I'm sure lots of folks around here will disagree, but in terms of style, comfort, and appearance, Merkley blew it. He seemed so stiff, awkward and unsure. Smith reminded me of Obama--calm, cool, and slick. I worry that Jeff did not win many votes tonight.

Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator from Oregon, 1993-2009. Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator from Oregon, 2009-.

Kari or Jeff, could someone PLEASE move the comment I just now put in the other thread on this awful debate? It's the comment regarding the dynamics as well as a coda-comment on Smith's ad campaign.

Thank you for helping me put it in the correct thread, as this was not a posted thread when I wrote the comments a minute ago. Thanks...

Forgot to list the thread to move it from -- it's in the "where should we donate" thread. Thank you for putting it here for me.

And Chris: I agree with you. Terribly disappointing debate, but Smith really did himself no favors. I did not seek to hate him, but I disliked his personality intensely.

Rebecca

Just watched the Merkley/Smith debate. Merkley a poor, wooden speaker, but insistent upon at least talking points, not mere character assassination and maladroit spinwashing... Smith relentlessly and without charm flipping questions in a circle, attacking his opponent.

M. not afraid to be calmly personal, but still more wooden and anxious-seeming than I'd have expected. S. simply contemptuous and vapid to boot. It was an awful, contentless expenditure.

Smith intensely alienating in his lack of intelligent delivery, lack of aplomb or musicianship. Merkley, well, I am for him, but I was not impressed by much more in the delivery than his willingness to answer the questions asked and not bullshit around with games.

I went to school with Tracy Berry as a girl - we were both in Forensics together -- I have to say she got my respect back with her crisp, cutting slices when Smith behaved the absolute ARSE on that request for each candidate to just answer the goddarned question: "three nice things about your opponent's VOTING record"... Gwen Ifill might have taken some fearlessness lessons, and I've got to say it would be fun to watch her skewer even the next MR. President in the name of getting the job done that WE need her to.

Overall a wooden, uninformative debate, Berry being the best part; Merkley's standup nature being a good part; and my dislike for Smith cemented.

ON another note: has anyone noticed Smith's tortured ad campaign in this light - the Matthew Shepherd ad done in aesthetically pleasing, somewhat sophisticated greytones guaranteed to appeal to the museum and fancy martini crowd; and then comes the tabloid shrill and cheesy colour schemes of the "scare the working class goobers" ads?... or am I imagining things?

Smith is currently winning OregonLive's post-debate poll:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/10/the_elections_final_approach.html

I have to agree that Smith came off slightly (if only slightly) cooler than Jeff.

They both seemed stiff and plastic.

Do I think Merkley by himself won over independents? No

Do I think Merkley and our current economy, war, and general standing in the world helped him win over independents? Yes

Do I think anyone watched the debate? No

Well it was delightful to hear Palin was promoted from governing 650,000 citizens to 32 million. This definitely helps the responsibility gap that folks perceive about her (face palm).

I came away thinking both gentlemen were nervous and tongue-tied. I didn't see that with Steve Novick or Candy Neville.

My usual complaint is you don't have Citizens in the studio asking the candidates questions. It still has a stifled, filtered feeling to it.

Nothing changes my vote. Smith is desparate and Merkeley will do more to change our energy portfolio, lift up the lower classes and protect the environment.

Yeah, Kari, I guess I was watching a different debate--probably the same one that most people who have not worked for Merkley or know what "non-verbals" are--the one where Merkley looked stiff, uncomfortable, and frankly, a little stupid. I knew some would disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I want the guy to win, and that's why I'm so concerned about his performance tonight.

He said some stuff I liked, but I wish he had argued for a decent economic recovery plan, or wasn't following Obama so much on the whole war in Afghanistan thing.

