal death penalty. B-

Duncan Hunter - Hunter made his three points repeatedly: He wants to leave Iraqi with "honor", he's for a long border wall, and he did legal work in the "barrio". Hunter is for the death penalty only, he says, because it's a deterrent. Say what? C-

Tank - Tank-credo may have gained a small amount of ground with African American voters by blaming Latino immigrants for depressing wages. But he lost it all when he said he's for the death penalty. D

Alan Keyes - Keyes ran hard for the social conservative vote by talking alot about moral values, life, marriage, the Iraq War, etc. It was odd to watch that the single African American candidate seemed to leave the mostly black audience cold. D

Related: GOP hopefuls assailed for debate absence
First African American Female Combat Pilot
GOP Debate a Black Comedy
Liveblog! GOP Black Voter Forum: Half The Candidates, Double The Fun!
Yepsen: Huckabee stands out in GOP forum
GOP candidates rip four who skipped race-issues debate

Blogging Tonight's PBS Republican Forum at Morgan State U.

Speaking of debates...

Republican presidential hopefuls are scheduled to do their own PBS-Tavis Smiley forum tonight from Baltimore's Morgan State University.

The controversy heading into this event is that a number of the leading candidates are not attending. That is, Republicans are continuing their cross-country campaign of dissing any and all presidential forums targeting African American and Latino audiences.

As I did the Democratic PBS-Tavis Smiley forum in Washington DC, I'll join a group of bloggers from across the country in blogging this one as well. Credit to Robert Cox of the Media Bloggers Association and the folks at PBS/Tavis Smiley for encouraging bloggers--especially bloggers of color--to participate in these events.

While the audience for this forum will be miniscule, I suspect it'll offer some very interesting and, possibly, newsworthy moments.

Until later.

See Who Won the PBS-Tavis Smiley Republican Presidential Forum? Mike Huckabee, Tavis and the 1st African American Female Combat Pilot. (American Taíno - 9.27.07) for the rest of my comments.

Related: GOP's snub of minorities isn't smart strategy

Who Won the MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate? Tim Russert, Ken Burns and the Yankees

While most television watchers were watching their team fail to make the MLB post-season, the black and white flicker of yet another WWII documentary , fading actors Paso Dobleing, or another endless and senseless telenovela, Democratic presidential hopefuls were on stage in Hanover, New Hampshire for yet another talkfest.

The debate was moderated by famed TV inquisitor Tim Russert, so it sounded a lot like an expanded version Meet the Press. As is his trademark, Russert's questions were designed to make candidates squirm a bit. Most interesting to watch was how Russert--on a number of occasions--succeeded in setting Hillary up.

Her response? She let go of one of those scary laughs Byron York of National Review calls a cackle.

The one question I most enjoyed watching the candidates answer was on Sanctuary Cities.

Candidates were asked if they opposed or supported cities breaking federal laws by declaring themselves as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. Richardson was asked first because--well--he's Latino and nonLatinos seem to think that immigration is simply a Latino issue.

Richardson--along with Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel--believes that sanctuaries are important in light of a federal system which is wrong and counter-productive. Obama and Hillary had more nuanced responses, but they, too, ended up on the side of sanctuary cities. Biden and Edwards also blamed Bush for failed leadership on immigration reform but are against cities opposing federal immigration enforcement.

York watched the debate, too, and he wasn't much impressed. (Here's his write-up.) For him, there were no winners. The TV pundits disagree. They gave the win to Hillary, but for odd reasons. They believe she won because 1) she didn't mess up too badly, or 2) some other candidate--such as Obama--underperformed.

They're all wrong. There was indeed a winner--or winners, and none were on the stage at Dartmouth. They were Tim Russert, Ken Burns and the Yankees!

Related: Democrats start with Iraq - Manchester Union Leader
Democrats Debate - MSNBC

Who Won the Yahoo! Democratic Candidate Mashup?

9/17 Update: Obama now leads Clinton by just 3 points in the Mashup online poll - 35% to 32%. Edwards trails at 12%.

I just completed watching the full 2+ hours of the 2008 Yahoo! Democratic Mashup--YAHOO!news' entry into the growing list of novel presidential forums.

The difference is that the "Mashup" is an online series of pre-recorded video snippets taken from interviews of the 8 Democratic candidates conducted by PBS's Charlie Rose. Topics were limited to Iraq, Education and Health Care. Additionally, funny man Bill Maher throws each candidate a question designed to make things more interesting.

Because it's prerecorded and broken into bits of viewable video, viewers can access the Mashup anytime between now and September 21st, and they can chose to view only those pieces they prefer, and in which ever order best suits them.

Mashup?

It's a Mashup because viewers can select candidates and compare their responses against each other --and it's done online.

Co-sponsored by The Huffington Post and Slate, the Yahoo! Mashup is billed as a ground-breaking innovation in terms of campaign dialogue. I'm not so sure.

The good thing is that each candidate gets a chunk of time to respond to questions from each topic--and they mostly tried to give full and thoughtful answers. The negative is that too often the candidates fell back to scripts--except, of course, in response to Bill Maher's queries.

Also, since each candidate was interviewed separately, missing are the atmospherics of a live forum or debate. There is something to be said for being able to witness the interplay--verbal and nonverbal--between the contestants.

Who won?

According to the online Yahoo! poll, Barack Obama was leading with 37% to Hillary Clinton's 32%.

Here's my take:

Barack Obama - I agree that Obama does very well because the format really works to his strengths. As in a typical Charlie Rose interview, the guests are allowed to give lengthier answers to important questions--and Obama does exactly that. Obama did well with all of the questions, but I thought he did especially well in response to Iraq and education. He gave a very sensible answer to how to extract the U.S. from Iraq while ensuring the stability of the region. I also liked his commitment fixing urban public schools. Grade A

John Edwards - I thought the format also worked for John Edwards. For the first time in my experience watching him, Edwards seemed really comfortable--and even genuine. Edwards' strongest responses were in Health Care where he promised to keep the drug lobbyists from vetoing real change, and Education where he promoted universl pre-k and free public higher education. Grade B

Dennis Kucinich - I thought Kucinich did well, too. He hit all of his key points--out of Iraq, dump No Child Left Behind and it's obsession with testing, and do universal health care through a nonprofit system. Grade B

Mike Gravel - Gravel was a hoot. Not only does he just let it rip, but I find myself actually agreeing with a number of his points. He's always admonishing voters to follow the money, but his point really struck a cord when he talked about health care. His point is that real change is not likely as long as the drug company lobbyists keep buying off the politicians--including those he's competing against. Grade B

Bill Richardson - Richardson's performance was OK--not brilliant but not bad. What I don't understand, though, is why Rose felt the need to ask only Richardson--not once, but twice--about immigration. I also found it offensive that Rose asked only Richardson about him settling for a VP slot. Grade C+

Hillary Clinton - I don't think that the format (nor the lighting) was as friendly to Hillary. It also seems that she's more interesting as the center of a network--a network that includes a lot of interesting, passionate and committed people. But on her own, one-on-one in a straight-up interview with Charlie Rose, she's seems diminished. Hurting her were her cautious and uninspiring responses on education, health care and Iraq. Grade C+

Chris Dodd/Joe Biden - Dodd and Biden loved the extra time to talk, which is what these two men seem most skilled in doing. It's hard for me to take either of these two guys seriously, since they talk with so much urgency but say so little and have done even less in their long congressional careers. Grade C-

Click here view the Yahoo! Mashup.