Democratic Debate

[Galaril]

Did anyone watch this? I forced myself to watch all two of hours of this in order to start to get abetter idea of the candidates. Though I am more Democratic leaning I am also a moderate so I will check the REpublican debates as well. The Democrats seem to have a few interesting players so far. I certainly see why Clinton is in the lead with Obama and Edwards fairly close behind. Kucinch is surprising a decent debater and obviously well prepped and I think does believe what he says. Clinton is somewhat smug in that I think in HER mind the race is over as far as the Democratic races goes and she may be right. Barack was bad tonight. I guess he had a cold which apparently made him appear lethargic an listless. He didn't speak with as much confidnce. Biden and Dowd are great "old boys" Washington speakers they said nothing of substance but said it convincingly. Gravel I can't even watch or listen to him. In fact whenever he spoke I just fast forward through it since it made me cring. Richardson also looked pretty useless IMHO. Edwards looked pretty good and I think a Clinton Edwards ticket is likely. One funny moment was the thing about Bill Clinon and his admission on Meet the Press that he would authorize torture to secure information a bomb in a US city. Hillary had answered that she was against that than Russert told her it was her husband who had said it. The look on her face was priceless and she had a good comeback. Boy is Bill going to get his ass kicked for not telling her that one in advance.

[Greyroofoo]

Its a shame Kucinich can't market himself better.

[Galaril]

Yeah, Kucinch has some interesting things to say. I don't think he has the facilities to accomplish what he hopes to but he talks a good line or two.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And his wife is not a bad catch.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...light=kucinich

[Jas_lov]

I don't agree with many of Kucinich's domestic policies, but I think he won the debate because he's the most honest man on the stage. Gravel is usually good for a laugh or two. But I think as far as the frontrunners go, you have to look at their records and past voting history and not just what they say. Anybody can get up there and say good things, but have they backed it up? It's interesting that your signature has the famous Franklin quote and Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and Clinton all voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and to renew it in 2006. Edwards did not vote to renew it because he wasn't in the Senate, and Obama did vote to renew it. And these are the Democrats who are supposed to be the protectors of civil liberties. Anyway, I did like Gravel and Edwards calling out Hillary for her vote to inch towards a war with Iran today while she still says she will end the war in Iraq, but leave troops there. Remember, everyone can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

[DaddyTorgo]

IMO Hillary didn't come off well at all.

1) The Iran-Iraq foreign policy talk. Between her voting record on Iraq (which unlike Edwards she did not admit was a mistake, but instead defended), and her votes on the Iran-bill today and her defense of that put her at odds with the other candidates and I thought Kucinich particularly did an effective job of drilling her on this.
2) At some point during the talk about healthcare when she was talking about being 'the healthcare president" it seemed to me that she started to veer close to becoming a "one-issue" candidate.
3) Her dual plans for Social Security and how she doesn't have a plan for it exactly were exposed.

I thought Kucinich came off very well, I agree with a lot of his ideas and I like the fact that he is an honest politician, but he just isn't electable unfortunately. Won't stop me for voting for him though.

Obama came off pathetic, refusing to really dictate anything and take much of a role, although I guess he had a cold.

I thought John Edwards came out looking very good. I particularly appreciated how several times he admitted that he had learned and grown. He's one of the few candidates who I've seen who isn't afraid to say "I made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war and I learned from it," as well as whatever domestic issue he has changed his stance on (healthcare? I forget). I appreciate that. And I thought he came off as very confident and very well-spoken.

The rest of them...pretty much a joke.

[Galaril]

Hillary might be worth voting to just get Bill back in the White House And for the record I ma not 1005 against the Patriot Act just some parts of it. The quote from Ben in my sig is more general feeling I have about the current "regime" in the US.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Hillary might be worth voting to just get Bill back in the White House And for the record I ma not 1005 against the Patriot Act just some parts of it. The quote from Ben in my sig is more general feeling I have about the current "regime" in the US.

But the Democrats are part of the current regime! They voted for some of these things that have given the Bush Administration all of this unconstitutional power. Who voted to give the authority to President Bush to invade Iraq? Dodd, Biden, Edwards, and Clinton. And now they've switched sides for political reasons. I'll give Edwards credit for admitting it was a mistake and that it was wrong. Hillary is always asked if it was a mistake and she just goes into her, "Well if I knew then what I know now" BS. And now she votes for the Iran resolution bill today. How can people not see through all of these inconsistencies? And most of the Republican candidates are just as bad. Romney changes his positions depending on what office he's running for, Giuliani isn't even close to a real conservative, and most of them spout off the ridiculous "They attack us for our freedoms" crap. Wake up people!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

But the Democrats are part of the current regime! They voted for some of these things that have given the Bush Administration all of this unconstitutional power. Who voted to give the authority to President Bush to invade Iraq? Dodd, Biden, Edwards, and Clinton. And now they've switched sides for political reasons. I'll give Edwards credit for admitting it was a mistake and that it was wrong. Hillary is always asked if it was a mistake and she just goes into her, "Well if I knew then what I know now" BS. And now she votes for the Iran resolution bill today. How can people not see through all of these inconsistencies? And most of the Republican candidates are just as bad. Romney changes his positions depending on what office he's running for, Giuliani isn't even close to a real conservative, and most of them spout off the ridiculous "They attack us for our freedoms" crap. Wake up people!

