Tonight's Democratic debate--no buttock content

[GeraldFord]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHL9KO0.html


MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."

 
(AP) Democratic Presidential hopefuls from left former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska; Sen. Christopher...
Full Image
 
 
Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said that the administration's war in Iraq had detracted from efforts to root out terrorists.

"We live in a more dangerous world partly as a consequence of this president's actions," Obama said.

The candidates sought to highlight their own differences on the war in Iraq.

Obama told Edwards, who voted in October 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq but now says that the vote was a mistake: "John, you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."

Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but had voiced opposition to the war resolution at the time.

Edwards conceded, "He was right, I was wrong" on opposing the war from the beginning. And Edwards sought to highlight his change of heart on his vote with Clinton's continuing refusal to disavow her vote for the war resolution.

Said Clinton: "That was a sincere vote."

She again declined to say her vote was wrong.

Both Edwards and Clinton agreed that they voted for the war resolution in 2002 without reading an intelligence report on Iraq that was available to them. Both said they sought other information and believed they were thoroughly briefed.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.

U.S. troops "never should have been sent there in the first place," he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should "just say no money, the war's over," he said.

Kucinich called on other debate partners who were members of Congress to remember that voters had given Democrats control of both House and Senate last November largely in response to opposition to the war.

To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."

The candidates squared off as a new national poll found Clinton maintaining a significant lead over her rivals. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found the former first lady leading the field with 42 percent support among adults, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.

The debate took place in the first primary state.

The Iraq war was the main focus, as it was during Democrats' first debate, in late April in Orangeburg, S.C. Polls show the war has become deeply unpopular among voters and especially among Democratic activists, who vote heavily in primaries.



 



 
 
 

[The Dog]

Richardson and Biden impressed me.  Hillary seemed to take some hits in the beginning but I thought she rebounded great.  Obama was solid.  That one guy, from Alaska...wow, hes like a cranky grandpa.  someone give him a valium.  dude needs to CHILLLL out. haha

looking forward to tuesdays repub debate

[sandman]

i agree with you on biden. but i thought hillary was great from the beginning. she really impresses me. and her experience trumps all. i think richardson is killing himself in these debates. and the dude from alaska is great - calls it like it is. so refreshing.

[The Dog]

i agree with you on biden. but i thought hillary was great from the beginning. she really impresses me. and her experience trumps all. i think richardson is killing himself in these debates. and the dude from alaska is great - calls it like it is. so refreshing.

i don't think hill-dog herself was bad, but she definitely seemed to get "owned" as the internet kids say with a few of her opponents responses to her statements...just early on, like the first 15 mins or so.  After that I thought she was great.

Alaska dude would start to make good points but then he'd just start babbling/rambling and lose me completely.  i like guys with passion but he just seemed over the top pissed/angry. 

why do you think that about richardson?

[sandman]

hillary is very well-spoken, best of the bunch. and she incorporates her experiences into her answers. she almost sounds honest up there which is really an accomplishment.

edwards "bumper sticker" comment is ridiculous. and hillary did a perfect job of making that known, and giving a great answer in the process.

richardson was given a tough question early on (moral issue of there being a genocide in iraq if we leave). he talked alot but didn't answer the question. i thought he looked really bad. the rest of the night was similar...just very little substance. i like the guy, but was thinking he probably has little chance of someone even picking him for VP.

[freedom78]

I missed it!  Hopefully CNN will re-air it... 

[The Dog]

I missed it!  Hopefully CNN will re-air it... 

i'm not 100%, but i think you can watch it on cnn.com.

[freedom78]

I missed it!  Hopefully CNN will re-air it... 

i'm not 100%, but i think you can watch it on cnn.com.

Thanks.  It's on again in 30 minutes, so I'll catch it then.  Believe it or not, I didn't even know there was a debate tonight.  Guess I haven't been watching the news as much lately, though MSNBC (my news of choice) certainly aren't pushing the debates as much, now that those on their own networks are out of the way. 

I've gotten to the point that only a political "rabbit out of a hat" will get me to vote Republican, in 2008, so I do really want to see the Dems debate as often as possible. 

[freedom78]

Alright...debate watched.  A few thoughts, and an emoticon for each candidate that best represents their performance.

First, John Edwards "won" this one.  He took it to Obama and Clinton, did a good job of contrasting himself with other candidates, and was generally very composed and effective. 

Obama was good (better than last time).  Much more composed and no major screw ups. 

