Who won the presidential debate last night?

.

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

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.)

---

.

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

Anyone have thoughts on the debate?

---

I agree 100%, Auggie.

---

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

---

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?

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).

What a stupid Drudge-like comment.

---

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.

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

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