Frank Rich with his commentary on the debate....in this case I must say I don't fully agree with his conclusions, as Rich is the ultimate insider. However he represents the "establishment" thinking on the debates....
Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: the Democratic presidential primary debate, Paul Ryan and the quest for a new Speaker of the House, and a new era for Playboy.
Did the first Democratic debate change anything about the 2016 presidential race?
A lot. The morning-after consensus (left, right, and center) is correct: Hillary Clinton not only romped over the competition — such as it was — but could well have shut down the prospect of a Biden run. But if the Clinton revival sustains itself, the turning point will not have been last night’s debate but Kevin McCarthy’s September 29 public admission on Fox News that the House Benghazi committee’s main motivation was to take her out rather than investigate the deaths of four Americans taken out by terrorists. That bit of truth-telling ended Benghazi as an issue (to the extent it had ever been one beyond the GOP base) and may have kneecapped the email controversy too. It’s worth noting that the two back-to-back moments when last night’s debate first came alive were both on this subject: First, Bernie Sanders’s declaration that the “American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” and, second, Clinton’s fast “No” when invited to respond to Lincoln Chaffee’s questioning of her “ethical standards.”
A lot. The morning-after consensus (left, right, and center) is correct: Hillary Clinton not only romped over the competition — such as it was — but could well have shut down the prospect of a Biden run. But if the Clinton revival sustains itself, the turning point will not have been last night’s debate but Kevin McCarthy’s September 29 public admission on Fox News that the House Benghazi committee’s main motivation was to take her out rather than investigate the deaths of four Americans taken out by terrorists. That bit of truth-telling ended Benghazi as an issue (to the extent it had ever been one beyond the GOP base) and may have kneecapped the email controversy too. It’s worth noting that the two back-to-back moments when last night’s debate first came alive were both on this subject: First, Bernie Sanders’s declaration that the “American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” and, second, Clinton’s fast “No” when invited to respond to Lincoln Chaffee’s questioning of her “ethical standards.”
What are the differences between Hillary and Bernie? This excellent story from The Atlantic points out their fundamental differences....
The most revealing moment of last night’s Democratic presidential debate came near the end, when CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates to “name the one thing—the one way that your administration would not be a third term of President Obama.” Bernie Sanders replied that, unlike Obama, he would “transform America ... through a political revolution.” Hillary Clinton answered that, unlike Obama, she’s a woman.
The responses reminded me of a distinction Chris Hayes makes in his excellent book, Twilight of the Elites, between “institutionalists,” who want to make existing institutions function better and “insurrectionists,” who want to tear them down and start again.
The really good news about the debate was that the Democrats as a whole won - adult, professional debate about real issues makes us all stronger and more informed.....
Okay, Eeyores, let’s snap out of it. Tuesday night should mark the end of what has felt like an endless phase of Democratic (and media) bed-wetting about Hillary Clinton, the state of the party, and the general grimness of this year’s presidential prospects.
From Las Vegas, we saw what was surely one of the higher-quality debates Democrats (and certainly Republicans) have held in ages, and it was especially good if you were a Hillary Clinton supporter, a Bernie Sanders supporter, a left-of-center Democrat, or anyone who is deeply sick of reading Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Banished were fears of an unlikable, unrelatable, robotic Clinton: Vegas Hillary was relaxed, confident, playful, eager to acknowledge her fellow debaters mostly as allies, with allusions to the years they’d spent together in the political trenches. She even made a joke about how it takes her longer to pee. Yes, she went after Bernie on guns (fairly) and he after her on Iraq (also fairly), but this was a debate; impassioned argument is supposed to be part of the deal. Mostly, Clinton was as loose as she’s been in a while. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen her pull off a televised moment as nimbly as she did the one in which moderator Anderson Cooper asked if she wanted to respond to Lincoln Chafee’s long-winded complaint about her email issues and transparency by saying, simply, “No.”
A classic Lewis Black routine on evolution and the Bible......four minutes of deadpan hilarity....
The insiders say Hilary "won" the debate, but they may be wrong.....
The consensus of political commentators is clear: Hillary Clinton won the firstDemocrati
Yet focus groups, search data, and social media information all tell a different story — one in which many viewers loved what Bernie Sanders had to say, or were, at the very least, quite interested in him.
I agree that Clinton turned in a strong performance. And that matters, as it could help her win back the confidence of party insiders worried about her recently declining numbers, and help deter Vice President Biden from entering the race.
But the debate wasn't just about party insiders or the views of pundits. And there are reasons to believe actual voters watching might come to very different conclusions than the professionals did.
Occasionally one get's asked "what's your favorite movie", and my reply is always "Pulp Fiction", so I read with great interest this interview with Quentin Tarantino in the Times.....some insights into the director of some wonderful movies......
Tarantino’s dialogue-driven scenes, rambling and digressive, are often played out in real time, embedded within the strange, leisurely and byzantine plots he constructs, which are nothing like what a screenwriter who was taught by gurus such as Syd Field or Robert McKee might construct; the idea of the well-structured, three-act picture with the ‘‘inciting incident’’ on page 15 seems idiotic and fake in Tarantino’s world.
He shattered and then rearranged such rules in ‘‘Inglourious Basterds,’’ a rollicking, harrowing World War II comic pastiche.
Todays Canadian joke
Siamese twins walk into a bar in Canada and park themselves at the bar.One of them says to the bartender, “Don’t mind us; we’re joined at the hip. I’m John, he’s Jim. Two Molson Canadian beers, draft please.”The bartender, feeling slightly awkward, tries to make polite conversation while pouring the beers. “Been on holiday yet, lads?”“Off to England next month,” says John. “We go to England every year, rent a car and drive for miles. Don’t we, Jim?” Jim agrees.“Ah, England!” says the bartender. “Wonderful country... The history, the beer, the culture...”“Nah, we don’t like that British crap,” says John. “Hamburgers and Molson’s beer, that’s us, eh Jim? And we can’t stand the English - they’re so arrogant and rude.”“So why keep going to England?” asks the bartender.“It’s the only chance Jim gets to drive.”
No comments:
Post a Comment