Hil-Dog (woof woof!) was ok, but not great.  She "won" the part on health care, when others were giving intricate details and she said something like "lower costs, improve quality...".  Then again, I find her to be completely insincere.  "I'm a Senator from New York!"  My ass.  That and her stubborn insistence that she wasn't "wrong" to vote for the war just really get to me.  By '08, we'll have had eight years of a President who can't or won't admit when he's wrong, and she seems to be the same.   

Biden really impressed, again, and he's quickly setting himself apart from the rest of the "second tier" candidates as the one that could try to crack the top tier.  He's honest, forceful, confident, and very knowledgeable.   

Richardson, sadly, blew donkey dick.  He was horrible.  He can't begin a sentence with anything other than "When I did this...", or "What we did in New Mexico, where I'm governor...".  It gets old.  Too bad, because he's probably the most qualified.

I still appreciate Kucinich's principles, though he has no chance.  But it's nice to see him keep them honest.   

Gravel is a fucking loon.   

Dodd gets my vote for "Best Attempt to Avoid Answering a Question," for his answer to the "how will you lower gas prices" question.  He had a minute, and spent about 58 seconds of it talking about why the issue was important.   

I would rank their performances thusly:

Edwards
Biden
Obama
Kucinich
Hil-Dog
Dodd
Richardson
Gravel

Here are some interesting numbers:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here are the final times each campaign received, per the Dodd campaign: Obama spoke the longest (16:00 minutes); Gravel the shortest (5:37).

Biden: 7:58      10 questions
Clinton: 14:26   15 questions
Dodd: 8:28         9 questions
Edwards: 11:42     13 questions
Gravel: 5:37     10 questions
Kucinich: 9:02    9 questions
Obama: 16:00    16 questions
Richardson: 10:48    11 questions

Of course, most of us are MOST interested in what the big three have to say, in our hopes of distinguishing between their positions.  But, I can see the point the Dodd camp is trying to make.  After all, if you don't start out as a front runner, this makes it much harder to become one.  That said, if you're not a frontrunner, it's because of one of two reasons.  You're an unknown quantity and/or you haven't got a prayer of being elected.  The three candidates who received the least questions all fall into the latter (and, to some extent, the former).  Bill Clinton was an unknown quantity, and he did just fine. 

[sandman]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/debate.analysis/index.html

? Delaware Sen. Biden was "on fire" Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says
? Performance wasn't strong enough for Biden to gain on front-runners, analyst says
? Several observers say as front-runner, Clinton played it safe
? One analyst says some of Richardson's answers were confusing

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Although there was no consensus on the winner of Sunday night's Democratic presidential debate, CNN analysts were largely impressed with Sen. Joe Biden and disappointed with Gov. Bill Richardson.

Democratic and Republican strategists analyzed the the New Hampshire debate along with CNN's own political team.

Biden was "on fire," Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Donna Brazile said. Brazile said Biden's answers set him apart from the other seven.

CNN analyst J.C. Watts, a former Republican congressman, also thought the Delaware senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, performed best.

"I don't think there was anyone who broke out, with the possible exception of Joe Biden," Watts said.

Explaining his vote for a bill funding the war in Iraq that didn't contain a timetable for withdrawal, Biden stressed that Democrats did not have the necessary 67 votes to override a presidential veto of a bill with timetables.

"Look, the Republicans and this president have not told us the truth about this war from the beginning. The last thing we Democrats should do is not be telling the truth," he said. "As long as there is a single troop in Iraq that I know if I take action by funding them, I increase the prospect they will live or not be injured. I cannot and will not vote no to fund them."

Biden was especially forceful in his answers on troop funding and on the conflict in Sudan's Darfur province. He was the only candidate in Sunday's debate who said he supported military intervention in Darfur. He advocated imposing a no-fly zone over the region and sending in 2,500 NATO peacekeepers to stop the killings.

"I went there. I sat in the borders. I went in those camps. They're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of people die. We've got to stop talking and act," Biden said of the conflict.

The Bush administration has declared the conflict "genocide."

But not all observers thought Biden gained enough ground to challenge front-runners Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"You can see a glimpse what made him such a star 20 years ago when he was the fresh new face in the Democratic Party, before he got in trouble," said Mike Murphy, a former adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain.

Biden was running for the 1988 presidential nomination when he dropped out amid allegations he plagiarized part of his stump speech from a British politician. Despite his years of experience since then, Murphy said, Biden is still not a first-tier candidate for the 2008 election.

Several observers characterized Clinton's performance as effective, yet safe.

"She came clearly determined not to let her position on Iraq and the objection of the others get in her way," said Arianna Huffington, the editor of the Huffington Post, a liberal-leaning political blog.

