A Republican view on the debate.

From the "Political Derby" and Republcian leaning web page that covers the race mostly for that side, but does give views on Democrats. The bloger, SA Kalinich, gave a concise and only slightly partisan view of the debate.

SA Kalinich said:

Johnny E reminds all that there are three people in the debate. He asks how "this kind of squabbling" will help anyone. He says it’s not about "us," it’s about helping Americans.

"Lord knows, you have let them go on forever," he declares when Blitzer tries to rein him in.

The audience loves it. Look for Edwards to surprise Saturday, with a good 20 to 29%. You heard it here first.

He says the subprime mortgage mess is more likely to affect African Americans. He’s talking about poverty in a state where there are more have-nots than haves.

Half of South Carolina’s Democratic voters are black. Edwards is not pandering to them. He is continuing a focus (on poverty and deprivation) that he’s had for years.

As Hillary and Barack throw mud balls at one another. Edwards stands in a clean suit. That could translate into votes on Saturday.

Which I think is the best review I’ve seen. Edwards was not pandering, like Kalinich said, he has focused on this for years. Edwards will be my second choice if Kucinich withdraws. Oh he is not as good as DK, but he is at least talking about the truly important issues: the Economy Stu--- (strange Ms. C has not picked up that yet.)

DK has some great economic about how to deal with our current system of money, granted his wife has a lot to do with that, the idea of an interest free currency is very good. Over all if not DK, then Edwards.

•  Tip Jar

  Thanks

  by DrillSgtK on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM PDT

•  Wouldn't it be great

  if John Edwards did really really well in SC? Wow! That would really screw up the pundits! But especially it would give new life to Edwards - and American voters' choices!

  by everhopeful on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

  •  From your fingers

    to (insert deity's name)'s ears.

    by Lisa Lockwood on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:58:12 AM PDT

  •  I would like to see that.

    unless JE gets the first place, any thing else is going to be "shoved down the memory hole". I hope he does well, and that gives him some momentum going into 2/5.

    but that is alot of states on 2/5 and it's getting late to get the word out about your self with out the media backing you.

    by DrillSgtK on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:05:58 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but

    ...how many voters in the SC Dem primary even watch the debate?  If people voted on substance, Edwards wouldn't be trailing to begin with.

    by Alden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM PDT

•  I don't know if it will get him up to 29%,

  but I do know that audience - or rather the world in the South and the pragmatists among them - people who like a straight conversation about their issues - might have decided to give him a shot after last night's showing.  If Edwards focused much more of his rhetoric on the kinds of bread and butter specifics he raised last night rather than talking about abstractions like lobbyists, I think he could make a serious dent in the primaries.  We'll see what happens.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:48:25 AM PDT

•  It's a crying shame

  That Edwards focus on poverty is the very reason the corporate controlled media is shutting him out.

  My test for the candidates is find out what candidate is the media darling then vote the opposition.

  by born socialist on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately, 20-29% won't cut it.

  Personally, I would be stunned if Edwards could get that kind of percentage with the way trends are heading. However, it won't really be enough to rescucitate the campaign. Even if he finishes 2nd, the story will not be about Edwards. It will be about the big winner, and the big loser.

  by FischFry on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM PDT

  •  Yup.

    Him finishing in that range would mean one of the other two doing very poorly, and that's the story we'd hear.  The media's made up its mind, much as it'd be fun to see JRE stick his thumb in their eyes.

    by Pegasus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM PDT

    •  Look at what the media

      has done to Ron Paul. He beats Guiliani, but doesn't get a second of airtime. Granted, Paul's a freak, but still..........

      by DJShay on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM PDT

      •  Don't beat me up here

        but the 'perception' of RP is that he's a 'populist'.... as is the Huckleberry. FWIW, I'm inclined to think that anybody seen as a populist by the pundits and talking heads (ie anti-big business/corporatism) whether real, or feigned, is going to be anathema to the corporate media.

