Evaluate the debate

   All right, who won the debate?

   Talent? McCaskill?...Russert?

Posted by Keith Chrostowski

Comments

[somewhere in the middle]

I'd say it was pretty even, However, the way Talent stayed away from saying his own sitting President wasn't a great President spoke volumes.

My favorite part was when Jim said that he didn't necessarily agree with the president 94% of the time. That he had been in politics much longer than the president, and it was perhaps the case that the president was agreeing with him on many of the issues rather than the other way around.

[SPSLE]

Russert wins for best prepared. Both Talent and McCaskill gave responses that were too "canned", but I found Claire's more annoying--if she announced one more time that she prosecuted "people like that" (sexual predators, meth users, Osama bin Laden, etc.), I was going to scream. Also, Russert "picked on" Talent a little more, but I was fairly impressed with Jim's ability to respond, that is, up until the "George Bush...George Bush, who?" moment; I have to agree with "Somewhere" on that.

To my surprise, at the conclusion, my wife (who is annoyingly apolitical) announced she was voting for Claire; based on that response, I guess Claire won.

[Cindy Shields]

I was extremely impressed with McCaskill! She was articulate, smart, decisive and just did a fantastic job. How Talent can continue to say the war is making us safer and is going well is just mind boggling! Does he not think we listen to the news and all the government reports out of Iraq that say it's a disaster and is making us less safe???? I didn't realize he votes with Bush 94% of the time. That was the nail in the coffin for me.

Number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq rises sharply

WASHINGTON -- The number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq in one month surged to its highest level in nearly two years as Americans fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that US commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 US personnel were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded -- with nearly 300 more in the first week of October -- is a grim measure of the degree to which the US military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and analysts say.

Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's violent western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

More than 20,000 US personnel have been wounded in combat and 2,700 killed in the Iraq war. While much media reporting has focused on the number of dead, military analysts say the number of wounded is a more accurate gauge of the fierceness of fighting because advances in armor and medical care allow many service members to survive who would have perished in past wars.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/10/08/number_of_us_soldiers_wounded_in_iraq_rises_sharply

(no)Talent, you'd better start reading the news

[JMQ]

I gotta give the edge to McCaskill. She was poised and on point without being over-the-top. Talent was milk-toast and answered well but didnt stand out, a little defensive. I got the feeling that people can relate to Mccaskill more than Talent, regardless of who is a better Senator. The confort level to the basic voter (IMHO) is going to go with McCaskill. Talent just comes off a little cool. Frankly Kansas City would be better off with McCaskill than Talent.

Disclaimer: I've given money to both. Talent in 2000 and McCaskill currently. My vote is McCaskill in 2006. A nail-biter for sure.

Claire won hands down. I also had to laugh at talent's question about why bush wasn't linked with him more often. If he had to ask, he is truly clueless.

[openmind]

I dont know if I would say he picked on Talent as much as he gave him more chances to speak. If the candidate is incumbant, he/she generally has more of a record to speak about. I know that if I were in their shoes, and I felt comfortable about my ability to think on my feet, I would want as much camera time as possible. That being said, I came away most impressed with Russert.

I think one area Claire could have done better was on her response to the continually repeated "weakness" claims. She tried to argue that point on Talents definition of Strength/Weakness, and when you try to out do someone in an agrument that you have let them define you are fighting an uphill battle. If I were an advisor to her, I would try to focus on what Talent is actually getting at when he says weak/strong. My guess is that its stopping terrorist attacks, in which case he confuses strength with physical aggression.

I personally would consider the "strongest" stance to be the one that does the best job of stopping terrorism long term, and, with the reports out that we are creating more enemies that we are stopping, I would hardly call the physical aggression stance "strong."

The single greatest weakness in the Democratic Party is their attempts to "fight the battle" on terms the Repubs have already defined. Before they can move forward, they need to disarm those loaded words the Repubs keep using.

It is fairly apparent from watchin the debate that Talent had difficulty thinking on his feet if someone can properly question his assumptions and definitions. His most successful parts were when he was able to check off party line points and used well rehersed buzz words.

[John Evans]

Talent just repeated his lies and deceptions. He is a Rubber Stamp and is in denial. Claire won no doubt. Get ready to challenge the results when they steal it for they definately will. Remember they feel they are rightful leaders and the ends justify the means. And before you right wingers accuse me of making false claims I want you to answer this one question. Why did Republicans oppose a manditary paper trail?

[Grant McMurray]

McCaskill clearly won in my view. She admittedly has been living in a different universe than Talent the last few years but her knowledge of complex national issues, including the Iraq war, is excellent. I also think her responses were well prepared, animated, clear (with only an exception or two), and eloquently expressed. Talent was flat, dull, and struggling to even keep up with the Republican talking points.

