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.