I agree. This is politics unfortunately.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Hillary might be worth voting to just get Bill back in the White House

Any chance Bill gives Hillary a hummer in the Oval Office if she becomes Commander-in-Chief?

[DaddyTorgo]

i at least appreciate that Edwards is man enough to stand up and admit that he made a mistake, and more importantly, that he has learned from it

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i at least appreciate that Edwards is man enough to stand up and admit that he made a mistake, and more importantly, that he has learned from it

Just out of curiosity, what do you think he has learned?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas lov

Romney changes his positions depending on what office he's running for

Politicians suck in their flip-flopping, but Romney takes it to a new level.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Just out of curiosity, what do you think he has learned?

not to vote for the iran resolution for one. he's learned that as he put it last night, you can't give bush any possible pretext to take military action or he will.

i'm not saying it's some transcendental truth he's learned or anything, but what it is is a humanizing touch. he's saying to the voters "look i'm just like you. i make mistakes yes, but i learn from them and i do not repeat them."

[path12]

I don't know that I have a preference yet, think I'll be fine with whichever of the top four (Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Richardson) get the nom, but I liked Biden yesterday quite a bit. I like him generally, but I see him as far more of a secretary of state guy than a president......his mouth would get him in far too much trouble as president.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by path12

I don't know that I have a preference yet, think I'll be fine with whichever of the top four (Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Richardson) get the nom, but I liked Biden yesterday quite a bit. I like him generally, but I see him as far more of a secretary of state guy than a president......his mouth would get him in far too much trouble as president.

richardson? ugh

[astrosfan64]

I'm not a big Democrat guy, but I watch all of their debates. I'm not a big Republican either.

I like Edwards the best. I thought Hilliary didn't do very well last night, she seems a bit stuck up. Obama I usually like, but he had an off night.

On the Republican side, I think I dig Paul and Guiliani.

[Big Fo]

I loved when Biden called out Guliani for his ignorance of foreign affairs and when Gravel said the credit card companies deserved to be stiffed $90,000.

Kucinich remains my personal favorite although I favor Obama among the candidates with a chance. Clinton had a rare off-night, botching the social security section when she normally has a good response to any questions she is asked.

[Young Drachma]

Seems? That's how she always presents herself when I hear her. I can't believe a word she says. Ever.

[Raiders Army]

Rodham is not a choice. Notice she's riding the "Clinton" name instead of the Rodham name now.

[path12]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

richardson? ugh

But here's my thinking on Richardson. I think he's kind of a goof, and he'll promise you everything in the world on a platter, but he's a diplomat and he's strong internationally. And I think international interactions are a skill that I'd really like to see in the next president. He's not my favorite, but I don't really have much problem with him. I guess Cronin would know better.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by path12

I don't know that I have a preference yet, think I'll be fine with whichever of the top four (Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Richardson) get the nom, but I liked Biden yesterday quite a bit. I like him generally, but I see him as far more of a secretary of state guy than a president......his mouth would get him in far too much trouble as president.

That's why Biden's easily my favorite, but unfortunately will never win

SI

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

"They attack us for our freedoms" crap. Wake up people!

Question for ya - why DO they attack us?

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Question for ya - why DO they attack us?

They attack us for our interventionalist foreign policy. In particular, our occupation of troops and military bases on the Arabian Penninsula which is condidered their holy lands, our bombing and sanctions of Iraq for the past 10 years, and our support for Israel. This is what Osama bin Laden said himself. The 9/11 Commission Report confirms this and calls it "blowback." Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit also says this is what causes them to attack us, not because of our freedoms. Just think about it logically, why haven't they attacked Canada or the Netherlands or Switzerland? What if China started coming over here and occupying our country and telling us how to live? I think we would be defending ourselves. The best way to defend ourselves from terrorists is not to invade countries for oil in the middle east. We're just inciting more hatred. The best way to defend ourselves is to get off their lands, leave them alone, and spend the money saved from that in defending this country.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

They attack us for our interventionalist foreign policy.

Correct. As long as you want to shape actions in the other parts of the world to your benefit, you will suffer blowback for doing it. Really quite simple. I don't pass judgment for now on whether that is an acceptable policy because it has its benefits, but to think you won't get burned on it every now and then or that the people in the places in which you intervene aren't going to get pissed off is idiocy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Question for ya - why DO they attack us?

Ironically, they attack us for their freedoms.