Merkely was stiff and robotic, but loosened up when he was off his talking points at times. Merkley really should have made the point in his closing that a vote for Smith is a vote against Obama. Smith was very much off his game tonight, but still appeared more comfortable than Merkley. No questions on LNG, education, or trade? And Merkely really missed a chance to take a shot at Smith for employing non-Oregonians who send much of their wages out of state. Disappointed with the negative ad questions to lead and close the debate. First off, KGW is making a tidy sum airing those ads, Secondly, a lot of money is coming from out of state because this is an important seat. The stakes are high. Thirdly, they wouldn't be used if they didn't work. People are clearly noticing them. Fourth, Ron Wyden beat Smith in '95 by stopping his negative ads. And finally, thought it was funny that two attack ads on Dems, one of them Merkley, aired right after the debate. Not good timing for the GOP.

Neither appeared to be a stellar debater. Stylistically, Merkeley's delivery was a bit nervous and his lines were delivered as if they had been mercilessly rehearsed without any regard to cultivating a natural-sounding, relaxed intonation. That was unfortunate, but he did stay on message and covered all of his talking points well from a substantive viewpoint.

Smith came off to me as also being a bit nervous, and just not credible, because if you follow the issues, you knew he was bs-ing. As to the Palin-CA flub and related McCain endorsement by Smith, Merkeley or one of the questioners should have cornered him with respect to his endorsement of McCain as to why he is running ads touting his work with Sens. Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. and is totally silent on McCain. That seemed like a glaring strategic omission to me. Maybe footage could be used for ad fodder. Not a bravura performance by either candidate, but don't think either candidate really helped or hurt his cause all that much. In my mind, the needle didn't move much as they say.

Kari, I agree that M. focused and stayed as substantive as this debate did get. Smith was a cloud of expanding toxic vapor in terms of the lack of core therein, the wayward pointlessness overall, and, simply, the lack of respect for the electorate I felt he displayed in those choices.

However, I really wanted more from Merkley than appearances, for I need to know him better as a voter. It was talking points all the way. M. "felt" to me to have substance, earnestness, but outside of his insistence upon not matching Smith in the magnitude of game playing, I do not feel I came away knowing more than his script.

We all know these talking points by heart as they are regurgitated between debates in different venues. I hoped for extra, not more of the same. As relief, I liked his "Three F's" moment... but that was not very clever either... but at least somewhat rhythmic and alliterative.

Am I wrong in hoping/expecting someday for some breakaway maniac to just RESPOND in realtime instead of en pointe?

Let me tell you, I've had to call a legislator's office a time or two to get help for issues that only a little so-called juice could solve for me... and I do not especially relish talking shite under my true name/initials about someone I may just have to call upon whose LAs surely watch these blogs... so I'd sure like to get more out of my chosen candidate for the effort and risk!

:)

Kari, you can't be serious. If you weren't making money from Merkley, you could see that Smith was far more senatorial, and that Merkley utterly failed to make a case for dumping him. I have a lot of hope for Merkley, but he isn't helping himself.

I thought Smith won hands down - I was pulling for Merkeley, but he just didn't come off as concerned about the Dow, and change in Foreign policy.

Push polling by Gordo

I agree with Kari. Smith was whiney ,dismissive, rude and rambling. Merkley gave, for the most part, crisp and clear answers and he seemed much better prepared than Smith. Smith seemed annoyed and bored, as if we should not have a candidate to challenge him on anything he has done. His schtick about being bipartisan and moderate is getting old, given his record, but he was willing to waste his precious time tonight repeating it over and over. Has he not read the headlines today? He acts as if he has nothing to do with the problems in Wshington--reminds me of McPain ticket!

Here's the problem with BlueOregon: Disagree w/ Kari and you're a troll. Nice.

Kari, that is offensive to me. I'm not a Smith troll. I'm a single mom who came home to watch the debate and spend time with my son.

I expected a better class of dialog from you!

Also, after being invited to be at a liveblogging, I showed up where I THOUGHT it was and found no BO folks, just lots of nervous people hitting on each other and spewing thier practiced "my talking points on the talking points" lines when there was an opening. I was not in the loop as to where this congregation planned for their next party. I was actually pretty primed for some good talk with people I think might have more than prepared lines...

I guess I just don't like the clubbiness of that comment, Kari. I'm here thinking seriously about how the man I support did not really give me what I hoped for this night.

