You guys watching the DNC chair debate on CSPAN-1

[Clark2008]

NOW.

[realFedUp]

1. Do you think they could have rented some more microphones?

Gads, passing microphones between 7 panelists is tacky.

[Clark2008]

2. No wonder they're talking about raising money right now

;)

[iwantmycountryback]

3. I saw some of it

At one point somebody asked the candidates to craft a message in 30 words or less. Dean was the first one to go and his was very good, Wellington Webb's was next and his was god awful, and Frost and Fowler's may have been decent.

[trillian]

9. Did Rosenberg make a closing statement?

The phone rang and missed the closing statements

It looked like Rosenberg was missing from the final line up.

[janx]

4. There's a thread about this in GD. The lack of interest in it

says a lot, frankly.

[trillian]

10. Why the lack of interest I wonder

The direction of the party depends who's chosen.

If it's an insider it's going to be more of the same shit.

My choices are, Rosenberg, Dean, Frost. In that order.

Fowler tripped over his words a but too often.

Couldn't stand Roemer, BTW.

[janx]

12. People are too interested in the other things they see on TV.

They're interested in presidential races, celebrities, etc. It's really sad.

I agree with you about Rosenberg; I like him, but I prefer Dean--so our opinions are pretty close. Rosenberg did well tonight.

And I agree with you about all the rest.

[itzamirakul]

21. Rosenberg came out of the DLC...

Did you know that? He is not far different from Al From. They had an argument and he split and formed his own group but with nearly the same, identical beliefs and policies. His organization is really just more Repub-Lite crap.

[madfloridian]

11. The lack of interest is a planned thing.

More later.

[janx]

13. WAIT! No, stop! When? Where?

You can't just leave me hanging like this, MF! ;-)

[madfloridian]

15. Check your inbox.

:hi:

[Tinoire]

5. I am now. Thank you for alerting us! n/t

[Leilani]

6. Yes, I just finished watching it.

I've wanted to hear all the candidates, although I'm supporting Dean.

Who was the Leland guy? He sounded pretty poor.

Also, I thought Roemer sounded sort of smarmy.

[Carolab]

7. Roemer IS smarmy. So is Fowler. IMO. n/t

[janx]

8. It was pretty entertaining...

My husband at one point started talking about whether or not Donnie had a pair of bike shorts.

This is unfair to Donnie. He well might have a pair. But he has many years ahead.

[janx]

14. Leland almost put me to sleep a couple of times. I'm sure he

means well, but man...zzzzzzzzzz...

Roemer is some kind of sell-out; he was creepy.

[janx]

16. Clark2008:

Thanks for bringing this up. Too many people are oblivious to it, and this time it's much more important.

Thank you!

[DaedelusNemo]

17. My favorable impressions; Dean, Fowler

Wellington struck me as probably an effective politician, but he needs help with his script. Frost, the guy from Texas, i think needs to be working in Texas. Most of the others didn't make that strong an impression. (Of course, i didn't actually see the whole thing.) I think we're better with Dean as a spokesman than as a presidential candidate, possibly... Fowler seemed like a bright guy with lots of good ideas who i'd want working on our side but he shot himself in the political foot way too many times. (Just like me! :P ) Maybe he needs more experience in that regard before being a primary spokesman.

Dean consistently had the best lines.

I liked the talk about localization & grassroots & so forth. Enough of these things were being said by enough people to stir some facsimile of hope.

[Leilani]

18. One thing was really obvious..

The State people are not happy with Kerry & McCauliffe.

Talked about writing off red states.

Not funding red states.

Not starting the work on the ground until 6 months before the election.

Pulling out of states early, & leaving local candidates high & dry.

Also, conceding 6 hrs after the vote.

Whew, sounds like we're not the only angry people.

[comsymp]

20. Sounds like some pretty familiar criticisms, too -

And all valid.

[welshTerrier2]

23. my two cents ...

first, i very much agree with the poster above who cited the laundry list of frustrations all the candidates highlighted with the party's current processes ... of course, you always have to wonder just what's being peddled when some of the "insiders" get dressed up in reformers' costumes ... i don't trust Roemer or Rosenberg at all ...

second, the DU response ... as the discourse gets sharper and sharper around here, i really worry that there's often more heat than light ... OK, it wasn't "edge of your seat" TV ... but when our guys want to talk about steering the big ship, it seems a wee bit lazy not to tune in ... it didn't seem like too many DU'ers did ...

and finally, the DNC Chair job itself ... virtually the entire discussion revolved around the "mechanics" of party structure ... each candidate talked about the relationship of the "DC people" to the state parties ... all favored greater decentralization and more grassroots involvement ... they talked about favoring diversity in staffing key party posts ... and they talked about their ability to fundraise ...

so what's wrong with that ???

while I understand that the Chairman has been to function primarily like a CEO, and that all the topics discussed are critically important, it still seems odd to me to separate the Chairman role from policy ... one of the key functions the Chairman serves is head-to-head debate with his republican counterpart ... should policy positions be irrelevant in the Chairman selection process?? my point is not that the selection should be based ONLY on policy positions; it's that it seems wrong to exclude them ... for example, if one of the candidates seems to have excellent fundraising and organization skills, but endorses bush's position on Iraq or believes there's no harm in doing a "little privatizing" of social security, how effective will that candidate be in rallying the base of the party ???

i just can't see how both aspects aren't equally as important ... the process as it stands so far could lead to a poor selection ... i hope subsequent debates broaden the selection criteria to include discussions of policy ...

comments ??

[bklyncowgirl]

19. A few impressions

There was very little (spoken) dissent among this group. Frankly that made it pretty boring. It's pretty clear to me that Howard Dean is driving the debate and the rest of the candidates were pretty much echoing his themes, well most of his themes--I didn't hear much support for his more populist message from the other guys.

Tim Roemer has all the personality of a wet dishrag.

Leland sounded OK but then I remembered that he's the Ohio party boss who apparently didn't object too strenuously when Blackwell shorted Democratic precincts on voting machines and did everything short of calling out the KKK to keep black people from voting.

Donnie Fowler reminded me of several young know it all type guys I've worked with. I'd hate to sit next to him on an airplane.

Wellington Webb seems like a good politician and a good speaker. I don't know whether he's right for the job.

Martin Frost: I didn't get much of an impression of him, sad to say.

Simon Rosenberg sounds like a smart guy although I don't agree with his politics. Aside from Dean he was the only guy up there with a sense of humor. I liked his remark about how he's better looking that Ken Mehlman.

It seems to me that it will be either Dean or "Anybody but Dean". Right now I'd put my money on "Anybody but Dean" because I can't see the power brokers giving up so easily--unless--as some rumors have it, that Bill Clinton may give the nod to Dean. My guess for who "Anybody but Dean" might be is either Roemer the current DLC darling or maybe longshot Wellington Webb (he's black and a Westerner--kills two birds with one stone).

[janx]

22. I think it's going to boil down to Rosenberg, Roemer, or Dean.

It clearly is an echo chamber and yet the ABD situation. If it's Roemer, look out!