More pundit opinion on the debate

This article is from a liberal website, and has an interesting take on the debate. I will not quote it because it takes a GOP point of view, but it may be instructive for Dean supporters, as it has some very frank views:

http://www.nhpr.org/blogs/penpals2004/archives/000105.php

does that make me a freeper? Seriously, Dean was not on his "A" game yesterday.

Please Offer Only Praise

John Edwards would make an excellent VP choice.

Edwards and Dean would be a formidable pair.

Edwards is the only candidate besides Dean who talks straight and like Dean he has a commitment to help the little guy and is running a campaign against the Washington Special Interests.

And Edwards is every bit as tough as Dean. Edwards started with nothing and moved to the top of his profession by fighting the top corporate lawyers in the country. You don't do that by being soft. Edwards is a fighter, cool on his feet and charming but at heart, a fighter for the little-guy

Edwards would bring Dean the South which he needs if he is going to win. And whereas Dean is Dean Witter, Edwards would bring Dean a common-guy legitmacy.

There is no doubt that together --Edwards and Dean could beat Bush.

I didn't see him lose ground. I didn't see him gain ground particularly. He did OK. I still see a Clark/Dean race.

Dean wasn't on his "A" game, but he didn't lose any momentum. Kerry, Kucinich and Edwards were impressive. Gephardt came across as though he knows the end is near, and Lieberman is clearly delusional. Mosely-Braun came across well. If I had to pick a winner yesterday, I'd say it was Kucinich. I do wish that Dean would back off on the child tax credit. I think it'll cost him a lot of votes in November. A $1,000 (2 kids) or so tax credit is important to working families making under 70,000. He could still balance the budget by administrations 6th or 7th year.:evilgrin:
:toast:

:kick:

Looks like a blog, to me. Of course the blogger could be a liberal...

....this is a liberal website using GOP commentary for perspective.

Geez...how obvious does it need to be???

That's pretty much how I saw it.

"No wonder Al Gore endorsed him; Dean has already remade himself as many times as the former Vice President did during the early days of the 2000 campaign."

Jeez.

Amount to a liberal website?

Look at the bios for both (click on their names)...they are both Republican political operatives.

The headline also says "The GOP view"

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure Dean supporters should be taking instruction from Republicans.

"Poke your eyes out - that way you can't be fooled by the enemy's trickery!"

I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss the message only because you don't trust the logo on the jacket the messenger is wearing, only because it is "the competition." That sounds like paranoia, and that's what GOPers are good at, when news of the latest Bin Laden tape arrives.

Now, not that the article itselfs tickles any particular imagination in any unexpected or illuminating way. A few planted jabs are to be expected, but overall, it seems like a piece written by two people who have been at it before, dissecting an overall sterile debate.

And yes, they're applying "typical" RW language / criteria, supporting the probably intended impression that it's written by "conservatives"... Well, a seasoned reader should be able to read around / through that slant.

Not that I embrace the piece as the hottest latest source for laser sharp political campaign insight... But it's a decent piece.

Coming from a liberal, that must mean a lot to them, of course.

Are you really serious in saying that Wesley Clark should pay close attention to learn something from the scurrilous attacks on Fox saying he was calling the soldiers in Iraq a side show? The Wesley Clark I saw didn't appear to be learning anything...he was attacking back and shouting down the Fox anchor.

And I am amazed that so many here believe that Luntz has good intentions for the Dem party whenever he praises Dean, as he has been for the last 8 months.

This week the GOP/Rove made the decision that the media shall treat nuance Democratic candidate replies as Lies - and of course the AP had such an article out 2 hours after the debate (Dean says the middle class did not get a tax cut net-net - that the increase in state tax, college cost, etc caused by the lower federal appropriations made necessary by the tax cut wiped out the small $304 or less that 60% of us received ...... which had the AP "scratching their heads" saying Dean lied)

Now this article throws into the spin the "changed position" bull that Rove tried to sell about Gore. Now Dean has changed position - or Kerry has changed position or can not explain his IWR vote - because the nuance answer made necessary by explaining reliance on Bush lies on just about any topic is not a sound bite "yes" or "no" - and is rather a 2 paragraph response.

The GOP media control shown by the AP story on Dem lies shows the hard battle that any Dem will have in the "first impressions" area.

It was sad to see a good Dem like Lieberman resort to the GOP lie of averaging the $112,000 millionaire tax cut with the $304 tax cut the rest of us (60%) got to produce a "benefit to the average middle-income family was $1,800" debate line.

But Joe and Gep will be out of the race in 3 weeks, and I am sure that hurts and causes them to make desperate statements.

Dean has a point to be sure on the tax thing. But this is not the time to make it (running for POTUS).