New Hampshire Debate

[TotallyOz]

I watched the full Republican and Democrat debate last night on ABC. I will say, I like Ron Paul. I know he is not REALLY a Republican but I liked everything he had to say and as a liberal Democrat, I would vote for him.

As for the others, Mike Huckabee is scary. I hope that he is not promoted any further than where he already is. I was surprised he won Iowa. I hope that is it for him. I use to like Mitt Romney but he is now so far from where I thought he was, that his views are not where I wish they were.

On the other side, I thought Hillary pulled off a victory. She was intelligent, calm and witty. Edwards did a good job as well. I really liked the governor and thought he was great at the debate and I enjoyed what he had to say. I will have to take another look at his positions. The loser IMHO was Obama. I thought he did a poor job on the debate and he stumbles about as much as W. He is good with his prepared speeches but sucked last night. All in all, I thought Hillary kicked ASS.

So, for me, at this point: Hillary is my number 1. Richardson is 2. Edwards is 3. And, in the unlikely event that Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I will trade any of the above for him.

Just my take on it.

[TampaYankee]

My take is much different. I thought Obama performed his best at any debate. Edwards' passion came through as did his strategy to take Hillary out of the race, the sooner the better. Richardson also did better than in prior outings. Unfortunately, too little much too late. Hillary did extremely poorly in the first half nearly loosing her stuff but coming back well after her likability question response.

It was interesting to see Hillary's after-the-IA-caucus-speech group photo with so many faces from the past behind her on the stage. Looked like a Bill Clinton adminstration reunion photo. Many would love to see a return to that past. It seems many others want a change from the past.

Paul is an interesting candidate. He does appeal to many younger people as well as many with the libertarian stripe. I like many of his positions but IMO he really is unelectable. I suspect that many Americans aren't knowledgable enough about American History and the underpinnings of our Founding Fathers view that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to codify strong limitations on goverment power. Many that are knowledgable figure we have outgrown that clear delination of those limitations.

I do think that Paul is the only candidate that could forge a strong bipartisan Congress bringing the establishment GOP and Dem members together to override his numerous vetos of legislation. Likewise many of his intiatives would be DOA at the captial. His priorities and theirs would not be found on the same planet for the most part IMO. He would be anathema to the establishment and special interests alike. His foreign policy would return to the Pacifism of the Past. That could not be thwarted by Congress as the President has absolute authority (save for Senate advise and consent of treaties) in foreign policy and as Commander-In-Chief. It would make for very interesting times. Truly the times would be a chaingin'.

I'm of mixed mind about Paul. I think he would be good medicine in some ways... but maybe too much medicine for the patient's ultimate health. Nevertheless, I would be tempted.

[Guest eastburbguy]

I watched the full Republican and Democrat debate last night on ABC. I will say, I like Ron Paul. I know he is not REALLY a Republican but I liked everything he had to say and as a liberal Democrat, I would vote for him.

As for the others, Mike Huckabee is scary. I hope that he is not promoted any further than where he already is. I was surprised he won Iowa. I hope that is it for him. I use to like Mitt Romney but he is now so far from where I thought he was, that his views are not where I wish they were.

On the other side, I thought Hillary pulled off a victory. She was intelligent, calm and witty. Edwards did a good job as well. I really liked the governor and thought he was great at the debate and I enjoyed what he had to say. I will have to take another look at his positions. The loser IMHO was Obama. I thought he did a poor job on the debate and he stumbles about as much as W. He is good with his prepared speeches but sucked last night. All in all, I thought Hillary kicked ASS.

So, for me, at this point: Hillary is my number 1. Richardson is 2. Edwards is 3. And, in the unlikely event that Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I will trade any of the above for him.

Just my take on it.

Paul is definitely an interesting phenom, propelled as he is by his young online fans, but he hasn't gotten enough attention to be vetted by The Media. The man has some serious racist leanings from his past which he can't shake.

Here is one of the most interesting takes on 2008 that I've read - it's all about how young voters will play a huge role in this year's election:

Can Hillary Clinton Learn from her Mistakes in Iowa--or even History?

by mmakeover, Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:11:05 PM EST

I saw this firsthand in the precinct I attended, what Morley is taling about in this post. Penn, I heard in an interview after the caucuses, acknowledged the strategic error. Jerome.

Morley Winograd is co-author with Michael D. Hais of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics.