This performance, along with her appearance with Chris Matthews on Hardball a few weeks ago, demonstrate that she can more than hold her own with the toughest interviewers in the business.

My vote wasn't likely to change but my support of McCaskill has grown stronger as this campaign goes forward. It used to be that I just wanted to get rid of Talent. I still do, but now I'm becoming rather enthusiastic about having Claire McCaskill as one of Missouri's senators.

[ready to take down talent]

WHAT A LOSER TALENT IS.
EXPLAIN HIS POSITION ON STEM
CELLS.
HE'S NEVER HAD A LOVED ONE DIE
OF CANCER...OR FOUGHT DIABETES...
OR HAD TO LIVE WITH PARKINSONS
OR LIVE IN A WHEELCHAIR FOR THEIR
ENTIRE LIVES...OR HAD A MOTHER/FATHER NOT REMEMBER THEIR
CHILDREN BECAUSE OF ALZHEIMERS..
OR WATCH A CHILD WITH JUVENILE
DIABETES...OR HAD TO SEE THE
EFFECTS OF TERMINAL ILLNESSES...
YOU ARE THE WORST MAN I HAVE
EVER SEEN JIM TALENT.
YOU MUST BE TAKEN OUT OF OFFICE...
YOUR TIME IS UP SO WE CAN
FIND THE POSSIBLE CURES TO
ALL THESE DREADED ILLNESSES...
YOU ARE THE MOST DISPICABLE MAN
IN POLITICS...MAY YOU ROT IN
HELL FOR NO BEING MORE SYMPATHETIC
TO THOSE OF US WHO SUFFER...
REMEMBER...THIS IS NOT ABOUT
POLITICS...ITS ABOUT SAVING
LIVES....

[LarrytheScrabbleGuy]

Actually, Ready, Jim Talent's mom died from breast cancer, and he's got a decent record on that issue. Regardless, Jim Talent looked very weak on that Bush question, especially when he tried to suggest Bush was following his lead. Get a clue Jim, you've been a do-nothing, rubberstamp. Everybody else knows it, so why don't you?

Claire could have hammered back harder on the "weakness" thing -- say something like, "It takes strength, not weakness, to recognize when things aren't goign well. Great leaders make adjustments, they don't stick to a gameplan that's failing."

Also, while there wasn't a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment, McCaskill also had the most memorable lines -- "if you're in a hole, you don't keep digging" and the bit about Talent not thinking $300 billion is a lot of money.

Hard to know how many people were swayed by this debate, but the edge has to go to McCaskill.

[Dickeylee]

Day 9 and Republicans are still answering questions about Foley-gate. Time and Newsweek hit the stands tomorrow with more on the Republicans scampering for cover, any cover, that they can find.
First three questions Jim got were Foley, Foley, and Hastert. Admit it guys, this is gathering a life of it's own.
Bsst line was hands down Claire's. $300 Billion is big money, Jim. Remember the balanced budget?

[Joel Lackey]

Claire was very relaxed and composed, more than I thought she would be. Talent had to spend too much time defending positions that were indefensable and not able to attack as I am sure he wanted. Claire won.

[dh]

Talent looked great, claires looked like a total idiot when she was asked about her comment that bush let people die in katrina becuase the were black!!

dh, You must not have been watching the same debate I was. Claire was the clear winner. And yes, your president did let people die after Katrina because they were poor and black. I guess you didn't see that TV coverage either.

[KC Cicero]

Talent was as composed as anyone could be, caught between defending the indefensible (his support of Hastert, his lock-step support of Bush, his embarrassing - for and educated man - rejection of life-saving science) and admitting that he he and his Party would defend predators, let our troops die unnecessarily, and reject the Law of Gravity, if that is what it takes to cling to power.

It was enough to make Sen. Plasticman sweat!

Claire is a tough advocate, but she suffers from a higher level of integrity. She tells you what she believes in, not what pollsters believe you want to hear.

There is no contest on who I would want covering my back -- or who I would trust to watch out for the future of my kid or my Republic. When the heats up, plastic melts. Character holds.

[Bill Mac]

I am a 6th generation native Missourian now living in Fla (not Foley's district!).. Claire, today, made me very proud to be a Missourian.
She was articulate,informed, pragmatic,compassionate and good old
Missouri-brand common sensed. She would be a fine senator. Makes me remember Stu Symington. Missouri needs her... Talent and Kit Bond are basically useless. You go Girl!
Talent was truly clueless today.
PS: Bond is Chair of the Small Business Committee in Senate.. I saw him shopping at Wal-Mart this Summer.
Figures.

