Fringe Appeal:Sharpton and Moseley Braun win a lackluster debate.

[unfrigginreal]

By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 9:40 PM PT


DETROIT—I suspected tonight's debate wouldn't go well when I saw the sign that welcomes visitors as they enter the Fox Theatre, where the nine Democratic candidates faced off. "Detroit's Finest Entertainment," it read. It can't be a good omen, I thought, when the first thing you see before a political contest is an exaggeration—or more accurately, a lie. (Then again, after the Tigers' season and with the way the Lions are playing, Detroit is pretty starved for competitive entertainment.) The debate ended with a similar misstatement, when Joe Lieberman thanked everyone involved for "a great debate." In truth, this was the worst of the presidential debates that I've attended. The candidates were lackluster, and a good chunk of the press corps was inattentive and distracted. In a night filled with hilariously uncontroversial statements, my favorite was Dick Gephardt's "We need peace in the world, not terrorism."

The only candidates to have even a decent night were Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton (with the addendum that, when none of the serious contenders has a good night, front-running Howard Dean does well simply because the status quo doesn't change). Braun fired off one of the better lines of the early part of the debate, after moderator Gwen Ifill apologized to her and Dennis Kucinich for not asking them a question yet. In a reference to the back-and-forth bickering among the other candidates, Braun replied, "That's just because nobody's mad at us." She managed to elude a question about her unwise decision to visit Nigeria's dictatorial regime while she was a U.S. senator by appealing to her trailblazing status: "As the only African American in the United States Senate, it was not inappropriate for me to visit countries in Africa." And she had the cleverest closing statement, calling herself the candidate who is "the clearest alternative to George W. Bush. I don't look like him, I don't talk like him, I don't act like him, I don't think like him."

<snip>

As for Sharpton, he was, well, Sharpton. He reeled off several of the best one-liners (though John Kerry appears to be trying to rise to Sharpton's comedic challenge), including a description of the coming fall campaign as a "battle between the Christian right and the right Christians." During the debate's "conventional wisdom round," when Ifill asked the candidates to defend themselves against their media caricatures, Sharpton fared the best by turning his provocateur-who-is-not-taken-seriously image to his advantage. Speaking to a largely African American audience, Sharpton declared, "In America, many of us are not taken seriously … They don't take us seriously collectively." It was the night's most effective parry. Then again, the most ominous statement of the night was Fox News questioner Carl Cameron's reference to "the coming Sharpton economy."

As for everyone else, Kucinich was irrelevant, and Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman circled each other like boxers taking a breather during a bout's middle rounds. It wasn't fine, and it wasn't entertainment.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090340/

[RuB]

1. And I think that was one of the most pathetic out of touch articles

i have ever read! As a rational common sence Democrat I thought the debate was awesome. I fully support Dean and Clark. Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt I can't support because 9/11 blinded their ability to lead the Democratic party as an alternative to the Bushie cabal especially regarding Iraq. Carol Braun was good but even she has to know she doesn't stand a chance. Al Sharpton was as usual awesome and unfortunately he and Braun were born about 20 years too late.

[w4rma]

2. Democratic voters don't want to see these guys attack one another over

piddly little differences. That is why folks are disappointed in these debates. If these guys would focus outward towards Republicans instead of inwards then Democrats would truely enjoy these debates. As it is, we can turn on Rush Limbough and heard criticisms of Democrats. :mad:

I'm speaking mainly to Kerry and Lieberman, btw, who spend the night attacking Dean and Clark. I have nothing but contempt for their actions that hurt the party in the long run and work to divide Democrats.

Most Democrats don't care about these piddly little differences. For the most part, we know that any of them are better than the Republican candidate. This election we want to know how clearly and consisely they can explain why Bush has been a disaster for America and what they, themselves will do for America once elected.

That said, I think Chris Suellentrop (the author) is whining quite a bit in this article.

[RuB]

4. The only time I cringe is when Lieberman attacks Clark.

Kerry and Dean and Clark and the others are big boys though and will in the end unify behind one candidate. I'm concerned though about Lieberman, that he won't re-insert his head up that asshole Bushies butt.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Could Suellentrop give these candidates a break?

We're virtually a one-party state already. There were several candidates on that stage with excellent credentials, and the potential to be a very effective President -- far superior to the guy occupying the White House. The format is a difficult one, especially among so many, in which to excel. Would nine Republicans standing up there have been "fine" "entertainment"?