Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Another Photographer Detained | Headline or Screenplay? »

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Liveblogging the Democratic Debate

posted by on November 15 at 17:00 PM

Here we go.

I’m using a nifty new liveblogging tool this time. It does away with all that hitting of the refresh button, which should be great (for you and me). However, it does have an automatic sound effect that we haven’t yet been able to silence. Each time I post you’ll hear the tapping of keys—unless you turn off your volume or hit the speaker button at the bottom of the liveblogging window.

Also: You can send me comments through the embedded liveblog (the spot for dropping your comments is right above the “Cover It Live” logo). Bring ‘em on. If they’re witty and/or wise, I’ll include them in my liveblog.

RSS icon Comments


No Anderson Cooper = not worth my time. I'll check out what was said tomorrow.

Posted by Mr. Poe | November 15, 2007 5:04 PM

Have you ever wished for the technology to digitally replace the image of Wolf Blitzer on your screen with a drag queen, in real time? Why doesn't somebody invent that?

It would be basically the same debate, but made fun, like gay bingo.

Posted by elenchos | November 15, 2007 5:16 PM

Can you describe the candidates shoes? And what about their blouses and hairstyles?

Also, for the women candidates, please describe how forceful and strong they appear, and the intensity of their eyes, and for the men candidates how graceful and slyphlike they are and how shapely their body parts are.


Posted by The Mainstream Media | November 15, 2007 5:30 PM

Dodd, of course, has the most integrity.

Posted by Gabriel | November 15, 2007 5:36 PM

Does anyone know if this is on the radio?

Posted by Ryan | November 15, 2007 5:37 PM

Obama has been awful. After all the hubbub the past week about Clinton's driver's license debacle, he put himself in the exact same position. He didn't foresee that question? Stumbling, confused, awful.

Posted by Gabriel | November 15, 2007 5:38 PM

God. I mean, I MAY have a slight bias having just listened to the NPR story on his "Barackstars" (aka the "myspace generation" of voters who DONT FREAKING CAUCUS, btw) but Obama is just sucking it up tonight.

Posted by jewritto | November 15, 2007 6:14 PM

This was a fun way to watch the debate, Eli. As far as the debate goes -- Edwards impressed me with delivery! Other than that, it was Clinton's night, with some Obama thrown in there. Interesting. And now we know she likes diamonds AND pearls.

Posted by Katelyn | November 15, 2007 7:17 PM

If you missed the debate CNN is replaying it now.

Posted by Cleve | November 15, 2007 8:01 PM

Eli, best thing in the Slog in months.

Cleve, thanks for the tip. Had to work late, recording it now.

Posted by Big Sven | November 15, 2007 8:06 PM

Eli, kudos on the Live Slog. I'm out of the country and missed the debate. But, after reading the commentary, I feel like I was there. Trying to watch a recap on CNN was worse than useless.

It doesn't sound like there were too many surprises ...

Obama is excellent with a prepared speech, but no so good shooting from the hip. Nothing new there.

Clinton came back strong. She is tough as nails.

I was a little surprised by the aurdience response to Edwards. It seemed he'd blipped up in the polls recently, but now he seems desperate for attention.

I'm going to agree with Grant Cogswell's prediction from the last debate ...
It will be Clinton-Biden on the Democratic ticket. He is a relatively "safe" VP and acceptable to Hillary's base (i.e. the Center). He's even doing the dirty work already, gunning for Giuliani on a regular basis.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 15, 2007 9:07 PM

I love Blaire's comments. Why hasn't he been a guest Slogger yet?

Posted by David | November 15, 2007 9:28 PM

and that would be political suicide for the dems. Granted the contribution of the VP candidate to a ticket may not sway many voters, but a dem ticket with two east coast liberals is an easy way to lose close states in the west.

My bet at this point would be Richardson if she picks from among those currently running, despite the fact he appears to rub her the wrong way.

Or maybe Mark Warner from Virginia? Although that would mean him dropping out of his Senate race, which he is pretty much a sure bet to win.

Posted by gnossos | November 15, 2007 9:29 PM

Please, god, no Biden for VP. I don't necessarily disagree with him on any major policy issue, but he's pretty clueless sometimes, and a blathering bore most of the time. Does anyone actually LIKE him?