Best Question: Name 3 things you like about the other guy's voting record.

Gordon Smith's "non-answer" was politics as usual and so, so common in political debates.

Jeff Merkley's willingness and ability to identify and give credit to his opponent speaks volumes about his willingness to answer questions. Even the risky ones.

Thanks the person who asked the question and thanks to Jeff for having the guts to answer it!

2nd try to post.

Awesome to see Jeff Merkley step up to the plate and take the political risk of complimenting Gordon Smith's voting record even though Smith found it impossible to complement any thing Jeff had accomplished.

Thank you Jeff. You just won me over.

Tedd

Merkely was significantly better than Smith, but Smith falling back on neo-con anti-tax mantras made him look utterly wretched. Merkely was merely pretty weak. They both look like back benchers a little out of their depth.

To be fair, this financial crisis makes a lot of people look out of the depth right now. Only the really brilliant or those who have studied the subject matter their entire career get what's going on in the financial markets right now. Everyone else has a bit of lost look on their faces right now.

As a liberal populist, I was really thrilled by Jeff;s performance tonight. Yes, he seemed a little eager to sock it to his opponent, a man who has been accountable to noone for the last six years. And the one minute response format just made the urgency worse. But he was not shy in dealing out the body blows about Iraq, the deficit, exporting jobs, Cheney's energy policy, and so on. All Smith could come back with was some slogan that rural Oregon needs a voice, not a visitor. Smith did seem to have a moment of candor talking about the need to attract and keep industry, but Jeff should have called him on the spiel about US Corporate taxes being the second highest in the world. At least he got the chance to point out that Smith is the one running all the attack ads. Overall, inspiring to the base, angering to pubbies to see their guy getting publicly eviscerated. Centrists who judge by the issues had things spelled out clearly by Merkley tonight. Centrists who judge superficially, well, Smith's got that #50 ranking to brag about....

Kari - you need to realize you are in a dangerous place, that of a person so sure of his own beliefs that he is unable to approach a situation with any shred of objectivity.

I can't stand Gordon Smith. I want Gordon Smith to lose more than I want John McCain to lose. I have even given money to Jeff Merkley...twice, but I can honestly say that Merkley is probably the worst debater I have ever seen. Gordo presented arguments that you could drive a mack truck through, but Merkley completely failed to adapt to the questions and Gordo's answers. He couldn't have sounded any more like a politician. My wife had to tell me to quit yelling at the TV set, "Why don't you say..." or "Don't let Gordo get away with that," or "Say it with half with the words."

Merkley's debate was much like Sarah Palin's. He came in with a few talking points that he was going to get in no matter what. The only difference is that Jeff lacked Palin's charisma and charm. I find it amazing that we keep selecting nominees who make John McCain look charismatic.

The last thing I am going to say is that Jeff's closing statement was so bad it made me laugh. He got about 20 decibels louder and completely changed the tone of his voice to make it even more wooden and robotic sounding.

Kari needs to pull his head out of his a**. No one wants Jeff to win more than I do. He is right on EVERY single issue, but his debate performance was impressive as Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric.

It is notable that Merkeley is winning the KGW online poll and Smith the Oregonlive online poll. So go figure.. In the end does this debate have much sway? Isn't the real issue about giving a thumbs down to W and Repugs and everything they have wrought on this country? I think that's how the voters are going to see it. Ed Rollins on CNN tonight, number one Republican pundit, former campaign manager for Reagan, said tonight that Obama will win and the Dems will win 60 seats because of what's happened to our economy.

Gordo's most terrible and telling moment was the point at which he was given three full chances to say anything nice about Jeff's record.

Not only did he refuse to do so, he the took Jeff's comments as more opportunity to talk about himself, rather than redeem himself from his asshat behavior.

Jeff was great tonight. Gordo sounded tired, annoyed and whiny that he had to be there. The sighing, looking at the floor when responding, and that "McCain Green" tie certainly didn't help his lukewarm responses one bit.

Game: Jeff Merkely, US Senator from Oregon

Sokay, then, Kari.