[modigger]

I think I'm going back with the Democrats. I never thought there could be a bigger boondoggle than welfare, but then along came the Republicans and this drug plan. The worst part is, it doesn't even guarantee that people who need medicine get it. At least when the Democrats take my money for some lamebrain giveaway, people get help. The kids health plan works. FEMA worked pretty well for us back during the big flood. Claire McCaskill proved herself to be a tough cookie, she's got my vote.

[alibarmar]

mccaskill, without a doubt!

[dh]

Did'nt talk about Illegal Immigration and talent voted "No" on the amnesty bill for the Mexican Criminals . Also a great supporter of the NRA !!!!!!!!!

[Pat]

Talent won on the issues and McCaskill took cover, which may be interpreted as a victory since incumbents are under fire this election cycle. My full assessment is here -- http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2006/10/talent-and-mccaskill-debate-review.html

[GDawg]

McCaskill won... hands down. I figured Talent would blow Claire out of the water like he did with Jean Carnahan in 2002. Didn't happen. I can't wait to see the candidates face-to-face in the debates across this state.

[John Evans]

More lies

SHANNON, Ireland - Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-
CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
ADVERTISEMENT

"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice

This broad fits right in with Bush Cheney crowd of compulsive liars. They stick to their story even after being exposed.

[Pat]

Geez, looks like the angry Dems are out in force today. Pretty sad.

[dh]

It's the kansas city star's blog , home of the democrat , you wont see many talent supporters here

[openmind]

youre right, talent supporters are busy sticking their heads further down in the sand.

[Pat]

A very open minded response. You do service to your namesake.

[Talentalltheway]

Talent! Absolutely without a doubt!

[nathaniel]

As a long time republican I am so upset with the Republican party right now.

With the Republican leadership trying to cover up the Foley matter to hold onto a seat. The thing that bothers me most is the two facedness the republicans have shown lately. How could they keep Foley in charge of the 'Committee for Protection of Children' when they knew about the alegations, not to mention the 'leaders' of the republican party should have come out and actually shown leadership by outsting this guy on their own. They could have avoided this whole mess.

My disappointment with the republican party goes much deaper as I am disallusioned with the party's stance on stem cell research. The right wing church groups have taken over the republican party and they forget there is a large contingent of Republicans who have been left behind while the party goes to bash the gays and outlaw science. What a disappointment.

Before the debate my plan was to just go vote yes on Amendment 2 and go home, no vote for Talent. After the debate I think I will actually cast a vote for McCaskill to punish the republicans for their arrogance. The arrogance because Talent said he would still go into Iraq, even with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. I wonder if he would still say that if one of his children were some of the proud soilders who have given their life for this war. There truly is a "State of Denial" in the republican party right now.

Ugggh.

[Pat]

From the STL Post Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/sylvesterbrownjr/story/999CF227AC12CA8A862572000032375E?OpenDocument

Bottom Line...Tim Russert won this debate.

He got Claire to, for the sake of her election, take back a comment, that was pretty much true anyways (the comment on Bush and Hurricane Katrina).

HE ALSO REPEATEDLY GOT JIM TALENT TO STAND AGAINST FOLEY, HASTERT AND PRESIDENT BUSH!!! That obviously tripped up Talent which made him eventually choose a position against all of them; including President Bush who has stumped for him in MO a few times.

Here's what I didn't like...Russert giving Talent more chances and time to answer more questions.

continued from 6:46pm

"for the sake of her election" meaning that Claire was in an election and Russert knew that she would have to take back that comment.

Having said that, her answer was in no way an answer that would determine her election.

Claire in my opinion will come out on top.

[aqua]

I'm gonna open up a kool-ade stand in here. I've never seen so many kool-ade drinkers gathered in one place.

25 cents please!

[Randy Turner]

Every politician has a certain message that he or she wants to get across and will make every effort to do so during an interview. Most politicians though will at least make a reasonable effort to answer the question and somehow slip the message in. Sen. Talent, for a time, appeared to be intent on getting his message across even if it had nothing to do with the question. I have never had the opportunity to interview the senator, but in that respect, he reminds me of John Ashcroft, whom I interviewed on numerous occasions and always pulled the same nonsense.

[STARVE THE ARTISTS]

As per the transcript published by the KC Star on this site, Talent said, "...Yeah, and why don’t they ever say in those surveys that the president agreed with me a certain percentage of the time? I mean, I’ve been in public life a lot longer when he has. When I went into Congress, I think he was still running the Texas Rangers."

Yeah, Jim, I am sure that the Preident seeks to find out what your opinion is prior to forming his own....After all, you are such a cutting-edge kind of leader.

Just one tiny little problem with your logic.... Assuming that the President follows YOUR lead, and not the other way around, as you insinuated, should you not be taking the heat for leading him astray?

[gr]

Tim Russert SUCKED !!!!!! Terrible questions. What could have been a GREAT debate, turned in to crap because of the questions he asked. GR

[Politically Caring]

Chuckle...
Great comment Starve the Artist.

