It's pretty disgusting that a political debate can reduce supposed adults to act as immature as children who won't share their sandbox toys.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions and to be passionate about and stand up for what they believe in, but they are NOT entitled to threaten, name-call, and physically lay hands on another person because they do not share the same opinion.  Sadly, people like those at the debate are raising our future leaders.

RS, you make a good point, and what made the debate even more embarrassing is that there were plenty of teenagers in the audience. It seemed like some school (s) bussed some kids to the debate. What a great civics lesson -- if you don't agree with someone, feel free to threaten, intimidate, name-call and harass them whenever they open their mouths.

Maybe, to maintain some order, like at polling places, they should have not allowed anyone handing out campaign materials within a certain distance of the entrance.  Perhaps they could also have mixed up the audience, instead of people for Oberstar sitting to the left and people for Cravaack sitting to the right. It was just unlike any other debate I've ever attended in Duluth. At least, both candidates showed up though -- unlike Dennis Fink last week.

Wait...weren't you just saying earlier that perhaps it would have been a good idea if the people were separated?

You are right.  I totally read that incorrectly.

I'm not surprised that Cravaack's supporters are so angry. He stokes their anger. I just checked out Cravaack's website and he uses some pretty loaded language there, such as a headline proclaiming that Oberstar's had "outbursts" during the debate. 

And, by now, we've all heard his supporters complaining that Oberstar didn't shake Cravaack's hand before the debate. This complaint originated with the candidate himself, whose campaign posted on YouTube as proof a close-up of Oberstar drinking from a glass of water before the debate began, with a hand touching his shoulder at one point. 



I'm sorry, it's going to take a little more than a close-up of Oberstar drinking from a glass of water and a disembodied hand touching his shoulder to convince me that he consciously snubbed his opponent. 

That this personal attack on Oberstar's manners originated with his opponent himself makes me think a lot less of Cravaack. Not only did he express a lot of trite platitudes that mean little yesterday -- like "I'll bring Minnesota to Washington, not Washington to Minnesota," -- but to try to score points by complaining about Oberstar's behavior towards him says a lot about the kind of campaign he's conducting.

Do you have proof that Oberstar did shake his hand? If Oberstar didn't shake his hand, why not? Seems to me there is nothing wrong with pointing out rudeness if rudeness occurred. This forum is pointing out the rudeness of the crowd so why not the canidates? Cravaack interrupted Oberstar a few times. Rude. Oberstar was said not to shake Cravaacks hand. Rude. Claire both sides in this contest have been pretty inciteful. That's politics. To say only one side is doing something wrong or distasteful is to be blind to reality.

"All the water we ever had in the world is with us today."

-Jim Oberstar at yesterday's debate

"All the water we ever had in the world is with us today."

Technically true. Water vapor does not "escape" into space; it just moves around - mostly in the troposphere - changing form, becoming creatures, exiting creatures when they die, becoming plants, exiting plants when they die, moving to and fro, changing form from liquid to solid to gas and back to liquid. But it never "leaves" the atmosphere.

I don't know the context of the quote, but it's completely true.

I got to the debate about ten minutes early, and went to the left side just because there wasn't a line. I think the set up of the theater tends to lend itself toward that side being the first entrance you see. I wasn't guided to any side for any particular reason. Not sure if that was different for anyone else. 

The middle section of the theater was packed with some of the most childish adults I've ever seen ... the majority of which were past retirement age. (Shouldn't they know better?) Many of them wearing Cravaack shirts, and booing and heckling every time Oberstar tried to speak. It honestly ruined the debate, and set a very combative tone from the beginning. 

Soon after, Oberstar must have decided he wasn't going to take this, and started acknowledging the booing and heckling with statements like "I'm sorry, but these folks just don't like hearing facts." I don't know of anyone who ever solved a problem with hecklers by egging it on ... in fact, most hecklers thrive on the attention.

Neither candidate handled the event correctly. Most of Cravaack's statements were not facts, but merely anecdotes based on conversations he's had with people, or random catchy statements meant as shots at Oberstar's record that someone must have told him were going to get some easy applause. 

Oberstar was clearly on the defensive from the beginning, and at his age, has lost much of the boisterous charisma that someone like Cravaack has. This left Oberstar at a strong disadvantage due to the sound issues in the building (which would, incidentally, have been easily solved if people would just shut up and listen). 

Personally, it seems to me that Cravaack is following in the same path as politicians like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, who depend less on their actual knowledge of politics, and more on their good looks and ability to charm and say what people want to hear. 

Since Obama, it seems that candidates and voters alike have been convinced that celebrity status is more important than knowledge (not a knock at Obama, just something that was emphasized with his election). I wonder if they actually care about their country, or if they just care about the name they can make for themselves. I guess that's politics.

