CNN Democratic Debate In South Carolina
CNN Democratic Debate In South Carolina — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
If last week’s debate was a democratic love-fest, then this week’s debate was a Jerry Springer show. In fact, when they brought the chairs out for the second half, I could almost picture Obama and Hillary throwing them at each other. Thankfully, that didn’t happen, and they actually continued the debate in a much less confrontational way.
I enjoyed watching this debate much more during the second half, when the candidates were behaving in a much more “presidential” manner. However, not surprisingly, the media is now focusing its attention on the bickering and fighting. I was watching this debate with my 13 year old daughter, who casually mentioned to me that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were both acting like children. Then regretfully, my son came out of his room after the debate to tell me that Hillary came off as the “B-word”, and he thought she wasn’t letting Barack get a word in edgewise.
Personally, I learned more about the candidates and their positions on the issues when they were discussing them calmly and rationally…And isn’t that the actual purpose of a debate? Several times John Edwards was the voice of reason, and the one who brought the debate back to the important issues facing our country (like poverty, the economy, and healthcare). It was clear by the cheers and jeers of the audience that they were strongly in support of Barack Obama. Although, it seemed to me that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards came off more presidential tonight.
So, did you see the debate? What did you think? Was there a clear winner?
Also See:
Katharine Seelye from The New York Times was doing live-blogging of the debate
The first question of the debate was on the economy…











Comment from Melissa King
Time: January 22, 2008, 3:10 pm
Hi, Catherine. It’s great watching the debates with teenagers, isn’t it? Teens have a way of summing it all up in a couple of catchy (often vulgar) words that cut right to the point.
Right up front, I have some serious Bush fatigue. And the whole Bush/Clinton repeat smacks of dynasty (nasty being the operative syllable). I favor Edwards and Obama in that order. No surprise, I thought they did the best. I thought Senator Clinton’s representation of Obama’s interview with the Reno paper was pretty slimy. He never construed Reagan’s presidency in glowing terms. Rather he pointed to the obvious that Reagan was dynamic and transforming for his party. Reagan got people to vote against their own interests….while Machiavellian, it’s fairly amazing. I’m looking forward to watching Saturday in South Carolina, and Super Tuesday (when I get to put in my two cents.)