[John Prock]

Since we can't vote on the issues, we have to weight the issues, then vote for the better candidate, unless, of course, he is a liar, like untalented Talent. So Claire, you got mine on both accounts.

[Pat]

Randy Turner: "Most politicians though will at least make a reasonable effort to answer the question and somehow slip the message in. Sen. Talent, for a time, appeared to be intent on getting his message across even if it had nothing to do with the question."

That cuts both ways. McCaskill was far more at fault in this regard, despite the fact that Talent was Russert's focus for over 70% of the interview, erm, debate.

***
FIRST QUESTION: McCaskill, on Democratic operatives

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. McCaskill, Speaker Hastert said this: “The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros,” who’s given millions and millions of dollars to Democratic causes. Have any Democratic operatives been involved in spreading this information?

MS. McCASKILL: Tim, as a former prosecutor, I had to handle dozens and dozens of heartbreaking cases where children had been sexually abused, where predators had been doing their work. I know this: that when a 50-year-old man is asking a teenage boy on the Internet for his picture, the response needs to be something other than, “I better go tell the chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee.”

Clearly what has happened here is an arrogance of power. It is about holding onto power instead of doing the right thing. And Washington is not working. This shouldn’t be about power. This should be about protecting kids and calling the authorities, calling the Ethics Committee. They didn’t even tell the Democrats on the Page Committee. This was about a cover-up.

I think it’s wrong. I think it is a great example of how out of touch Washington is, and how they’ve got their priorities all wrong. [To review, not a word about Democratic operatives.]

...and later...

MR. RUSSERT: And do you have any information that Democratic operatives may have been spreading this information?

MS. McCASKILL: Absolutely. I—I’m from Missouri. I’m not really in contact with Democratic operatives in Washington, D.C. I know as a former prosecutor and also the mother of teenagers, like Jim, that I know that if my child was that page and I found out they called the head of the Campaign Committee instead of the Ethics Committee and the authorities, I’d be hopping mad.
***
On terrorist surveillance

MR. RUSSERT: You’re saying she’s weak on terrorists?

SEN. TALENT: I’m saying her positions are positions of weakness comprehensively in the war on terror, yeah.

MS. McCASKILL: You know, playing politics with this issue is not making us safer. I absolutely support surveillance. As somebody who has handled very tough criminal cases, I understand the importance of aggressive surveillance within the framework of laws. And frankly, if they were more concerned about tough surveillance and not about election year politics, they would have gotten a bill through that would have allowed us to have the tools we need to go after terrorists around the globe. [Beyond avoiding the question, I would just direct everyone to her record, which speaks for itself.]
***
On "redeployment"

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. McCaskill, you said this. “We should redeploy our troops strategically within the region over a two-year time frame.” What does that mean?

MS. McCASKILL: Well, we have—you know, as a daughter of rural Missouri, we have a saying, “If you’re in a hole, you need to quit digging.” We have now trained 300,000 Iraqi troops. We have a civil war. We—this idea that we’re creating a democracy that’s going to be our ally in the war on terror? We have a government that’s reinstituted Saddam Hussein’s laws to put journalists in prison.

MR. RUSSERT: No, but you said you would “redeploy our troops strategically within the region.” What does that mean?

MS. McCASKILL: We need, we need to listen to our military, and over a two-year framework, give or take, time period that they say, we need to move—Afghanistan, we need troops in Afghanistan right now. We didn’t finish the job there. We are—the Taliban is back. We need to move troops into Afghanistan. We need to move into Kuwait. We need to move into Qatar.... ["... we need to move them to Wyoming and every other place outside of Iraq, too, because Iraq is wrong."]

...and later...

MR. RUSSERT: The president says he’s listening to the advice of the military commanders.

MS. McCASKILL: Well, you know, we respect the military in Missouri. [Great, and they don't anyplace else...] It is a historic moment in our country, never before in our country, have we seen generals, retired general after retired general that had been on the ground in Iraq, that came out publicly and criticized the commander chief—in chief at the time of conflict. [This is a reference to an event sponsored by Democrats on Capitol Hill, although McCaskill failed to mention that point.] That is unprecedented in our country. Listening to them and realizing that we have not been leveled with, the American people.
***
On money spent in Iraq

SEN. TALENT: No. I think this is an important front on the war on terror. That’s—what we’ve spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in total is 1 percent of the GDP. Now in return for that we’ve already removed Saddam and the threat he represented.

...and later...

MS. McCASKILL: Senator Talent, I think, just said the $300 billion was not a lot of money. Clearly, he’s been in Washington too long if he doesn’t think $300 billion is a lot of money. [Actually, Claire, he was making an investment analysis. You actually said it's not a lot of money, not him. AP picked up this erroneous characterization too.]
***
On cloning

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. McCaskill, the senator believes that, in fact, cloning embryos is, in fact, cloning life and then it’s being discarded, and how can you possibly support that?