As an aside, just after you made the "troll" remark, this site began to act up fiercely. Either my connect was suddenly bad, or someone[s] worked to flood you or otherwise cause the blog to play up. ... or that finicky functionality slog that drives one nuts upon occassion...

Anyway, ok. If I drank these days I'd say you owe an Hornitos...

I'm up for Frontline - there's gonna be something good to see there, a comparative in-depth on the presidential candidates. And I hope some people take the time to mine that Charlie Rose site - it's quality on the loose.

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I'd like to put the debate into perspective. KGW currently lists as its top story the winter storm closure of SR-20 at Santiam Pass. Two weeks ago the Farmer's Almanac said that it would be a cold day in.... America for most of this winter. Most Wall Street pundits agree.

Now as far as the "debate(TM)" was concerned, I think that Jeff Merkley missed an astronomical opportunity early on. The first question from the media flak was about the nature of ads. (Apparently the media loves the profits and can't help themselves when it comes to asking supremely unintelligent lowest-common-dim-nominator questions.)

Of course the ads are coarse. That's about what you can do in a 30 second sound bite (or a progressive blog comment for that matter).

Jeff Merkley's missed golden opportunity? It came at Minute 4:08. Senator Snuffy Smith said "I'll take mine down if you'll take your's down..." That is the precise moment that Jeff Merkley could have turned his back on Smith, dropped his drawers and mooned the sitting (and now flabergasted) Senator from Frozen Peaville. There would be no further questions about "stiffness" after such a display of cheekiness, not to mention cojones.

My name is Raymond Duray, and I approve of this mess...

Can someone

Anyone

Explain to me why all the questioners were white males?

I'm really, really getting tired of this.

Heh. Ray for Mayor. You know, Ray, dad and I keep to our separate roads in peace, but I have to say you just put me in pleasant mind of my progenitor who runs for mayor of Eugene, variously, in a cigar and a bowler hat and full jester regalia.

He runs as a real candidate should, as if he can't lose and will never win. He talks real b/c he knows he won't win. Gives him the room to say what has to be said. Which is, of course, Shakespearean.

Runs in the bones.

Ray for [something] office.

The Constitutional Coyote

Well, hope posting here for the first time tonight doesn't automatically label one a "concern troll." I came here to read instant reaction after the debate, as I was curious to know what others thought. As noted earlier, I thought neither gave a particularly polished performance, but that Merkeley won on points, given that he made the better points and stayed on message. Of course, my perspective was colored because I came in as a definite Merkeley voter to begin with.

In any event, it should be acceptable discourse to say that this was no Lincoln-Douglas debate and that Merkeley (as well as Smith) was not the smoothest, and not be taken down for it nor attacked in an ad hominem manner. You should be able to voice an honest opinion and say you thought Merkeley did a bit better, but his win was by no means a slam dunk. To insist otherwise, is to encourage a Stalinist bent, and I don't think that's anyone's intention here.

Smith's delivery was like a mortuary director.

His arrogant, sniping delivery was offputting.

I thought Merkley did very well. Lookin good, charlie

Just got home to the TIVO'd debate. Jeff took 5-7 minutes to loosen up, but he really hit a good stride about halfway through and peaked at his closing. He's no Obama, but Merkley clearly won this debate.

Do I think anyone outside of the studio audience and the standard politico crowd watched? Doubt it.

The telling question in the debate was the "3 positive things in the voting record"...Gordo's unwillingness/inability to answer was disgusting if not predictable. Jeff's answer was classy.

Throughout Gordo was smug, condescending, dismissive, and sick-slick.

You really have to wonder who Gordo was trying to appeal to. Politics is all about knowing your audience and KGW broadcasts to the most liberal portions of the state (I doubt the other media markets were simulcasting the debate...correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think his pro-Republican, opposition to responsible regulation, and anti-winfall profits tax messages appeals to the debate audience.

Glad to see Jeff kickin' some Gordo-ass. I think you folks who thought Jeff sucked must have stopped watching after 5 minutes.

I just realized something quite amazing.