        Dislaimer: I am NOT now, nor have I ever been an RP supporter.

        Go, Johnny go!

        by Lisa Lockwood on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

•  Senator Edwards would be...

  the GOP's worst nightmare.

  ;)

  Here is what a True U.S. Patriot stands for. 

  by SaraBeth on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

  •  I actually agree with you that GOP and Dem power

    players did not want Edwards Kerry running the show in DC.

    Kerry as president meant open government that exposes the government corruption that has caused the horrific blowback that has drawn a target on all of us.

    Edwards as VP would have tackled the corporate corruption during this time - and it is quite certain that we would have seen clearly how government corruption of the last 40 years and corporate corruption are inextricably linked.

    Thus, the sabotage of Kerry-Edwards by the chosen Dem protectors of the powerful elite - TeamClinton.
    http://www.depauw.edu/...

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

    by Jail the BFEE on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM PDT

•  What a shame

  The focus group watching and scoring the debate mostly thought Edwards won, but wouldn't vote for him because they thought he couldn't win the nomination.  Is this logic or what?

  Any numbers on how many people watched the debate?

  by JFinNe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM PDT

  •  Primary logic, I'm afraid

    Is this logic or what?

    At this stage we are not just weighing candidates on issues, but also electability. It does not help that the Republicans haven't focused in on a clear front runner themselves.

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

•  Love the diary

  but I'm extremely doubting of the 20 to 29 %. I'm an Edward's supporter, but even to me that sounds high. I'm keeping my fingers crossed though!!!

  by DJShay on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM PDT

  •  Back up to 15% would be great

    given the (to be frank) embarrassment of NV.  But since I'm an Obama guy, I'd love to see him get up there, since he'd be pulling more voters off of Clinton than Obama.

    by Pegasus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM PDT

    •  After 2/5

      I'll probably be supporting Obama. But my heart will always belong to Edwards :-)

      by DJShay on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:59:02 AM PDT

•  after 2/5 I will probably be

  supporting Hillary.  It will be interesting to see where Edwards support eventually goes.

  My state is very late in the primaries (June)

  by libertyisliberal on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:21 AM PDT

  •  Difficult for me to imagine going from Edwards

    to Hillary, since he's running an anti-establishment campaign and Clinton have carried water for the powerful DC establishment for decades.

    http://consortiumnews.com/...

    Not to mention how TeamClinton was sabotaging Kerry-Edwards campaign at every crucial turn.

    http://www.depauw.edu/...

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

    Hillary2008 explains why Terry McAuliffe's DNC never secured the election process in the four years they needed to do so after the RNCs 2000 theft.

    by Jail the BFEE on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM PDT

    •  sorry, I just don't like Obama

      he sounds like a preacher.

      by libertyisliberal on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM PDT

      •  That may be - but siding with closed government

        hardly seems like the solution to your dislike of how Obama 'sounds' when he speaks.

        It's called sense of proportion.

        by Jail the BFEE on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM PDT

        •  whatever

          I am not a huge Clinton fan, just my second choice.

          I know about her negatives.

          But I think she has a better chance of winning in the general than does Obama (especially if the Nevada pattern of her support among Latinos holds true in New Mexico and Nevada in the general election).

          I also think she has more experience than Obama and knows how to get things done in Washington.

          I also think Obama talks the talk (like so many candidates who have come before him) but can he  "walk-the-walk"?  

          by libertyisliberal on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM PDT

          •  Get things done for Clintons = protect BushInc

            http://consortiumnews.com/...

            Bill did it throughout the 90s and Clinton2 is set up to continue that protection.

            THAT is why they sabotaged Kerry-Edwards.

            Rewarding deceit and the protectors of BushInc just seems to me to be the most UN-Democratic move a Democrat can make.

            http://www.depauw.edu/...

            http://www.cnn.com/...

            http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

            by Jail the BFEE on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM PDT