"I thought it was her best performance, and if Obama and Edwards really want to take her on Iraq, they have to be much more aggressive and much more clear."

Watts said Clinton did nothing to hurt her front-runner status, but others disagreed.

"Her problem is all her non-verbal communication. She has got to learn to control that to be more effective on television," Murphy said of the former first lady.

Debate watchers largely dismissed Richardson's performance as weak.

"We kept counting how many times Gov. Richardson would remind us he was a governor, and actually walk us through his resume," Huffington said. "He had to actually be able to stand up for what he was doing right there on the stage rather than constantly presenting us with his resume."

CNN analyst Bill Schneider noted that some of Richardson's answers, particularly on immigration, were confusing.

Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer whether the new immigration bill would give amnesty to illegal immigrants, the self-described "border governor" gave a long answer that apparently didn't answer the question to the Blitzer's satisfaction.

Blitzer asked again.

"It isn't an amnesty," Richardson said of the bill, which would give legal status to about 12 million people who entered the United States illegally.

"What this bill does is it sets standards, the standards that I mentioned -- learning English, passing background checks. There is a touch-back provision."

After the debate, Richardson himself expressed some doubt about his performance, and gave it a mixed review.

"I did well. I was a little concerned I didn't get the main difference between me and the other candidates. That is, I take all the troops out (of Iraq) by the end of this calendar year, leaving no residual forces," he said.

Richardson, who was U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, said he believes he has the most experience on issues of immigration, health care, foreign policy, and the conflict in Darfur.

Sunday's face-off at St. Anselm College was the first time the Democratic contenders have shared a stage in the Granite State, home of the nation's first presidential primary. The debate was staged by CNN, WMUR and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

New Hampshire voters go to the polls on January 22, 2008

[SLCPUNK]

Obama looked strong.

[freedom78]

Of those in the field who voted to authorize the war, I find that their explanations of that vote are really wearing on me. 

"We were lied to, and deceived..."

"This is Bush's war..."

"Had the President done what we expected..."

And while I know these things are all at least partially true, I really just don't care.   At worst, (and I don't believe this) these people are just as bad as Bush, and think the war is a good thing.    At best, they're stupid.  In a best case scenario, Democrats in Congress were, and let's be honest here, duped by a man that most of us think couldn't pass a fourth grade spelling test.  That does NOT say anything great about their character.  After all, if they were duped by Bush, how can we know that they won't be duped again, by a new closet neo-con Secretary of Defense, or bad intelligence?  I'm not saying these are bad people.  They did clearly make a political choice to vote for a war that was generally approved of and to support a President who was, at that time, popular.  That was a bad, bad choice, and even if they did it out of blind ignorance, it's not a quality I think would benefit our next Commander in Chief.  God knows, if they drive through New York and see a man holding a "The End is Near" sign, I don't want them launching the missiles against the Ruskies, and claiming they were duped to a post-apocalyptic audience.   

[SLCPUNK]

Those who voted, voted to give authority to go to war as a final measure.

Bush had many options before going to war, but discarded all of them immediately. He kicked the inspectors out, not the dems, and went into Iraq with guns blazing.

[freedom78]

Those who voted, voted to give authority to go to war as a final measure.

Bush had many options before going to war, but discarded all of them immediately. He kicked the inspectors out, not the dems, and went into Iraq with guns blazing.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that the Dems are somehow the sole responsible party.  And I mostly blame the Bush administration for going in too quickly and for making it a major catastrophe.  But I only see three possibilities in terms of explaining these candidates votes to authorize the war.

1.) They wanted the war, just like Bush, and are backing away now that it has gone awry.  This strikes me as being the basic Republican stance, in a lot of cases.

2.) Bush lied, and they fell for it.  This reflects bad judgement. 

3.) It was a purely political decision, to support a then popular President.  This, in my view, is the worst option.  Voting for a war that has killed thousands, for political points?  I hope, very sincerely, that this was not what anyone did.

And none of these really paint a favorable picture of Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd. 

Essentially what I'm saying, though, is that their excuses for their war votes aren't good ones.  They may be the ONLY possible excuses, but they aren't good.  They reflect bad judgement, at best, and war for political points, at worst.     

[SLCPUNK]

 But I only see three possibilities in terms of explaining these candidates votes to authorize the war.
     

They voted to authorize war as a last alternative, not to "got to war". Bush gave them his word he would exhaust all alternatives before hand. After the vote he kicked the inspectors out and broke that promise.

Were the Dems naive to trust the President of the United States? I dunno. You think the POTUS would be trustworthy and a man of integrity. Guess not.