MS. McCASKILL: My faith directs me to heal the sick. God gave us the miracle of human intelligence to find cures. Our country has never turned its back on medical research and we shouldn’t in Missouri. This provision strictly prohibits human cloning and provides a framework of ethical conduct and laws that are going to restrict the kinds of things that no one wants. [Doesn't touch on the life issue at all. And actually, the amendment doesn't prohibit cloning at all. It prohibits implantation and the development that would occur subsequently, and that's it. This says nothing of viability, and if the cell were viable, it would most certainly be a human clone. Under McCaskill's logic, if an embryo could be developed up to 9 months out of the womb, Claire would support it. Not sure what her faith, or faith in general, has to do with this in the slightest.]
***
On Bush not saving people who were Black in New Orleans

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to George W. Bush, because he’s become an issue in the campaign. Ms. McCaskill, you were quoted in the pubdef.net giving a speech which was blogged, saying, “She reminded people that ‘George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.’” One, why would you say that, and do you believe it?

MS. McCASKILL: Well, first, I was acknowledging how thousands and millions of Americans felt. The visual that we all saw in Hurricane Katrina was frankly, something none of us will ever forget. Incompetence turned tragic because the people there were unable to help themselves. This administration... [This has nothing to do with the question, nor does it deny that that's exactly what she said.]

MR. RUSSERT: But do you think the president let people die because they were poor and black?

MS. McCASKILL: I do not, I do not believe the president is a racist. [Then she does believe he left them there?] I was acknowledging the feelings of many, many Americans that this administration has left the most vulnerable, helpless—this administration has been about Wall Street and not about average Americans. [In first person?]

MR. RUSSERT: But do you apologize for this statement?

MS. McCASKILL: I, I think if it is misinterpreted that I was calling the president a racist...

MR. RUSSERT: Misinterpreted? “George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black.”

MS. McCASKILL: That was—I was acknowledging what Americans believed at the time. [In first person?]

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by it?

MS. McCASKILL: Absolutely, that’s what Americans believed. Now, I don’t believe he’s a racist, and if that—if people think—and maybe I shouldn’t have said it that way, Tim. Maybe I should have said it another way. I probably should have said it another way. But the feelings are real.

[And now, for what has even less to do with the question.] And by the way, if we had that tragedy, how ready are we for a disaster in this country? After the billions of dollars spent—once again, no accountability—they still are not looking in Congress at how all the money was misspent in Katrina. With all the billions spent on homeland security, our citizens died because we couldn’t get them food or water. This is not an administration that is ready to protect us.
***
On Presidential greatness

MR. RUSSERT: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?

MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think—I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...

MR. RUSSERT: But do you...

MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, “I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.” [Yes, a true sign of greatness.]
***
Why vote Claire?

MR. RUSSERT: Ten seconds, why should they vote for you?

MS. McCASKILL: I wouldn’t have supported for a bill that gave $9 billion of tax money to big oil.

That's your State Auditor, folks.

Missouri is fortunate to have two good choices.

[jean]

I thought Claire appeared unprepared. When asked about her statement regarding Bush and Katrina victims, she really showed her self as she tried to spin what she said into what she wished she would have said.

The Katrina victims and many other Americans "feel" many emotions about that situation. She should not have tried to be a mind reader and speak for people she hadn't talked to.

[aquafinn]

As far as Katrina is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that if a disaster of that magnitude happened in my Overland Park neighborhood... we would have never been stranded for days.

[Tim]

I particulary liked Claire's answer that went something like: "I have a record of being very independent. After all, I did run against the Democratic governor in the primary." So let me get this straight, you can now claim independence because you run in a required primary against a member of your own party? Wow...I guess there are a lot of "independents" out there.

[Tim]

Aqua....do you think you really understand the logistics required to evacuate/aid a ravaged city of 1.5 million people. I am sure the government didn't care about them because they were black. The same thing would have happened anywhere. It was a logistical nightmare that certainly could have been better handled, but it had nothing to do with race. Dems just want to grasp at straws to demonize Bush and portray him basically as evil. It has really gotten out of hand. I don't think he is a very good President, and I am looking forward to getting him out of office, but some of you people probably think he is the cause of cancer, nuclear war, and global warming...all single-handedly. Get back in touch with reality people, Katrina was a tragedy, but a lot of black people died and lost their homes because a whole lot of black people lived there. Geez...you'd think Bush flew down there and drilled a hole in those levees himself.

