Who won the presidential debate last night?- Page 2

[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.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/27/07 at 5:47pm

it's april. i'll consider getting interested in october or november...maybe.