Tonight's Democratic Debate Thread

[Conan]

Well it looks like the pundits are declaring Hillary the winner again. What a shocker! All I know is that if she is the Democratic nominee, I won't vote for her and may even consider leaving the party.

That's totally irrational and childish.  Why not?

...because I can't stand her and don't believe she would be a good President. She is just another Bush as far as Iraq and the "war on terror" are concerned. That is my opinion. I don't see anything childish about it. You are entitled to your own and that is mine.

She will be nothing like Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. Throwing away your vote and helping republicans win is irrational and childish for a such unadvised opinion.

[ilikeverin]

I liked Biden.  He seemed very impassioned on Darfur, and was not apologetic for his vote for war funding (though he, like the rest, panders endlessly to the anti-war crowd).  Clinton did a good job of being nuanced.  Edwards was somewhat frightening.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I think Richardson improved this time around.  I like his Darfur idea.  This should help Richardson climb a little bit in the polls, not only in New Hampshire, but Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina.

[Eraserhead]

Well it looks like the pundits are declaring Hillary the winner again. What a shocker! All I know is that if she is the Democratic nominee, I won't vote for her and may even consider leaving the party.

That's totally irrational and childish.  Why not?

...because I can't stand her and don't believe she would be a good President. She is just another Bush as far as Iraq and the "war on terror" are concerned. That is my opinion. I don't see anything childish about it. You are entitled to your own and that is mine.

She will be nothing like Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. Throwing away your vote and helping republicans win is irrational and childish for a such unadvised opinion.

Unadvised? How is it unadvised? Because I don't agree with you? I have followed politics closely for years. I have no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.

[Mr. Morden]

I have nothing against Richardson personally, but I find him very grating to listen to in these debates.  If there was a debate drinking game, it would surely have to include taking a drink every time Richardson says "I'm a governor".  Also, take a drink every time his answer goes on too long.  He's not very good at keeping his answers concise.

[Mr. Morden]

CNN just mentioned that Clinton and Kucinich were standing on platforms behind their podiums, so they wouldn't look so much shorter than the others.  I don't know why, but I thought that was kind of amusing.

[Eraserhead]

AOL has a poll up.
Edwards is currently edging out Clinton in it and Obama is not far behind the other two. All others are in single digits.


http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/democrats-clash-on-iraq-war-on-terror/20070603150109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Eraserhead]

David Yepsen and the Des Moines Register's take on the debate:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/OPINION01/70603005/1001

New Hampshire Union Leader:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Analysts%3a+Edwards+stalls%2c+Richardson+gains+a+bit&articleId=302eb5be-d0c9-49e3-a3ba-443e113afcaf

[Eraserhead]

MSNBC's internet poll gives Obama a large lead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18983268/

[7,052,770]

If Biden can keep it up with the next 6 debates or whatever, maybe he can break out of the low single digits...

Also, all of the internet polls are crap.  It's just a test of who current has the most online supporters.

[Smash255]

Didn't go through the entire thread so apologize if it was answered already. 

I had my end of year Bowling Dinner tonight so I wasn't home for the Debate.  I tried to tape it, but we had a power outage with the 2 foot rainfall we had tonight and it didn't tape.  i watched the Sopranos on HBOW at midnight so I missed the first hour of CNN's replay.  Have it on now, but does anyone know when it will be replayed again so I can watch the 1st hour?

[7,052,770]

I found it online here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[Keystone Phil]

I just finished the first half.

Gravel continues to be one of the best sources of entertainment. I love how Edwards went after Hillary and Obama on Iraq. I also admire Gravel and Kucinich for pointing out that this isn't simply "Bush's war" when the Dems allowed it to happen, too (especially when some of the other candidates voted for it).

I have to say that there is at least a bit of excitment with the Dems. I never really watched the previous GOP debates because I expected them to be very boring. I plan on watching on Tuesday, however, but I don't expect much.

[Wakie]

Ok, Richardson is DOA.  Biden impresses me and is, imo, the most likely white male candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think CNN was pretty pissed that Kucinich mentioned single payer health care. They did their best to cut him off after that. The other Democrats are to the right of 60 something% of Americans on health care. But that's still too liberal for the corporate media.

[Reignman]

Link about the unfairness of debate (1st tier candidates got more questions):

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

[skybridge]

I thought this debate was better than the first, more interactive. Edwards seems to have been given the most time and he's really trying to pursue an aggressive candidacy. Only Clinton appeared to call for unity, and, honestly, her command of the issues and her repeated denouncing of "hypotheticals" impressed me. Eloquence remains Obama's forte, although I didn't find myself spellbound by his belligerence. However, Biden outdid him in hawkishness, and I wonder if his pragmatism wont appeal to less leftist voters. Having been dethroned as the most conservative Democrat at the debate, Richardson came across as improved, honest and sincere, though his slow speaking style remains a liability. Dodd also says many of the right things, but not in a way that captures popular interest--or speaking time. Kucinich was pretty good. Mike Gravel, the man who stole the show last time, didn't impress much. CNN sort of pushed him aside by refusing him speaking time, but he disappointed by casting the sole support for an official language, though he's certainly correct in challenging the Congress to more action. There weren't any real highlights, but a good overall debate.