[John]

Never heard of a Happy Democrat. As far as the debate goes, the only opinion Claire can have is derived from media reports. I do not recall hearing that she traveled to Middle East to observe first hand. I am really disappointed in the politizing of the War over there. The Democrats have done all they can to make it an unpopular war, and Claire's stance just reinforces the Democrats position. I do not agree with politicians who weaken our position and strenghtens the insurgents.

Tim, The independence was shown for running against a sitting Governor of her own party, in fact if memory serves me correctly it was the first time in the history of the state of Missouri, maybe even the in nation that this had been done.

[Pat]

It's called seeing blood in the water. McCaskill may be ruthless, but she's no fool.

[Tim]

She didn't run because of independence. She ran because Holden was weak, and she knew she could win. It had nothing to do with her having an independent stance on anything. It was purely self-serving, knowing that Holden would have gotten beat by any Republican he faced.

So it didn't show independence for her to try and save her state from Blunt trauma and make her own political party mad in the process?

Very witty. And no, as her party wasn't so mad as to not elect her out of the primary and support her in the general election.

[Engawyer]

I THOUGHT IT WAS A TIE, AND TIE GOES TO THE INCUMBENT.

TALENT HAD THE MORE IMPRESSIVE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS (THOUGH THEY WERE BASED ON FALSE PREMISES AND IRRATIONALLY FOLLOWED THEREFROM). HE HAMMERED HOME HIS NAME CALLING STRATEGY (I.E. YOUR "WEAK").

CLAIRE WON ON STYLE AND PRESENTATION HANDS-DOWN, THOUGH SHE'S NOT EXACTLY MARY LANDREIU. BUT MAN AS FAR AS LOOKS AND CHARISMA GOES OLD JIM (AS DUBYA LIKES TO CALL HIM) MAKES LIEBERMAN LOOK LIKE TOMMY LEE.

CLAIRE GAVE A GOOD ANSWER REGARDING BEING A PROSECUTOR (I.E., NOT WEAK), BUT SHE HAS TO LEARN HOW TO HIT A HOMERUN. SHE HAS TO LEARN TO END HER ANSWERS WITH AN UMPF. FOR EXAMPLE, SHE SHOULD HAVE TURNED TO JIM, GLARED INTO HIS 8 EYES (AS ONLY A PROSECUTER CAN), AND SAID SOMETHING LIKE "I'VE BEEN CALLED WORSE NAMES OR LABELS BY CONVICTED KILLERS," OR "THERE ARE MEN SITTING ON DEATH ROW (OR DOING LIFE) WHOM I AM PRETTY SURE WOULD NOT CONSIDER ME WEAK ON ANYTHING," OR "I WILL BRING THE SAME BULL-DOGGED DETERMINATION THAT ENABLED ME TO PUT AWAY X# OF CONVICTED KILLERS."

SHE SHOULD END ANY ANSWER ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR WITH "LOOK ITS SIMPLE, IF MANY MORE HATE YOU, GENERALLY YOU ARE NOT SAFER. ITS TIME TO GET BACK TO GOOD OLD FASHION MIDDLE MISSOURI COMMON SENSE, AND STOP ALL THE LYING. IT HAS LONG-SINCE BEEN ACCEPTED THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, AND LITTLE TO DO WITH ANY OF THE MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING AL QUAEDA, AND HEZBOLLAH."

FROM HERE ON OUT CLAIR NEEDS TO HAMMER HOME 2 THEMES:
RESTORATION OF OVERSIGHT/ RUBBER-STAMP (CLAIR PLEASE SEE MY BILLIONS MISSING POST AND USE IT), AND HIS FLOPPING ON STEM-CELLS (WHICH IN FACT MAKE HIM LOOK WEAK). RUSSERT PRACTICALLY BEGGED HER TO HIT JIM OVER THE HEAD WITH THEM TO NO AVAIL. SHE GOT IN A LICK WITH 94%, BUT FAILED TO EVEN MENTION HIS CHANGING VIEWS ON STEM-CELL.