Haven't see one single Smith yard sign.

nadda

(SW Portland-Tigard-downtown areas)

I love how Merkley said he was not in favor of the FISA deal, etc.

Great job dude, you've given me a pleasant surprise after Schumer supported you. Nice performance.

If Republicans are saying this, "Smith fell into pettiness at times, and seemed a little prickly in his confrontations with Merkley. " then it seems Gordon doesn't have a huge cheering section. Haven't seen the whole debate yet--taped it as I was doing things while it was on.

However, I did see the part when Gordon was saying the one and only reason companies choose to be in this country creating jobs is corporate tax policy. I don't believe that--infrastructure, educated work force, closeness to customers, opportunity for continuing education and recreational opportunities for their employees mean nothing?

But what I really found interesting enough to leave the room with the TV and turn on my computer was at the beginning where Smith talked about Merkley's 2003 vote on the House resolution which was such a big argument here in the primary. Something like "if you think he was always against the war you should know about his 2003 vote...".

I'd been talking to a friend (and telling him the debate was on at 7) who has always voted for Gordon Smith in the past, and is a not very political swing voter. I emailed him the link to the Blue Oregon post "smearing Merkley with GOP talking points" by Greenlick and Nolan, and told him I was very unimpressed with Smith bringing that up in the October debate--given that it had been hotly debated in the primary and the post had something like 179 comments.

From what I have seen so far of the debate, it looks like what the older man in our neighborhood said today, "they use those negative ads because they don't have anything else to talk about".

Most politicians are not blessed with Obama's speaking skills. But my impression of the parts of the debate I have seen so far is that if Hubert Humphrey or Wayne Morse were to come back to life, they'd be impressed with the strong fighting on issues of the current Democratic nominee.

rw,

You are a man (I assume) after my own heart. And when you elect me Mayor, let me tell you that I'm offering you the golden opportunity to offer me my first bribe. Shucks, why should we wait? I could use the money now, while I'm still a political virgin.

Years ago I used to live down near Austin, Texas. I still have fond memories of a fella down there who decided to rise up from his humble beginning in South Austin from where he rose to own a fine emporium in Central Austin called "Oat Willies". It turns out that Willie made a trade in drug paraphernalia, which made him more of a Democrat than a Republican, who I understand tend to specialize more in pedophilia. Family values, ya know.

Well, lo and beholt, Oat Willie actually turned out to be a pretty popular as well as populist candidate. He was rather like the Matt Gonzales of his day. (Smart people will recognize that Matt Gonzales nearly upset the Democratic Party in EssEff, CA and turned San Francisco into the first openly Green city in America.) I'm pretty sure I'm voting for Matt Gonzales for Vice President, if'n I can split my infini-ticket and vote for Simply Cynthia McKinney for President and Chief Prosecutor.

But I digress.

The mayor race joke slogan from the pot-head Oat Wlllie was "It's nice to have friends in high places."

rw, I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship. Especially if you come through on that bribe.

Nope. Woman. With a gloriously well-integrated masculine aspect.

I could offer you a vine-ripened 'mater. AFTER you find me that fantastic li'l garden apartment swag in exchange for my dirty tricks knowledge base... and I can edit your slurred talking points.

At one point Smith said, in reference to mental health, that "I didn't come to this issue, it came to me." Sounded like he has delivered that line a thousand times and he seemed so proud of it, his delivery so sickly smooth.

That line says everything that is wrong with Gordon Smith. He is totally out of touch with anything that does not "come to him." If his immediate family or life is not affected by it, he doesn't care, doesn't give a damn.

He also does not allow his own voters, Oregonians, to "come to him" so that he might find out what we care about. He halted the Wyden town hall meetings years ago, we can't get anywhere near him. He is selfish and out of touch.

Let's hope the voters put him out, cuz he ain't never gonna come to us.

I guess what surprised me the most about the debate was that for a campaign that is really one of the most watched Senate races in the country, both candidates didn't seem ready for a close-up. Smith's been about as good of a Republican Senator Oregon could hope for, and I don't begrudge him for touting his rural ties. That said, Oregonians can help the country take a huge step forward by electing Merkley. If people are tired of the gridlock, elect Obama/Merkley. We know what we get from Smith, who might be the GOP's best hope for Governor.

