the dems debate

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Wolf; "Congressman Kucinich, you are the only one here who voted against the Patriot Act, why is that?"
Kucinich "Because i actually read it"

Anyway I wathced the entire debate and then the talking heads for a few minutes. Amazing to me how the talking heads had a totally different understanding than I did. They all said Hillary really came on strong looking better than ever while I saw her as faltering constantly. I was impressed with Kucinich, Biden, O'Bama, Richardson and Edwards.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 670 • Replies: 17

No top replies

That was a good answer.

0 Replies

I like Kucinich more each time I seem him, if only....

I think Obama came out best from this debate. I like how he has made the fact he will talk with enemies a point that differentiates him from Clinton. I think he has the right idea, the more he takes stands the more he highlights Clintons biggest liability among the progressive Democratic base.

My favorite part of the debate was Obabama calling Clinton out on the trillian dollar tax hike thing (for raising the SS cap).

Clinton is a constant, each debate and each time I see her speak. I will vote for her in the general election... but I sure hope that I don't have to.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I like Kucinich more each time I seem him, if only....

I think Obama came out best from this debate. I like how he has made the fact he will talk with enemies a point that differentiates him from Clinton. I think he has the right idea, the more he takes stands the more he highlights Clintons biggest liability among the progressive Democratic base.

My favorite part of the debate was Obabama calling Clinton out on the trillian dollar tax hike thing (for raising the SS cap).

Clinton is a constant, each debate and each time I see her speak. I will vote for her in the general election... but I sure hope that I don't have to.

Agreed.

0 Replies

The major media pretty much dismisses the performance of all but the big three. It is rather sad that the media decides who the "legitimate contenders" are. OTOH with or without the support of the media, does anyone seriously believe Kucinich (and I love him and I like Paul on the Republican side) ever has or had a chance to get the nomination?

0 Replies

because I know it's a foregone conclusion that Hill will get the nomination (or r in any case that's what I truly believe) I'm not paying attention tomuch of anything but how I perceive she'll run the country, and I'm paying attention guilanio because that's who I believe will get the repub nomination.

He's so full of **** it boggles the mind IMO and would be a continuation of the bush presidency, although on social issues he at least seems more progressive than the current caveman. He's equally if not more dangerous on the world stage however .

0 Replies

Clinton gives answers that are reasonable and seem like policies that even republicans can get behind.

That's important. Policies have a rocky road unless people on both sides can get behind them.

I'm as liberal as they come. But I see how she is right about the SS cap.

Yes Warren Buffet makes 40 million an year. But I don't see how it would be fair to make him pay 4 million dollars an year to social security and yet only give him 50,000 or so per year when he retires.

I don't feel that way about general taxes. Tax money builds roads and infrastructure critical to how they make their 40 million an year in the first place.

But like Clinton, I don't believe we should have a 1 trillion dollar social security tax increase. I don't mind a trillion dollar general tax increase that can be used on everything from schools to roads.

P.S: I'm backing BIDEN not Clinton, but I can see why people see that she can get things done.

0 Replies

Re: the dems debate

dyslexia wrote:

Amazing to me how the talking heads had a totally different understanding than I did.

Me too! I started to wonder if CNN does actually stand for the Clinton News Network. It was as if they took the spin from the spin room directly to the airwaves. There was almost no discussion about anyone else and they made her sound way better than she looked. Obama took her to task a couple of times that I recall, yet somehow that translated to "the fire" being out of him. And yeah, Kucinich usually has the best answers but gets no play, and poor Richardson might as well not have been on stage.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My favorite part of the debate was Obabama calling Clinton out on the trillian dollar tax hike thing (for raising the SS cap).

Mine too. And I like how he didn't back down even when getting booed. She definitely had a friendly audience.

0 Replies

Re: the dems debate

dyslexia wrote:

Amazing to me how the talking heads had a totally different understanding than I did.

Not only the talking heads but the tickers this morning and last night, too. CNN, washington post and a handful of others seemed pretty harsh on Obama, although I thought he did better than Clinton at least. Some made the debate sound like a Hillary-bashing contest, which I didn't really get either.

I liked Richardson's point about teachers, but maybe because I am one...

0 Replies

Yeah, I agree about talking heads. I talked about the debate a bit on the Obama thread -- what I read really doesn't seem to match up with the analysis, and it doesn't seem like it was the delivery that made a huge difference, either. (I didn't watch, just read the transcript.)

Welcome, by the way, michiepang!

0 Replies

Re: the dems debate

michiepang wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Amazing to me how the talking heads had a totally different understanding than I did.

Not only the talking heads but the tickers this morning and last night, too. CNN, washington post and a handful of others seemed pretty harsh on Obama, although I thought he did better than Clinton at least. Some made the debate sound like a Hillary-bashing contest, which I didn't really get either.

I liked Richardson's point about teachers, but maybe because I am one...

There does seem to be a real disconnect between how the debate is evaluated now in the press, as compared to what people actually think. Is there an unholy alliance between Hillary and CNN for example, which is entirely a legitimate question considering the stupid "diamond or pearls" question that was designed entirely for Hillary, and it seemed apparent she was ready for the question. A legitimate inquiry should be asked, was this an arranged question between Hillary and the debate organizers? Such seems ridiculous given this whole planted question affair, but it seemed pretty rigged in my opinion. To begin with, the rigging started with how the candidates were arranged, notice Hillary in the center, with Obama next to her, and the others off to the side, Edwards way off on the end, as if he is just a forgotten onlooker to the main participants.

The student wanted to ask a good question but had to ask the stupid diamond and pearls question.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312003,00.html

0 Replies

I watched it with my husband and saw that a couple men on stage got no real chance to answer questions. But, I saw Hillary, from my perspective as being stronger than the others that were spotlighted. Edwards seemed fake. It appeared that Hillary and Obama had the floor for the night.

0 Replies

No surprises here about the staged debate:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html

Keep digging out there guys, my suspicion is the questions were okayed by Hillary ahead of time too.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

No surprises here about the staged debate:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html

Keep digging out there guys, my suspicion is the questions were okayed by Hillary ahead of time too.

You're probably right. Pisses me off.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Me too. But what burns me the most is the post-debate spin. CNN has completely ruined their reputation with me. I finally turned it off when the correspondent reporting live from the debate actually said something ery close to "that's the difference between (Obama) and an experienced candidate like Senator Clinton." Like it came right from the campaign's lips. It makes me sick.

0 Replies

Maybe now we know why the Dems did not want to submit to a Fox sponsored debate. They knew Fox wouldn't rig the questions like CNN does. Fox might actually ask pertinent and tough questions, without partiality among the candidates.

I'm still waiting to hear that some of the Clinton people either learned of some or all of the questions from CNN ahead of time, or possibly from some of the operatives or questioners (undecided voters, ha ha) themselves. It would not surprise me in the least.

0 Replies

I doubt it. I think Fox would just rig it in the other direction, planting gotcha questions while managing to smear a little something on each of the candidates.

0 Replies

the dems debate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know