WITH RESPECT TO STEM-CELLS, SHE SHOULD HAMMER HOME THE FACT THAT THESE CELLS WOULD OTHERWISE BE DISCARDED. SHE COULD SAY "LOOK I AM A MOTHER, I BELIEF LIFE IS THE GREATEST GIFT ON EARTH, I CARRIED LIFE FOR 9 MONTHS, BUT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, AND THESE ARE NOT VIEWS, I AM JUST STATING WHAT HAPPENS, SINCE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS POLITICALLY OPPORTUNE CLAIM THAT HE BELIEVES THESE WOULD-BE DISCARDED CELLS TO BE LIVES EQUAL TO OUR OWN. 1. EVERY STATE AND OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS MEASURED LIFE FROM THE DATE OF BIRTH. OUR BIRTH-CERTIFICATES IN MISSOURI REFLECT THE SAME. THAT SAID, OF COURSE, THERE ARE PERIODS OF PREMATURE WITHIN THE LAST TRIMESTER WHEREIN LIFE IS SUSTAINABLE AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED. 2. WE, INCLUDING SENATOR TALENT, ALLOW THESE THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF CELLS TO BE DISCARDED EVERY YEAR BY FERTILITY CLINICS. DESPITE HIS STATED BELIEF REGARDING LIFE, SENATOR TALENT HAS DONE NOTHING TO PREVENT THE DISCARDING OF THESE CELLS. 3. WE DON'T HOLD FUNERALS FOR THESE CELLS, EVEN MISCARRIAGED EMBRYOS ARE NOT TYPICALLY HONORED WITH FUNERALS AND BURRIALS. SO YOU HAVE TALKING POINTS TO CATER TO A FRINGE OR BASE VERSUS HIS ACTIONS. I THINK WE CAN ALL DETERMINE WHAT HE AND OTHERS LIKE HIM TRULY BELIEVE BEHIND ALL OF THE TALKING THAT YOU WILL HEAR. THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT HE IS CONSISTANTLY CHANGING HIS OPINION SO THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE HE STANDS.

I HOPE THERE WILL BE MORE DEBATES?

[somewhere in the middle]

Show me a Demo who hates... I'll show you a Repub who hates, and so on and so on... ad nauseum.

What you red kool-aid hannity drinkers don't realize is that a lot of people trusted your guy and party and they let the country down, and people are seriously pissed, everyday people; rich, poor, and middle class.

Get ready... it's coming to an election near you soon.

[Curtis]

Talent sounds like an idiot. For him to say he would still go to war knowing that Iraq had no weapons does not sound like a man that makes good dicissions.

For Talent to say he does not aggree with most of what Bush does, to me it sounds like he does not know what party he wants to be in.

McCaskel is correct in redeploying our troops. We are trying to keep troops in Iraq and shore up the Mexican borders in Arizona. Our national security needs to be over hauled.

Americans is the most hated nation in the world. No one likes Americans. Americans are not safe when traveling abroad. Bush is responsible for that, not the Democratic party. Republicans are good for twisting words and situations around to fit their own agenda. ETC, Foley.

I will give the republicans an A+ for cover-ups. Republicans use the sound "uh, uh" when asked a question, why is that? Uh, maybe they are thinking!

[B]

Im so sick of people and their hate america speech. Everyone in the world still runs to America for safe haven. What happens when there is no safe haven for eveyone to run to? We might be finding that out in our generation. Run to China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. Dont you realize that Islamic fundamentalist don't want any western influence in the middle east, period. Weather it's Qatar, Kuwait, or anywhere else in the middle east. Unfortunatley we have to make decisions about who to vote for based on the current situation, not dogmatic party politics.

I like Talent. He kept his cool and answered most questions. Claire look upset and rarely answered Tim's questions. Her racist remark about the Bush and Katrina victoms made her squirm. If she was honest she would have said she felt Bush to be a racist - which I believe he is not.

[openmind]

"A very open minded response. You do service to your namesake."

Thats odd, as a Republican I thought you would understand that it doesnt matter what you do or say, all that matters is what you call yourself. You know, I'm a Christian, I am for fiscal responsibility, I love the Constitution, we are a moral party, etc.

[mike mcclaren]

How many offices is McCaskill going to run for? I hear the same answers regardless of the office. I for one am tired of supporting her with my taxes. All she did in the debate was give the answers her staff told her were the popular answers. Those answers are the ones that will appeal to those that rely on the news to form their opinions.The news is more slanted than the candidates.

[nanashita]

Claire looked like she was too fat and had bad makeup. She was articulate but her positions were weak. Talent needs speaking lessons. We need a third party in our state.

[Michael]

Claire, the jack of all trades has fooled most again. So it's Senate this time. How many times can she lose an election? The reason she loses is because when people actually look at her platform there is none. Her campaigns are simply anti-incumbent. Wake up Missouri and read what her platform is and how she truly plans to get it done. Don't vote out Talent simply for "change". THINK!!!

[Not Russert]

Talent had the classic deer in the headlights look a the end of the thing.

Blue State! Blue State!

[Tommy]

It's no secret that I'm a Jim Talent supporter, so that can make it difficult to be objective.
I thought both candidates did well, although I give the upper hand to Talent. It seemed to me that he had more "face time" on camera than McCaskill and didn't seem as "scripted" as McCaskill was in her remarks (although there's no doubt the comments from Talent about McCaskill being "weak" were well thought out ahead of time).
Russert didn't surprise me by one questions...I figured he'd lead in with Foley, move on to Iraq, hit the stem cell issue and ask about President Bush. IF there was one curve-ball...it was when he challenged McCaskill on her "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black." comment.
When Russert asks "why would you say that?"...If I was McCaskill, I would distance myself from my old mistake...