Dear rw,

Re: "Nope. Woman. With a gloriously well-integrated masculine aspect."

So let's just call you ombibulometatastic. For your gardening skills.

You are certainly cultivating me. And you want to be my editor? I'm blushing. Hell, I should be from Flushing. Oh, wait a New York Minute. That certainly didn't come out right.

But enough of the Yiddish toilet humor.

So, what's on offer here, dear? "li'l garden apartment swag in exchange for my dirty tricks knowledge base... "

I'm thinking A HORA! PORA! In reverse: The Popular Concept is... LEFT IS RIGHT!

Jeff Merkley hit it out of the park.

Kari, you do realize that the "hit it out of the park" and similar baseball-hitting metaphors are the most-often mocked phrase of any comedian trying to parody the mindless drivel of the paid spin merchants after a debate.

Dude, check in with the popular culture every once in a while to avoid making a cliched ass of yourself.

Gee, kari, I apologise for ever referring to you as "smug." Whatwas I thinking.

Seriously, the "hit it out of the park" thing is THE most common cliche from liberals or conservatives after a debate. People were making fun of it back in 2004.

Get some new schtick that isn't an instantly dismsissable sound-bite. I mean, your folks should get their money's worth, right?

Smooches to you, too.

That was ugly. This was a replay of Obama v. McCain where Obama clearly won on style and at least drew even on substance....only this time Smith was the 'style' candidate...

Merkley was clearly over matched on style and probably on substance as well. Merkley was a robotic sound-bite machine with his constant, out of context Bush references. He sounded dumb and stiff.

It's hilarious to read how certain each side is their guy won on style and substance. Both of them came across to me as empty, pandering tools. They both are an incredible embarrassment to the people of Oregon, and neither of them is even close to being Senator material.

Having watched Jeff Merkley at a candidate fair in West Linn this spring, he has improved much. So I saw a lot of betterment in his delivery. On the other hand, except for having a more expensive suit, a better hairdo, and millions of dollars, Smith did not come across better on the meat of the debate.

For the good of the country, I will vote Democratic. A lot more hinges on this race that a "wooden" delivery. It's the issues needing to be addresssed, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a Supreme Court which does not seek to deprive people of personal rights. Merkley will do more for the people who don't live in the top of the income tax bracket.

"my hope is that Jeff will get some coaching"

Deb - You and I were coached by a wonderful lady in high school. Could we steer him towards her, or should you or I volunteer?

Embarrassing:

I do not look at these debates and do that win/lose thing. Not to offend anyone up here, but I think that's a stupid game and pretty meaningless unless there has been an entertaining debacle.

Every base is observing for all to shore themselves up. And the undecideds are just not revealing their own bias, may not even be aware of their own bias.

So they are watching and waiting for the manipulable moment buried within their possibly-unexplored psyches.

I do honestly view it as simply as that at this time.

To me it's not about who won or who lost, as that's all perception on the part of the observer, and, frankly that baloney has NOTHING to do with the actual functions performed by these debates.

Perhaps, Embarrassing, you should reframe your observation of the won/lost remarks in view only of that... for me, an old debater, I am offended that these are even called debates.

They ain't. We need a president who will move ot rename these suckers as soon as he gets in. Therefore, I guess I'll join the ranks of the undecided: till I hear someone say he gets it about my subtle little hobby horse, I'm not gonna vote.

Where do I go to not-sign-up?

"for me, an old debater, I am offended that these are even called debates"

I am not only an old debater, but also one who coached deabte as well (Deborah Barnes can attest to that one). I am not really offended that they are called "debates" as such, but more amused that they are referred to as "debates". Every debate I have seen this season (President, VP, Senatorial)all have one thing in common - just mention the party points and you'll do fine. Maybe these 'debates' could focus on one topic (like they do in real competition) for each debate rather than letting them get seconds to blurt out the party line.