[sandman]

 But I only see three possibilities in terms of explaining these candidates votes to authorize the war.
? ? ?

They voted to authorize war as a last alternative, not to "got to war". Bush gave them his word he would exhaust all alternatives before hand. After the vote he kicked the inspectors out and broke that promise.

Were the Dems naive to trust the President of the United States? I dunno. You think the POTUS would be trustworthy and a man of integrity. Guess not.

obama said the following:

"I opposed this war from the start...not years late."

directed at edwards and hillary. so is obama LYING by saying that they did NOT oppose the war from the start?

[freedom78]

 But I only see three possibilities in terms of explaining these candidates votes to authorize the war.
     

They voted to authorize war as a last alternative, not to "got to war". Bush gave them his word he would exhaust all alternatives before hand. After the vote he kicked the inspectors out and broke that promise.

Were the Dems naive to trust the President of the United States? I dunno. You think the POTUS would be trustworthy and a man of integrity. Guess not.

Fair enough, but as Obama (I think) said last night, there was enough that concerned him about the case for war that he didn't support it.  You'd think that, if that's the case, Congress (or the Democrats at least) would do more to ensure that Congress, including the minority party, would be involved with the decision making process sometime after the initial authorization and before the beginning of combat.  By authorizing the use of force BEFORE it was deemed completely necessary, Congress is culpable. 

Also, since you speak of trust, I think it's important to point out that the American people are supposed to be able to trust both the President and Congress.  I agree that the Bush administration was deceitful in the run up to this war, but when these two branches are in general agreement about something as significant as this, the American people are going to assume (as we largely did) that it's kosher.  Had their been any real resistance from the Democrats, enough even to delay the war for the course of a true national debate about its merits, the public support would have decreased.  Had they held off on authorizing force, until after inspections had been carried forth, then public support would have decreased when the inspectors found nothing.  Had Congress done anything OTHER than roll over like a well trained dog, the odds are pretty good that we wouldn't have nearly 3,500 dead soldiers, and God knows how many wounded (I've seen estimates of 25,000, though I don't know if those include the dead). 

I'm just not sure we should give those who voted to authorize this war a pass, simply because they've changed their tune.  Those who admit they were wrong (Edwards), which implies that they believe they DO bear some of the blame, I can live with.  Those who play the "Bush lied to me" game, and won't admit their mistakes (Clinton), bother me greatly.

[SLCPUNK]

obama said the following:

"I opposed this war from the start...not years late."

directed at edwards and hillary. so is obama LYING by saying that they did NOT oppose the war from the start?

He was vocal about opposing the war from the start, while they were not. Silence does not equal condoning an event, it simply means cowardice. His point was that he had the courage to speak up when others in his party did not (why I like him) that does not mean they pushed for the war. This is Bush's war pal.

[sandman]

obama said the following:

"I opposed this war from the start...not years late."

directed at edwards and hillary. so is obama LYING by saying that they did NOT oppose the war from the start?

He was vocal about opposing the war from the start, while they were not. Silence does not equal condoning an event, it simply means cowardice. His point was that he had the courage to speak up when others in his party did not (why I like him) that does not mean they pushed for the war. This is Bush's war pal.

the sad truth is that even the scumbag Dems base their WAR VOTES on popular polls, instead of intelligence not available to the public.

you can keep saying they didn't vote for the war, or that they didn't support the war, but it simply is not true. even honest bill clinton admitted he supported the invasion.

L. Chafee explains it well...

"The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates ? Democrat and Republican ? should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment."

[SLCPUNK]

Imagine you guys if the Dems voted against giving the President authorization to use force as a final measure after 9-11.  You would have been calling them every name in the book, what a bunch of cowards, traitors they were and so on. The same names you and your ilk called me as I spoke out against the invasion.

Let me ask you this: Did the Dems kick the inspectors out of Iraq or did Bush? Bush did (after lying about it.) So who went to war? Who granted power to use force as a last resort, and who then abused it?

Facts are facts are facts. Just as goose stepping Bush stooges are goose stepping Bush stooges.

You can't admit you are wrong, because it hurts too much to know your guy fucked you right in your ass. Chumped you out. Pandering to you, and then used you like a shake and bake bag. He dropped the ball on Osama-lost site, ran the deficit into the ground, created a terror state in Iraq, and fucked you at the gas pump. That is why you won't give it up.

Your guy took your vote, and chumped you out-totally used you. Every time I pump gas I smile thinking about guys like you, bitching about the price of gas.