MR. RUSSERT: But do you apologize for this statement?

MS. McCASKILL: I, I think if it is misinterpreted that I was calling the president a racist...

MR. RUSSERT: Misinterpreted? “George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black.”

MS. McCASKILL: That was—I was acknowledging what Americans believed at the time.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by it?

MS. McCASKILL: Absolutely

***
Sidebar to Claire McCaskill: You made a classic mistake here...when you say "Well, we have—you know, as a daughter of rural Missouri, we have a saying, “If you’re in a hole, you need to quit digging.”
Russert had you in a hole on this series of questions...how deep is the hole now? Quick digging.

If Shanin and Parks on 980 this morning thought McCaskill won the debate (even by a small margin) then Talent must be in trouble. You are not going to find a more GOP friendly couple of announcers on radio in KC than Shanin. He truly hearts Bush.

Michael, She has lost once in 17 elections over 24 years.

[openmind]

Don't vote out Talent simply for "change". THINK!!!

Why not? I have no problem voting for a change if I think there needs to be one. If you dont like where things are going, there is no reason to keep supporting it simply because the other options are unknown. It reminds me of Denny Green's (head coach of the Arizona Cardinals) response to changing QB's and putting in a rookie who hasnt started before:

"Sure, we dont know if Leinart can play, but we do know that the other guys can't play."

[B]

The problem is all the options seem to have been played out here. We know exactly what we'll get with both Talent and McCaskill. So the voting for change arguement really doesnt work. Unless someone comes up with some original ideas we'll just have to keep the lesser of two evils mindset.

[openmind]

I guess I was speaking more on the national level. I dont see that much difference between Talent and McCaskill in terms of their ground breaking ideas. In both, all you are really getting is a rubber stamp for their respective parties. I would not say either is going to be the one creating the ideas; they will generally support their respective parties.

So when I say voting for a change, I am speaking to the Dems/Repubs change, not Talent/McCaskill. Trust me, I wish that were not the case, but it is.

I dont think either were all the impressive yesterday. Even though I am a liberal, when I watch debates like that I really try to focus on the actual arguing that takes place and not my personal stance on the issue. There were countless points were either one of them could have clearly taken control of the debate if they had the guts to deviate from their scripts.

It was actually quite frustrating to watch. In some ways it reminded me of watching the Royals, so many missed opportunities and stupid mistakes!

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/sylvesterbrownjr/story/999CF227AC12CA8A862572000032375E?OpenDocument

Yes, the Democratic Party takes blacks for granted - always has and, for the foreseeable future, I see nothing changing. The party's attitude didn't start, nor will it end, with McCaskill's campaign.

http://www.pubdef.net/2006/10/special-report-acorn-workers-claim.html

Ten-year ACORN veteran Josephine Perkins claims she was fired last week, in part because she informed the teams she supervised that it was inappropriate and illegal for them to campaign for McCaskill while being paid by ACORN and Give Missourians a Raise, the political action committee which supports Proposition B and, according to campaign finance reports, has given money to ACORN to circulate its literature.

The McCaskill campaign declined to comment for this story.

How wonderful it is that in this country everyone gets the chance to vote -- even folks who said things like "Claire looked fat and had bad make-up". Democracy is a wonderful thing that folks get to base their votes on the things that really matter.

[plattecohighschooler]

Actually, Claire is fat. And has bad make- up.
That's beside the point, though.

Call me crazy, but I am willing to bet that a high school student who spends a large amount of time on the KC Star blogs is not the most aesthetically pleasing pubescent Platte County has to offer.

[plattecohighschooler]

I'm not obsessed with my looks. If someone thinks I'm ugly, that's their opinion.

Narcissism is for sell-outs who shop at A&F and American Eagle.

[STARVE THE ARTISTS]

Aren't those the stores where Mark Foley shops?

[steve]

I think both did well. Talent came off more polished and spoke in a much more smooth and even tone, pleasant. McCaskill came off as if she was making up what she was saying as she went along...not that that is a bad thing but she was not as polished her tone and manner of speaking was jerky and could be taken by some as hiding or standoffish.

I know this is very mean....but Talent needs new glasses with the ones he has he loks like Senator Harry Potter. And McCaskill should stay with darker colors, she has put on some weight over the last few years and lighter colors really accentuates that.

Overall both did very well and I would say draw or at most a .10 point different for Talent. It will be a close close race that will not be known until probably sometime November 8th.

[Maureen Bini]

Talent is an honest, trust-worthy, hard working man who has the best interests of our state and our country at hand.

McCaskill is lying and misrepresenting the stem-cell issue.

In the end, our prayers will prevail and God will continue to protect and bless us here on earth.