After watching the debate a second time, I have to say that this one was better than yesterday’s, at least in terms of content, Peggy Fox’s questions notwithstanding.
First, a point that I hope the Fairfax Chamber takes to heart: place the panel down in front of the candidates (like everyone else does) so that I don’t have to look at the side of their faces most of the time. I don’t think the people came to see the panelists.
Second, if C-SPAN is going to cover a debate, can they please start and end on time? The start was in the midst of Allen’s opening statement and the end was in the midst of Webb’s closing statement. Trust me: the broadcast before and after the debate could have easily been shortened by the 30 or so seconds.
Now, the debate itself. Some may wonder why I watched this (and yesterday’s) debate more than once. I watched the first time for style and the second time for substance.
Looking at style, Allen was clearly the more polished politician. He looked at the audience and smiled a lot. Think “slick” because that is what I saw. Allen’s righteous indignation over the Peggy Fox questions was a bit over the top, though. And I guess we’d all better get used to his Benny Lambert “get out of (racist) jail free” card, because he used it again today.
Webb is just not a politician – yet. He always appears nervous to me and a little awed by the whole thing, which is, in some ways, refreshing. At the same time, Webb appeared exasperated at having to answer yet another question (also from Peggy Fox) about his “Women Can’t Fight” article, calling it his “m-word payback.”
Both men got a little snippity at times, something I could have done without. I guess they are more alike than they are different.
When it comes to substance, I’ve said before that an incumbent has an advantage. Allen was able to speak on most topics without referring to notes. Webb appeared to be referring to notes, which in no way diminishes his answers, except on the topic of Iraq.
Webb is still introducing himself to people; thus, the continuous references to his background. I find it tedious, though. But what was clear today was that Webb is not a single issue candidate (the lack of information on his website notwithstanding). While he may be most familiar with Iraq, today was the first time that I have seen him give answers to questions beyond that topic which were more than lip service. Allen’s answers weren’t so much rehearsed as they were standard talking points. Pretty much any Republican candidate is going to tell you the answer to uninsured Americans is health savings accounts, for example. Today, Webb was able to say why HSAs aren’t the total answer. He was able to talk about public/private partnerships for roads. That is progress and certainly should silence a bit of the criticism.
Overall, I think this debate was a draw. Hey – at least it really was a debate, unlike yesterday’s question and answer session.
One last point: Peggy Fox of WUSA asked some questions that brought out the boo birds. First was whether Allen had ever heard the m-word used by his French Tunisian mother. As a followup, she asked about his possible Jewish heritage. While many may think these questions were out of bounds, I have to say that I am not aware that Allen has ever been asked these questions before. Yes, they have been bandied about in blogsphere and speculated on ad nauseum but I actually was glad that she asked. I only wish Allen had answered so that we can move on to other issues.
Funny that the boo birds didn’t have that response when she asked Webb about his lack of apology to women for his article. I think the people there may have had a double standard.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian – Allen, as Governor, is the father of the public private partnership act in Virginia for transportation. As they say, let’s welcome Webb to Virginia.
Also, Webb did not say the “m-word moment.” He said it was his [edited] moment. And he said in such a way that he knew damn well that the word is not a racist slur. So don’t whitewash (no racist slur intended here either) by writing “M-word” when that is not what Webb said.
Also, during a time when our country is fighting a two front war, education needs improvement, tax policy is always debated, the Senate confirms or denies judicial appointments, etc. — a question from some dumbass reporter trying to make a name for herself by asking about Allen’s “Jewish heritage” is so off the mark as to be just about the stupident question anyone has ever asked at an important debate for US Senate.
If you think Webb is exasperated about “women can’t fight” imagine how Allen feels about this stupid [edited] thing. Welcome to politics.
You are obviously not familiar with my feelings about the m-word, so I will point you to this post. For some, the m-word is a racial slur. And I don’t use racial slurs. Not whitewashing, simply demonstrating a respect for people who do consider it to be a slur.
Your post has been edited.
VJP,
I attended the debate, and I am a Chamber member. I’ll give three thoughts, and then go in peace.
1. The panelists need to be on the stage so the television and newspaper cameras can focus on them while they ask questions, etc. The cameras are set up on another stage across the banquet all and at the same level as the participant/panelist stage.
2. You could not hear on the video the hisses and a few boos at Peggy Fox’s question to Webb. I was one of those who hissed and I was not alone. However, her question to Allen was way over the top and was easily berated because it was a terrible and insensitive question about family members.
3. M word. If Jim Webb can say it and joke about it on stage, then it really does provide the obvious: Jim Webb stumbled with that quip and he publicly displayed that he did not think the M word was derogatory in nature. Otherwise, why would Webb himself joke about it?
Enjoy reading your blog, take care.
I have to disagree. JIm Webb’ s use of the M word was “not” sending the message that he does not think the word is derogatory….(Jim himself doesn’t “touch” this subject when asked.)
I believe he used it to simply make the statement that he too was getting some heat.
I know that Allen supporters are desperate to cover up any racism on Allen’s part. Keep trying….it’s not going to work. Allen’s past voting record and ties with the CCC offer solid proof of this.
Even though the question about Allen’s heritage is “difficult” it needed to be asked. It is an important question. Allen does not come across as “comfortable” with his heritage. His reaction was defensive, over the top, and histrionic.
If Allen negates parts of himself it is more likely to be projected onto others in a negative way. A man with power can do alot of damage with his psychological projections.
Overall I think it was evident that Allen has that superficial layer of the politician’s polish….but underneath lurks a bully not a leader.
Buzz…Buzz…
Mosquito
Mosquito,
Asking about someone’s past family religion is not really appropriate. Peggy Fox’s manner in which she asked that question was terrible. Very unprofessional. I am a Democrat. MANY elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, were not impressed with the question — Peggy Fox went too far.
Now the blog spin is Allen’s reaction to the question. I believe Allen was justified for being angry about it. It was an awful question. Peggy Fox should have approached the topic in a much more professional way. I would have been angry too.
Perhaps the way the question was asked – it did appear accusatory – is more of an issue than what was asked. And thanks for the info on why the panelists are situated where they are.
FCCC may be right about the way the question was asked. I admit that I was stunned when Ms. Fox posed the question (I was in attendance), but I was even more stunned at Sen. Allen’s reaction.
Heck, if I were asked the question, whether in a professional way or not, I would have explained my multi-ethnic (Chinese, Indonesian, African and European) and multi-religious (Roman Catholic, Jewish, Moslim, Protestant) background, and I would have mentioned the number of languages that I learned throughout my life, for good measure. 🙂 If you’re not comfortable with yourself and not proud of your heritage, what’s the point of becoming a public person?
Vivian,
I applaud you for your restraint on the “Jew question” topic.
Let’s change the question slightly (but not the tone in which it was asked), would you still consider his reaction merely “a bit over the top” if the question had been;
“It has been reported that her father, your grandfather, was black. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include blacks and if so…”
More importantly, would some of your fellow Democrat bloggers be reacting like they are now? I certainly hope not.
Given the Webb campaign’s history with Jewish racism, I believe the question was wrong. I believe Allen’s “righteous indignation” as you put it was a correct response. And more importantly, I believe the tack currently being taken by Waldo, Ben, and Lowell is wrong. Lowell I expected it from, Waldo and Ben disappoint me.
Alton – I won’t get into the degrees of racism, whether it be black heritage or Jewish heritage.
And I can’t speak for the other bloggers nor will I make excuses for them. They are all doing what they think is best. And so am I.
As I said Vivian, I applaud your restraint. I continue to hold you in high esteem.