When you deal with the masses, you have to make do with what is there. If they gave us a formal debate (like I have coached in) I can guarantee you that it would turn off even more people. Why do you think Nixon "lost" his debates with JFK? Nixon was known to be an excellent formal debater, but his 5 o'clock shadow on the TV cold cocked him.

If you just listened to Jeff/Gordon without the camera, it would be a tossup, yet just seeing the indifference Gordon expressed through his mannerisms during the hour, you could tell why many here are touting a victory for Jeff and his DSCC entourage.

By the way, Jeff was just a bit too loud sometimes, but it was overshadowed by Gordon's supposed irritation.

rw - Just to be clear, you'll see I wasn't framing the debate as who won or lost. I was remarking on how others were doing that.

Now I agree with you these aren't debates. Having followed the political careers of both of these guys, I doubt either of them is actually capable of doing anything but the going through the motions of formal debate, much less actually constructing arguments that aren't completely riddled with just logical fallacies.

My comment was and is remains that neither of them are Senator material. If you don't remember Wayne Morse, and maybe Mark Hatfield who wasn't quit of Morse's stature, you may not have a reference point to understand what I mean. Both of these guys just come across as wanting the status and perks of the job so bad they can taste it, and pretty much will posture and pander any way they have to to get it.

Merkley was particularly offensive to any notion of integrity in his passive-aggressive defense of 527s since it is the DSCC, the very people whose support and money he desperately sought in the primary, and who ran all of his advertising that won the primary for him, that are doing most of those ads. For him to say with a straight face that he has no control over what they do suggests the man truly is at least as venal as his partisans here accuse Smith of being. One can't help but wonder if Merkley is uncomfortable in the spotlight and always argues about how he works best behind the scenes because he can't stand up to public scrutiny.

I think for the benefit of some here it's important to note there are two types of "undecided" voters: Those who really could vote for either one (and perhaps will break for Merkley), and those who really find it hard to vote for either one (and probably will break as "no-vote" in the race, as we saw in the primary). For those who are honestly either type of undecided, there doesn't seem to be any reason to argue the debate helped those in the first category make a decision, and some reason to argue it pushed those in the second category to lean towards "no vote". As in, "I don't vote because it only encourages them". I find myself as a matter of personal integrity having to seriously consider the "no vote".

In the comments we see how the big commentators here tend to group those two categories together, and make the childish mistake of slamming anyone in the latter category as being in the first category. That just shows they aren't half as smart as they think they are and why some of Merkley's worst enemies in this election are his supporters.

I detest Smith, but he seemed polished last night. This contrasted with Merkely's nervousness. If the undecideds are looking at presentation, I think Smith wins. If they are looking at facts, it is all Merkley. Luckily, the second half of the debate, Merkley was doing better. Hopefully, by that time undecideds hadn't already changed the channel.

Merkley: somewhat stiff and low on charisma, but good on issues

Smith: human equivalent of oily margarine contaminated with melamine

Jeff, Kari, and all the other spin doctors--

I'm not saying Merkley is not better on the issues. But I am saying (and it seems like lots of people agree) that when it comes to "stagecraft" and style--things that may influence folks who follow this less than we do--Merkley ain't got it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again--I really want the guy to win. And that's why I'm glad that there was a playoff game on at the same time as the debate. He wasn't terrible, but saying "he hit it out of the park" is a bit much, no?

I know it's verboten around here, but it's impossible to not imagine Novick's responses to some of Smith's garbage. The whole thing would have been smarter, funnier, and a hell of a lot more entertaining.

Back to the issues, though, Chris Lowe is right--Merkley should should be much better on the bailout and the war.

Tom:

There you go again, inserting references to the Oliphaunt in the bedroom - China.

Glad I did not have to.

When will someone please put up a thread on China so I can do this right?

[hoping I hit "back" quickly enough to not-post]

Thomas:

There you go again, inserting an adroit reference to a current Oilyphaunt in the bedroom -- CHINA.

When is someone going to write an article so I can get it all out of my system?