[Mr. Morden]

Did anyone else chuckle when Gravel made mention of his "meds"?

[angus]

This sucks, I'm going to be at work tonight. I'll just have to watch the clips later

This may have been mentioned already, but CSPAN will rerun the debate beginning at 6pm Eastern tonight.  They also ran it at 10:00 this morning.  That's when I watched it.

I was reasonably impressed.  I like the way they generally stuck to important issues, particularly US military involvement in Iraq and US foreign policy in general.  They didn't get bogged down in irrelevancies (aka "social issues") they way they did in 2004 and the way the Republicans have been doing both in 2004 and this primary season as well.

Still don't care for Hillary, and I won't vote for her, but I thought she was, at least in this debate, particularly magnanimous.  She seemed not to want to debate her competitors, but rather focus on the Republicans.  This is a luxury only she has I suppose since she's polling ahead of the others pretty consistently.  I also admit that she seems to see eye-to-eye with me in terms of refusing to answer unanswerable questions.  And, unlike George Bush, who simply gives the camera the old FU look and "I don't have to answer that question, by god" she actually explains that answering hypothetical questions is misleading and it's judgement that's required.  Still, you can't do that on every single question, and as often as not it comes off as evasive. 

I thought Edwards was scrappy.  And I thought he came across pretty clear and open and honest.  Biden seemed downright angry.  I never really trusted him, and I found him particularly off-putting last night.  Then again, some may like vitriol and anger in a candidate. 

Obama was cool, calm, and explained his positions pretty well.  Oddly, he didn't seem to want to debate substantively with Clinton.  I think that's a mistake, but we'll see.  Dodd seems to be not so much running for office but rather running just to show that there is still a left wing among Connecticut Democrats.  Maybe he feels the need after Lieberman's positions became so well known last time. 

I missed having Sharpton.  He was my favorite last time among the Democrats, and nobody is really that entertaining the way he was in 2004.  Richardson was painful to watch.  "Did I mention I was governor of New Mexico?"  You democrats really ought to shoot him.  Take him out back and put him out of his misery, for everyone's sake.  Kucinich was the straightest talker, and has no qualms pointing out his differences with the others.  Kucinich remains my favorite this time.  I find him to be the most agreeable in terms of foreign policy, education, and energy policy.  In fact, if it weren't for his socialized medicine and labor positions, and if I were a Democrat primary voter, I'd probably vote for him.  I really wish the DNC would take him more seriously because he adds much needed substance to their party.  Among those likely to be taken seriously, Obama remains my favorite.  I guess that's who I'm rooting for among the serious candidates. 

Overall, it was refreshing to find a Democrat party that did not come off as intolerant, vendictive, and ineffectual as the party did in 2004.  This is the first debate I watched so far, and I'm looking forward to more DNC debates.  I'll be looking forward to tomorrow's Republican debate as well.  So far I favor Ron Paul.  (Kucinich and Paul are about as disparate as can be, and come from opposite ends of the political spectrum.  One's pretty much a socialist and the other's pretty much a libertarian, so it's not necessarily surprising that I tend to agree with a good deal of what each says.  Unfortunately, it's also not likely that either will be taken seriously be their respective parties, at least not as they're currently run.  No purism allowed.  Only pragmatism and triangulation.)

I also liked having Blitzer running the show.  He's pretty good at pressuring them, although was quite impossible for him to get a straight answer from Hillary.  That's to be expected.  Still, he was tenacious.  He was also just flexible enough to let them finish their thoughts but not so much that they ranted on endlessly the way I often do.  In fact, I think his performance as moderator was about the best I have ever seen.

[Eraserhead]

There doesn't seem to be as much of a consensus as there was with the first debate in the media (that Clinton won). The only consensus seems to be that all three frontrunners did well and that Biden did well in the second tier.

[MODU]

Did anyone else chuckle when Gravel made mention of his "meds"?

A little.  It was a great example that the system wasn't as broken as some up there made it sound.  However, it was one of many quotes that will be easily spun for Dave Letterman and Jay Leno for their opening remarks. 

[StateBoiler]

Obama (16:00)
Clinton (14:26)
Edwards (11:42)
Richardson (10:48)
Kucinich (9:02)
Biden (7:58)
Dodd (7:28)
Gravel (5:37)

[7,052,770]

Richardson (10:48)
Kucinich (9:02)
Biden (7:58)

Ridiculous.  Biden definitely has a better shot at the nomination than Kucinich, and considering performance in both debates, probably a better shot than Richardson.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If I had to pick two candidates who probably got a bit of a boost, I'd say Kucinich and Clinton.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did anyone else find it amusing that you had a 1964 Goldwater supporter (Hillary) quoting Goldwater?