YouTube Democratic debates

[micfranklin]

The YouTube debates are on CNN right now and I happened to turn them on during the subject of putting US troops in Darfur and withdrawal from Iraq. I gotta admit Clinton's idea of putting UN peacekeepers in Darfur was a good idea, but then the idea of a no-fly zone put me off.

So whatcha think?

[preservanation]

Beauty pageant.
No hard questions.
Nothing on Bill Clinton's infidelity, to Hillary. Which was asked, but not included.
Nothing on Obama's drug use, Which was asked, but also not included.
Instead we got talking snowmen.
Hooooo, Boy.

Youtube could work, but it has to be free flowing and uncensored by the handlers and networks. This was just a high falutin campaign add.[hr]
The debate kicked off with a series of questions from voters that moderator Anderson Cooper described as "not making the cut."

They included a questioner dressed in a Viking outfit, a 5-year-old posing a question about Social Security and a man in a chicken costume.

Though CNN vetted the questions, it was the first time that a journalist or a professional has not dictated what is asked of the candidates. The control was solely in the voters' hands.
In all, 39 questions were asked from the 3,000 submissions YouTube said it received.http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.main/index.html

I think the chicken guy might not be pertinent, but questions about legitimate issues might also suffer at the hands of the politicos.[hr]No questions about immigration???
Out of 3000???
C'mon, someone submitted that question.
Cherry picking and a dog and pony show.
This is prepackaged pablum, not what you would expect from a serious forum.

"Say something nice about the person to your left???"
Probing:rolleyes:

And make sure you pick up your backpacks and lower the top of your desk before you leave the room.

[micfranklin]

Nothing on Bill Clinton's infidelity, to Hillary. Which was asked, but not included.
Nothing on Obama's drug use, Which was asked, but also not included.

Now why do you think those weren't included?

Youtube could work, but it has to be free flowing and uncensored by the handlers and networks. This was just a high falutin campaign add.

But it got a bigger audience

[NortheastCynic]

I think that Christopher Dodd [Senator of my ex-home state] needs to be schooled in the Constitution with an emphasis on separation of powers. He continued to make completely nonsensical proclamations about what the "Dodd Administration" would do. He has claimed that he, as President would immediately restore the Constitutional rights of American citizens, which is complete nonsense [but it sounds really good]. The President alone cannot do such a thing as the President alone did not violate our rights, the Congress and SCOTUS gave him a big hand. Last night he claimed that embryonic stell research would "exist" in the Dodd Administration which is incredibly disingenous because it exists now. It just isn't being funded by federal tax dollars.

Moving on,
John Edwards didn't dissapoint me as he continued to be the pathetic, classist stereotype that he is. Nothing quite like trying to get the poor to vote for you by promising them the rich's money. That would be considered bribary if this wasn't a presidential election [which is strange to me].

Barrack Obama continued to be sub-Hillary Clinton and will lose steam considerably as each debate rolls by.

Hillary did a half-way decent job again. Not that she said much with substance [but in fairness, no one ever does at any of these debates, with very few exceptions].

Bill Richardson is just plain stupid. As in, not smart at all. He isn't intelligent. He continued not being intelligent last night. Sad to say, he's probably going to be someone's pick for VP. The thought of him being a heartbeat away makes me shudder.

-NC

[micfranklin]

Gravel went off on Obama in the first 15 minutes of the debate. Something's wrong with him I think.

[NortheastCynic]

I really do believe that Gravel is either senile or bi-polar. The man is seriously disturbed.

And for the record, the dumbest line of the night went to Bill Richardson for this gem when being asked whether illegal aliens should have the "right" [God, how that word is being misused] to "free" [God, how that word is being misused] healthcare and human services.

"Yes, all American citzens should have the right to the best medical care possible."

I'm going to ignore my ideological disagreement with that statement and just focus on it's stupidity. He's being asked a question about ILLEGAL ALIENS being given taxpayer funded services which he counters by saying that all AMERICAN CITIZENS should have the "right" to great medical care...Uh Bill, illegal aliens aren't American citizens.

Vice President Richardson...Oy vey.

-NC

[Jaaaman]

I think that Christopher Dodd [Senator of my ex-home state] needs to be schooled in the Constitution with an emphasis on separation of powers. He continued to make completely nonsensical proclamations about what the "Dodd Administration" would do. He has claimed that he, as President would immediately restore the Constitutional rights of American citizens, which is complete nonsense [but it sounds really good]. The President alone cannot do such a thing as the President alone did not violate our rights, the Congress and SCOTUS gave him a big hand. Last night he claimed that embryonic stell research would "exist" in the Dodd Administration which is incredibly disingenous because it exists now. It just isn't being funded by federal tax dollars.

Moving on,
John Edwards didn't dissapoint me as he continued to be the pathetic, classist stereotype that he is. Nothing quite like trying to get the poor to vote for you by promising them the rich's money. That would be considered bribary if this wasn't a presidential election [which is strange to me].