Kari,

I post under many names here cause I like to use my choice of names to convey what I'm feeling on the topic. Earlier in the post I went under "Stiff & Awkward". I also never post under my real name cause of the child-like games/taunting/sandbox behavior that go on here sometimes.

I am not a troll. I am not a hater. I am a registered Dem and according to the VAN, I have a 100.00 Turnout Score. I'm guessing a lot of people probably post under a variety of names and those people aren't trolls either.

If Anti-BlueO folks have nothing better to do during an election cycle than to get on here to throw grease on the fire - then I'm worried about the state of our affairs.

Maybe in situations like this you should put down the Merkley horn and just let people comment for a while before jumping in? I dunno what the right call is? You do a great job here at Blue O with not only content but also moderating. I just get a little peeved when I come to this place and see the Merkley kool-aid coming out where it shouldn't.

Is Merkley the best speaker (no pun)? Hell No. Did he flat out win the debate? Hell No. Does that mean that he isn't the better qualified, all around smart guy, who works better in the building doing the job elected officials are meant to do rather than playing well to the tv crowd? Well, he is that guy and that is why I am voting for him. But... I am still allowed to call him a jackass from my couch cause he should be doing better speaking to the public by now cause we NEED to win this race.

Anyways...let us all stop the mental masturbation and sandbox behavior here and keep it to an honest talk?

Speaking of honesty: Kari, I'll even promise to post under the same name from now on. You can even pick my title. :) Serious.

I thought both candidates appeared very wooden or simply reiterating their respective campaign points.

Nonetheless, Merkley never really addressed the concerns of rural Oregon at all. Inartful as it was, Smith did tick off the things he's done for the rest of the State.

Also, lets not forget that Merkley, sincere as he may be, may well never break with his Party on any major issue. Smith has. Before this campaign heated up, many Democrats have given Smith credit for breaking with the Repub. leadership. Merkley would never do that. Smith gets my vote.

I still think Merkley will pull it out, though.

"still"?! You can correct me if I'm wrong, TJ, but you were saying that Merkley can't beat Smith. When did that change?

We have a debate going on called NCLB 10% and GS 94-142,and contractual agreements as we all review reform efforts with the DC schools !American Teacher's March on Washington !Take the train if the gas pumps in your state have plastic on them ! Heads up !Do you think in any reform educational effort that your tax dollars pay for basic needs should be met in school buildings in America prior to firing 200 teacher's ? Did anyone ask that question and we missed the debate show down ! Read "Manufactured Crisis" before you blame it on the teacher's !Find it very interesting the list of top executives making reform efforts, don't have a degree in education or is there a doctor of education listed at the top in charge. However,teacher's will be paid 132,000 if they give up tenure.We have doctor's of education in some states that aren't making that kind of money.Perhaps money would be better spent to prevent law suits and taking care of children principle's and teacher's worried about GS 94-142 as well as basic needs met in American school buildings ! Were educational questions in the debate ? It's an IDEA !They have the money to pay teacher's 132,000 but don't have the money to take care of GS 94-142 ? Thank-you !

<h2>We have a debate going on called NCLB 10% and GS 94-142,and contractual agreements as we all review reform efforts with the DC schools !American Teacher's March on Washington !Take the train if the gas pumps in your state have plastic on them ! Heads up !Do you think in any reform educational effort that your tax dollars pay for basic needs should be met in school buildings in America prior to firing 200 teacher's ? Did anyone ask that question and we missed the debate show down ! Read "Manufactured Crisis" before you blame it on the teacher's !Find it very interesting the list of top executives making reform efforts, don't have a degree in education or is there a doctor of education listed at the top in charge. However,teacher's will be paid 132,000 if they give up tenure.We have doctor's of education in some states that aren't making that kind of money.Perhaps money would be better spent to prevent law suits and taking care of children principle's and teacher's worried about GS 94-142 as well as basic needs met in American school buildings ! Were educational questions in the debate ? It's an IDEA !They have the money to pay teacher's 132,000 but don't have the money to take care of GS 94-142 ? Thank-you !</h2>