They are Cravaack's followers, and he is supposed to be their leader.  Cravaack should have acted like a true leader and encouraged his followers to be respectful.  It seems that Cravaack either lacks the ability to lead or lacks the will to lead his followers in being respectful.  And, of course, a true leader does have the will and ability.

Mmmmm, hatefood.

Sigh ... you know I would be actually open to having someone other than Oberstar, but frankly all that has been offered as alternatives are pretty damn bad, Cravaack has aligned himself pretty close with Bachmann which should earn anyone a swift metaphorical kick to the groin. So, as it stands I certainly hope Oberstar romps over him in the election, but the only poll so far had Chipper only 2 points back. Mind you that was a partisan poll by Cravaack himself so the validity can be called into question.

As to how people acted at the debate, just fucking horrible, yeah that about covers it.

This is an excellent recap of the debacle that occurred at the DECC Tuesday that raises some more interesting questions. Let's face it: the Duluth News Tribune and the Chamber lost control of the event and let hooligans run the show. They share a lot of the responsibility for what could have been and should have been an informative and stimulating discussion. We're kind of lucky it didn't turn into a brawl.

Minnesota Progressive Project:
Oberstar faces down Tea Party in Duluth

I read the article. What disgusts me is this is the second time that the actions of tea-partiers towards Oberstar have been compared to Lynch mobs. The first was an opinion article in the DNT directly comparing to the lynchings that happened in Duluth, the second the article referenced above. The Tea Party has been accused of being racist, yet it is the democrats bringing up references of lynching. Disgusting and shameful. I'm sure the families of individuals who were lynched would agree that the reporter from the above article and the writer of the opinion piece are insensitive people. Democrats raising the race issue and blaming it on republicans and tea-partiers. Gross and pathetic.

First off both references were towards Oberstar a white man. Second Bush was constantly compared to Hitler and the nazis, called an idiot and a murderer ect. This was all over Bush's policies. Now those of us who don't like Obama's policies it is instantly because he's black. Only Democrats are saying that. And yes their are the birthers but again they aren't saying he can't be in because of his skin color but because they believe he isn't American. (I do not share such beliefs). Furthermore the tea-party and republicans are opposed to his policies not his skin color. Your argument that only President Obama has had groups claim outrageous things about him is just incorrect. So cling to your Republicans are racist cause they don't like Obama's policies stance but explain to me how that works with Oberstar, Reid, Pelosi ect. It is only because Obama is an African American that Democrats cry racist when he is opposed. If he were a white man facing the same opposition the accusations would not be thrown out there. (PS I voted for Obama as I felt he would be a change and may bring the parties together. Instead the countries more polarized than ever over his contraversial policies. and refusal to step across the aisle and take any republican input)

Is the Tea Party willing to work across the aisle? Doubt it. If so, let's hear your ideas for working with Democrats to come to some compromises on issues. Really, the big problem is that no one wants to compromise on ANYTHING. Money doesn't go to people who are (gasp!) willing to compromise. Democrats are just as guilty in many ways. But the Tea Party seems to me to be just another front for the Republicans to further polarize the country. This type of thing is only going to get worse. We're screwed.

This is what bothers me, but it's par for the course for candidates who lack substance, I think, as well as people who don't have the intelligence to discuss the issues, so they try to silence their opponents.

1. Cravaack's campaign gets all bent out of shape over Congressman Oberstar's behavior and demeanor at the debate, for instance, posting a video of the man drinking a glass of water and claiming he wouldn't shake Cravaack's hand. I saw a video of the beginning of the debate and, hello, the two men are seen shaking hands before the debate begins. Cravaack's campaign blatantly lied about this, trying to make Oberstar look bad.

2. An eyewitness observer posted a blog about the incredibly boorish and loutish behavior displayed by the Cravaack supporters at the debate. In response, those obviously supporting Cravaack complain about the admittedly inflammatory headline on this report, and ignore the content of the report. It's hard to defend thuggery and underhanded behavior.

I was also interested, watching a video of the debate, that Cravaack's supporters booed and jeered Oberstar as soon as he was introduced, thus setting the tone for the debate. When Cravaack said something ridiculous, and Oberstar's supporters started jeering and booing him, Oberstar indeed held up his hand to silence them. I was sitting in the midst of Oberstar supporters, and let me tell you, that is not where the heckling and disruptions were coming from. 

It's too bad that Cravaack couldn't demonstrate some class and silence his supporters -- but then, looking at his website, inflaming his supporters is what the man is all about. Maybe because he lacks the qualifications to be elected to the US Congress.

I hope tonight's debate isn't a repeat of Tuesday's embarrassment. I've heard that organizers in Grand Rapids are working hard to prevent a repeat of Tuesday. I hope they are successful.