Who won the presidential debate last night?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 8:48am

Was it just me, or did Kucinich (despite his elfish looks) seem like a clear cut perfect candidate?

I thought Hillary was very controlled, as well. Edwards seemed timid, as did Obama -- although neither really overwhelmingly so. I think the rest of them (especially poor Gov. Richardson) looked pretty awful.

Anyone else have thoughts? I'm surprised that with the news on Guiliani's shift on gay civil unions, there was only one small question on gay marriage.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 8:58am

. Updated On: 4/27/07 at 08:58 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:01am

I love that people who have things in their signature like "In God We Trust" are the people who say the most hateful and judgemental things. Maybe one day Christians will get that they should be known for love instead of the political tshirts they wear. You'd think their religion would be more complex than name-dropping according to the Christian Coalition approved voting pamphlet, but it's clearly not.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:05am

The God I love is not the God of amanda's hate.

I wasn't able to watch the debate last night, but look forward to an interesting discussion about it today. Thank you for starting this thread.


(Congratulations, amanda. I've never blocked anyone on BWW, but your comments on this thread are so repugnant to me, that you have the honor of being my first.)

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:06am

. Updated On: 4/27/07 at 09:06 AM

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:11am

. Updated On: 4/27/07 at 09:11 AM

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:12am

. Updated On: 4/27/07 at 09:12 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:13am

Anyone have thoughts on the debate?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:20am

Very biased, but after watching all the measured responses and controlled utterances from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (leaning more toward the last), I was most fired up by Dennis Kucinich. His blistering denunciation of the Iraq quagmire -- and indictment of those who supported it and continue to spin their poor decisions as pragmatism -- made it for me. Without him, it was an excercise in Being Careful. I was especially unimpressed with Richardson, whom I'd hoped to warm to. Hillary showed us her balls, revealing she'd "retaliate" after a terrorist attack. But Obama is looking like thinner gruel. I don't think he did himself favors last night, lacking specificity and the requisitie fire in his belly. He's no Kennedy at this point, yet tries to get by with Kennedy aura posturing. Not cutting it for this Democrat.

You Hillary fans: do you honestly believe this woman could beat a moderate Republican? I'm terrified we're going to be stuck with her, as the media quickly crowned her the winner this morning. Not in my living room, but then, I am still as pissed at her as Kucinich. I cannot get past her being Bush Lite.

Updated On: 4/27/07 at 09:20 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:23am

I agree 100%, Auggie.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:40am

I think Al Gore won.

Stay tuned.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 9:58am

hahaha...if Gore throws his hat in, I'll be honestly surprised.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 10:00am

Word is that it's a done deal--the question is the timing. The longer he waits, the more he avoids the media attacks that killed him the last time.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 10:08am

So glad to see Kucinich finally getting some air time. The entire production was absurd. I am so disgusted that our future presidents can't speak like our past (JFK). It is disgusting mid-way through Hillary knows to dumb down her choice in language.

When asked about the impeachment, that alone should have proved to the democrats who was with them.

I'm so sick of Clinton's lies and controlled behavior. Something tells me we can fu@k this one up just like the 2004 election.

Who won? I love that the media is saying "Clinton" as a winner? We all lost last night my friends. All of us. Those ridiculous questions. Haircuts? Obama talking about switching lightbulbs? WTF?

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 10:20am

i didn't have the opportunity to watch last night, but i will be deeply saddened if Clinton gets the nomination. She in no way deserves it, and the absolute only reason I would EVER vote for her is because her husband is so so good at politics. He is the only thing she has going for her in this race...

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 10:45am

Well I think she sealed her grave last night with her stance on her hypocrisy surrounding her war vote. I imagine she would be a good runningmate, but she messed up bigtime years ago. Her lies have cost lives.


Also she totally skirted around a Wal-mart question last night. (She used to serve on the board).

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 11:36am

They all flew on private jets to get there. They will be carbon offsetting until 2015.

Updated On: 4/27/07 at 11:36 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 11:40am

What a stupid Drudge-like comment.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 12:01pm

I didnt watch the whole thing, but IMHO it seemed like no one "won". The frontrunners were overly cautious; the backbenchers were unduly anxious. No one had a clear cut proposal on *anything*. It was just a wasted opportunity all around.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 12:14pm

I'm still disappointed that Mark Warner decided not to run (though I guess he'd be bordering on moderate Republican anyplace but Virginia).