Barrack Obama continued to be sub-Hillary Clinton and will lose steam considerably as each debate rolls by.

Hillary did a half-way decent job again. Not that she said much with substance [but in fairness, no one ever does at any of these debates, with very few exceptions].

Bill Richardson is just plain stupid. As in, not smart at all. He isn't intelligent. He continued not being intelligent last night. Sad to say, he's probably going to be someone's pick for VP. The thought of him being a heartbeat away makes me shudder.

-NC

I get the impression that you did not like any of the candidates in the above debate. Are you going to vote for a Republican for President? :P

[NortheastCynic]

Hey Jaaman,
No I didn't [and with the exception of one man, the same can be said of the Republican candidates] and yes I will.

Ron Paul, Congressmen from Texas will be getting my vote for President whether he wins the GOP nomination [which he definitely will NOT] or not. I'll write him in if the Libertarian Party doesn't put him on the ballot.

-NC

[Jaaaman]

Hey Jaaman,
No I didn't [and with the exception of one man, the same can be said of the Republican candidates] and yes I will.

Ron Paul, Congressmen from Texas will be getting my vote for President whether he wins the GOP nomination [which he definitely will NOT] or not. I'll write him in if the Libertarian Party doesn't put him on the ballot.

-NC

I like Ron Paul myself. Good choice. ;)

[micfranklin]

My critique on the candidates:

Clinton, I will admit, had her strong points in the debate especially with asking for the Republicans to help "fight against Bush," and I can admit she was a good speaker but I get that vibe every time that tells me she's bullshitting...

Obama had his strong points as well, but I noticed some times he either stalled or didn't answer the question right away. I liked the part where he said we should've thought about getting out of Iraq when we invaded in the first place.

Kucinich was one of the best ones IMO and his call for Bush to start funding for troop withdrawal was one of the best, but he seemed to be outspoken by everyone else.

Edwards sounded like a real redneck to me and a few of his stances were really terrible.

Dodd is someone I don't have a lot to say about.

Gravel seemed to be losing his temper almost half of the time but he was right about a lot of things including soldiers dying in vain.

Biden was doing okay throughout most of the debate but he lost some of my respect when he admitted that he wrote for the assault weapons ban.

Richardson seemed like he was just there to me.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well preservanation, maybe the swift boat committee can host some democratic debates where they can make personal slander and marriage history the primary focus. I'm sure emotional voters that were never going to vote democratic in the first place and don't really care about the issues will appreciate it.

Richardson - Dud.

Biden backs up his stances with "what I have done" which is nice and makes it feel a lot less like empty talk. Generally you can trust a politician to continue what they have been doing all along.

Kucinich is always my favorite. He's the one with a genuine stance on things. I reiterate my desire for a Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich general election.

Edwards made a nuanced statement on gay marriage that was probably really genuine but is probably too complex for the average viagra popping pacemaker using voter which decides the election. I thought his statement on a republican running mate was a bit of a slippery change-the-subject answer. Of course Hagel is the easy answer for anyone that gives it.

Obama gets my respect for his campaign finance stance, and I thought he did a good job defending himself on the issue when attacked. It's a really important issue and if elected perhaps he can bring about some change.

I forget the pissed off old alaskan guy's name on the end, but he is great for entertainment and I think he's one of those guys that keeps the other candidates honest and forces real debate, much like Kucinich. He seems like a democratic Ron Paul.

Hillary did impress me in the debate but she will probably not get my vote in the primary. If I had to pick a "major" democratic candidate to vote for I'd probably go Obama or Biden.

[Stoner]

I thought all of the candidates did extremely poor. I can count on one hand the number of times I heard any of them actually answer a question. They completely ignored what was asked and dove directly into their talking points. Typical libs.

What was equally enjoyable was how they moved and squirmed around when forced to deal with questions they weren't given ahead of time. For once they couldn't rely on speech writers. They had to answer from the heart...which is extremely scary coming from a lib.

I also loved the looks on their faces from having to answer questions from average Joes. Libs think they are better than everyone else and it was pleasing to see them grimace from having to deal with average people.

Overall I was extremely dissapointed with all of them. None of them did anything for their cause.

[Truth_and_Power]

I thought all of the candidates did extremely poor. I can count on one hand the number of times I heard any of them actually answer a question. They completely ignored what was asked and dove directly into their talking points. Typical libs.

What was equally enjoyable was how they moved and squirmed around when forced to deal with questions they weren't given ahead of time. For once they couldn't rely on speech writers. They had to answer from the heart...which is extremely scary coming from a lib.

I also loved the looks on their faces from having to answer questions from average Joes. Libs think they are better than everyone else and it was pleasing to see them grimace from having to deal with average people.

Overall I was extremely dissapointed with all of them. None of them did anything for their cause.


OH PLEASE. You wouldn't like a democratic debate if it was Lincoln vs. FDR.