He also adds nothing to a Hillary ticket. A good VP candidate helps pick up votes where the Presidential candidate is weak, one that can deliver a state or two that she might loose otherwise. Biden wouldn't do either.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 15, 2007 9:36 PM

SDA- I like Biden a lot. I've given money to his campaign (though I support Hillary.) I think his solution of partitioning Iraq is the best policy for the US to minimize the Iraqi deathtoll from our failed war- a precipitous exit will kill a lot more Iraqi than a partition.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I don't find him boring. Dodd, on the other hand... as my nine year old said a few minutes ago while watching him go on and on and on: "that guy sure likes to talk, doesn't he?!?"

Posted by Big Sven | November 15, 2007 10:04 PM

@13 - How many close states are there in the West? New Mexico might be the only one (with its whopping 5 electoral votes), and I think Richardson would end up being a liability everywhere else.

Richardson's strength is that choosing him wouldn't require removing a popular Democtrat from the Senate (a strike against Biden being picked, who is one of the highest ranking members of the Senate and, potentially, a powerful ally).

More in play is the South, which makes Edwards a possibility. Hard to picture though.

Obama - no chance.

@14 - Nobody likes him, and he is a bore. That's why he strikes me as Vice-Presidential material.

Maybe she'll pick Al Gore.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 15, 2007 10:05 PM

Woah, read through the whole thing and this is funny and informative even after the fact. Please more of these and I'll watch with you next time. Big ups, Eli!

Posted by Spanish Fly | November 15, 2007 10:29 PM

@16 At this point some of the western and mountain states are much closer than they were four years ago (duh). And putting two elitist east coast liberals (which is how they will be portrayed) will doom any chance of gaining.

And you are right about the south, but frankly I think the only southern states worth worrying about are Virgina, Florida and Louisiana.

Posted by gnossos | November 15, 2007 10:34 PM

Florida is an excellent example. It is a state with a lot of electoral votes, that could go either way (witness the razor thin 2000 election). Hillary will be portrayed as a liberal northerner in Florida, and it will be a tough state for her to win.

A good VP candidate might be one that could guarantee her Florida. Or at least dramatically up her odds. Biden would do nothing to improve her odds in Florida. If anything, he would worsen her odds in Florida.

Frankly, I don't know enough about Florida politics to know who would be a good choice. But this is the kind of strategic thinking that often goes in to picking a VP candidate. By someone who presumably knows more than I do. :-)

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 15, 2007 10:55 PM

@19 - There are more than enough retired liberal northerners living in Florida to keep that state in play. A bigger issue is whether Floridians are smart enough to figure out their ballot, and whether minorities will be allowed to vote this time. If not, all this campaign and debate hoo-ha is a big waste of time.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 15, 2007 11:56 PM

To this day I'm convinced that it was a horrid Florida miscalculation that caused Gore to name that utter abomination known as Lieberman as his running mate. A stupid failed attempt to get the significant Jewish retiree vote.

Florida also confounds because despite the huge Latino population, 90% of them are right wing nut jobs and will never vote democrat.

What will work is to somehow really capture the northern refugees and blacks.

Posted by gnossos | November 16, 2007 1:13 AM

The West has more pickup opportunities than the South. New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado were all closer than 4% in the last election. In the South, the margin in Florida was a bit more than 5%, and it's not really the South. Virginia was the next closest at 8%.

So if we assume the Democrats have a 5% swing in them since 2004, there are 19 electoral votes in the West within play, and a Western VP would help (Oregon was also a close Western win, at just over a 4% margin of victory). Florida has 27 votes, but it's not really Southern. I think a Western VP would appeal there, too.

The real battleground is the Midwest, though. Ohio and Iowa between them are 27 votes, the same as Florida, and a lot of the states Kerry won by less than a 5% margin and will have to be defended. Pennsylvania was a close win for Kerry, thanks in part to the voters who are more like those in rural Ohio. So a Midwestern candidate would probably help in Pennsylvania, too.

Posted by Cascadian | November 16, 2007 8:23 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).