Anyway, I have the same concerns about Clinton's electability. A lot of it depends on the type of candidate the Republicans nominate. She seems to be playing the game pretty well so far, but that in itself comes off as postured and insincere. I didn't see anything particularly compelling from Obama last night, either.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 12:39pm

I was also upset that there was no debate. Hillary has done virtually nothing for NY, and that could have been pointed out. None of them did ANYTHING substantial for Katrina. Obama hinted at Katrina, but no one else did.

I think the fact that every single one but Kuccinich would impeach Dick Cheney renders them all spineless losers. It is very disturbing that this administration not only can go unchecked, but also actually be endorsed by both sides.


It is diabolical.

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 12:58pm

I am not sure there were any "winners" last night -- "top tier" candidates were interesting...Clinton clearly established herself as the front runner. To all the "hypocrisy" critics -- as a female candidate being tough on forgiven policy is imperative, you can hate on her all you want from the far-left, but if she is going to win she first must be viewed as a Commander-In-Chief...it really is that simple. She wouldn't even be on the radar if she was 100% anti-war and apologetic and repented for her vote would be code for weak and incapable by the press. Poor Obama..he sure did not meet expectations in fact he was a mess as I've said 100 hundred already-- total lack of substance -- last night was no different.

Edwards was just way off his game....not sure what happened there..

As for the others..Richardson sounded thoughtful and honest, but looked god awful -- he one one of the least exciting speakers I've even heard...with a most excellent resume. Joe Biden will get a bump from this-- he did really well. Conversely I am postive that Dodd will be out of the race very soon. Was pleasantly surprised by Kuncinich ...in 2004 he hurt himself by bringing absolute every question back to pulling the troops out of Iraq...this year he was much more effective and although it is still the substance of his campaign, I noticed that he stuck to answering the domestic policy question more completely -- again I think he will get a bump from this.

Updated On: 4/27/07 at 12:58 PM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 2:20pm

I am also very disappointed with the "top tier" bologna. I felt that Brian Williams and those audience questions were geared towards Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I think the moderator did a horrible job with time and lame questions. He was almost pandering to Obama and Clinton.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 3:31pm

And I was disturbed that after 22 minutes, we had to be done with Iraq. I looked at the clock when Williams said it was the closing question on that issue. I was stunned. Please, for the first debate? To my thinking, it threw the evening off. The candidates should've been required to dig in and TALK about Iraq, with compelling insights, not recycle the same sound bytes about Bush's failures, as much as I relish hearing them.

Obama suffers from hiding behind a slick vagueness; specifics or the substance of things either elude him or have been strategically avoided. He's always framing, always suggesting the obvious, i.e. the need for dialogue in diplomacy, etc. etc. without getting down to fresh ideas. We're way past the point of being moved by mere rhetoric, even we we agree with his disgust about the status quo. His performance alone symbolized the shallowness of the chatter across the board.

I cannot disagree with the astute observation above about Hillary needing to project the Commander image. I agree that it's a viable probably necessary stategy; I just wish I found something behind that need that moved me to support her. I do not. I remain convinced she's a Republican dream opponent, one who cannot win. Too many Democrats forget what a divisive figure she is in this country. That is unlikely to go away because money and good will wish it to evaporate

It's now just too easy to turn 90 minutes into higher road Bush bashing, a delicious sport that alone won't win the election.

Updated On: 4/27/07 at 03:31 PM

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 5:05pm

The time limits were a definite setback to all of them -- indeed, next weeks Republican debate will have 10 candidates and even less time. Things will improve as folks drop out of the race...the debate will be much better when they get down to a more manageable field of 5 or 6. Listen I am all for equal opportunity...but given 90 minutes 9 candidates and obvious viability some or the obscurity of others -- Gravel, I mean serious when asked by Chirs Matthews where he had been for the past 35 years he replied 'Under a rock' [for the first ten].

I actually felt that they gave a fair amount of time to Kunicich, he certainly got more than Richardson and Dodd. There are advantages in being first out of the gate - the Dems got their message (attack Bush not one another -- wise move) out quickly and the GOP are on the defensive...on the other hand the inherent flaws/inequity of the debate style will most likely be corrected for next weeks GOP fest., which I for one am more interested in....ya know the adage: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.