[lawless168]

JULY: Clinton slams Obama for willingness to meet with troublesome world leaders...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html

APRIL: Clinton would begin diplomatic discussions with troublesome world leaders...
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html

[Jaaaman]

OH PLEASE. You wouldn't like a democratic debate if it was Lincoln vs. FDR.


He was just telling it like it is Truth. I was disappointed with the whole bunch of them also. :exclamation:

[ViolaLee]

JULY: Clinton slams Obama for willingness to meet with troublesome world leaders...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html

APRIL: Clinton would begin diplomatic discussions with troublesome world leaders...
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html


Did you actually even hear what Hillary said? Here is the actual transcript so you don't have to find right wing Hillary bashers to tell you how to think, you can THINK FOR YOURSELF.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

[preservanation]

Well at least we know this Obama has a lot to learn.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush's diplomacy.

Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama's supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070724/D8QJ7P100.html

Doing something just because Bush didn't or visa versa does not a foreign policy make.

Hillary called him on it big time.

Consider him torpedoed by Clinton Inc.

He's in over his head.

[micfranklin]

Obama seems to have more substance though.

[NortheastCynic]

Really, Mic? To me it's just the opposite. Obama talks, but rarely says anything, and seems out of his league during debates. Hillary occasionally answers the questions being asked of her. I believe she is far more substantive [although that isn't saying much] and certainly a far better politician. I think Obama is more genuine than Hillary, but somehow he just doesn't come across to me as very deep or substantive. What is it that makes you think otherwise, Mic?

-NC

[Stoner]

The best debator amongst the libs is the Breck Girl. Then again that's just because he's an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer. They're real good at bullshitting. A used car salesman can't hold a candle to an ambulance chaser.

Hilar-y-ous is a horrible debator. All she does is the same 2 things when asked any question.

1) "Look at me! I'm a female and the wife of a former president!

2) Babbles relentlessly about how evil Republicans are and bashes Bush in every other sentence.

Hussein Osama isn't much better. He is all hot air with no substance. Soon the "sticker shock" of having a young, charismatic, black man running for president is going to wear off and all that will remain is an empty bag with no ideas.

Joe Biden did all right. I disagree with a lot of his ideas but he isn't a half bad debator. Last night he didn't look so great, though.

Mike Gravel is a complete nutjob. A teenaged boy's prick isn't as whacked as Dodd is. I want to know who let him out of his padded cell and let him on stage.

Dennis Kucinich is just weird. He looks like the kind of guy you see hanging out in dark alleys and playgrounds in a trench coat.

Chris Dodd. See Mike Gravel.

The best democrat candidate is Bill Richardson. He seems like the most decent amongst an aquarium of scumsuckers and leaches. Sadly though, in the end his ideas are liberal and very wrong for this country.

[preservanation]

I think the only chance Obama has of winning the nomination is if the dems decide that having the first "black" candidate trumps having the first woman.
Shallow and pandering, but what else is new.

[micfranklin]

Really, Mic? To me it's just the opposite. Obama talks, but rarely says anything, and seems out of his league during debates. Hillary occasionally answers the questions being asked of her. I believe she is far more substantive [although that isn't saying much] and certainly a far better politician. I think Obama is more genuine than Hillary, but somehow he just doesn't come across to me as very deep or substantive. What is it that makes you think otherwise, Mic?

-NC


Well you could say that, yeah but I still think he and Kucinich had some of the best ideas during the debates. I got the feeling that he was being more "deep" than he sounded in the debate.

I know some people say Clinton and Obama are full of hot air, but then you could say that about any candidate or politician.

[Stoner]

I know some people say Clinton and Obama are full of hot air, but then you could say that about any candidate or politician.


Clinton is a moron whose running on her husband's popularity and the fact she's a woman and Hussein Osama is running on the fact he's a young, charismatic, black man.

Neither have any substance or ideas. They just run on what I mentioned above along with typical lib hate.

Bill Richardson is the only lib who has a chance at winning the WH. If libs want to get in they better hitch their ride to this horse.

[micfranklin]

Clinton is a moron whose running on her husband's popularity and the fact she's a woman and Hussein Osama is running on the fact he's a young, charismatic, black man.

Neither have any substance or ideas. They just run on what I mentioned above along with typical lib hate.

Did you even watch the debates? The two of them, along with Kucinich, had some good propositions when it comes to foreign policy and war.

[preservanation]

Clinton/Obama ticket fits the bill perfectly for the left.
That way they can claim that anyone who does not support them are both misogynist and racist.

IMO Hill will cut off her nose to spite her face and refuse to put Obama on the ticket with her if she has that choice.
She's tired of being in the shadow of attractive charismatic men.
Hill is probably leaning toward milquetoast Richardson for her VP because she will be able to push him around and pander to the Hispanic vote at the same time.
IMO Bama makes a better political choice for the Dems but an unacceptable personal one for Evita.