Despite all their efforts to put a positive spin on their Iowa showing on the plane to New Hampshire, the Clinton team couldn't avoid acknowledging the most important mistake they made in Iowa--discounting the youth vote.

Not only did Clinton lose to Barack Obama by an almost six to one margin among Millennial Generation (those under 25) caucus attendees, but also her weakness in this age group was the key to her overall loss among women. While Hillary carried the over 45 female vote 36%-24%, Obama won women under 45 by a 50%-21% margin and the surprisingly strong turnout among young caucus goers turned that margin into an overall defeat among the female constituency Hillary was counting on the most. Had she and her team only read their history, they wouldn't have been surprised by this outcome.

Every eighty years a "Civic" generation, like the GI Generation and now the Millennials, comes along with a determination to use their size and their facility with communication technology to change the political culture of America. 2008 will be the first election when Millennials, the largest generation in American history, born between 1982 and 2003, will be eligible to vote in sufficient numbers to tip the political scales to candidates who they favor, but they have already made their presence known to those analyzing election data, not just the latest poll results. They, along with the last remaining members of the GI Generation, were the only age groups to cast majority votes for John Kerry in 2004. The YouTube inspired involvement of Millennials in the Senate races in Virginia and Montana was the difference in those two close elections, returning Democrats to majority status in 2006. But those initial tremors are minor compared to the tsunami of change that Millennials will set in motion in the 2008 elections.

Jaded pollsters, like Clinton's Mark Penn, and columnists, like Thomas L. Friedman, who have been waiting for the emergence of a sizeable youth vote and youthful activism for decades, completely ignored this emerging phenomenon believing that today's youth would disappoint those hoping for any sign of political commitment, just as people under 25 had done ever since the 1970s. But that attitude, common among Baby Boomers who believe the entire world should think and act the way they do, represents a significant misreading of history. Gen Xers, who adored and still revere Ronald Reagan and distrust government, were responsible for the decline in voter participation among young people in the 1980s and 1990s, but as studies by Harvard's Institute of Politics have demonstrated, ever since 9/11 today's youth have voted in increasing numbers, at a growth rate that surpasses that of all other generations. Now that they have a candidate like Barack Obama who appeals to this generation's partisan passion for changing America, their impact will reverberate across the country as loudly as it did in Iowa last week.

A careful observer of the Obama and Clinton campaigns' youth turnout efforts could have seen the results coming. Hillary's team were told to invite young people over for a night of watching TV shows like Gray's Anatomy or The Office, and use that opportunity to engage them in a conversation on the issues. Obama's team went about finding its cadre of supporters by using their website, built off of the FaceBook operating system or platform, in tune with Millennial's social networking habits. Once they found potential supporters, Obama's team didn't ask them to watch television, something Millennials do infrequently, unless it's on their laptop with shows downloaded from the Net, but to hang out at the local bar. There Michelle Obama, or "the closer" as her husband calls her, asked them to come out on caucus night and change America's politics forever.

Clinton's attempt to make her gender define the nature of the historic change in this election missed another important trait of Millennials. This generation is the most gender neutral, race-and ethnicity-blind group of young people in American history. Only sixty percent of Millennials are white; twenty percent have an immigrant parent; and, ninety percent have a friend of another race. While Baby Boomers are justifiably proud of their idealistic efforts on behalf of civil rights and women's rights, Millennials take diversity as a given and tolerance as the only acceptable behavior. That's why, on caucus night, young women voted for Obama and his message of hope, while older women felt motivated to support the first credible female candidate for President. Once again, the Clinton's circle of Boomer advisors just couldn't understand why everyone wasn't thinking and behaving like they did. .

The generational differences in the two candidate's teams were embarrassingly obvious during their speeches to their supporters on caucus night. A collection of Silent and Boomer Generation former leaders, from Madeline Albright to Wesley Clark, not to mention Bill Clinton, was planted behind Hillary. Obama's backdrop was his kids, his wife and throngs of young supporters who knew that their efforts had created an historic moment for the country. Given this generational bias, really a blind spot in their thinking, it's hard to believe Hillary can fix her problem with Millennials before the final campaign showdown on February 5, let alone in the few days between Iowa and New Hampshire. But if she can't find a way to appeal to this emerging generation quickly and on its own terms, she will become the first, but certainly not the last, candidate whose failure to recognize the historical pattern of generational cycles in American politics has cost them their future.

Morley Winograd is co-author with Michael D. Hais of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press, March 2008)