An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Democrats Debating Now
I’m listening on C-SPAN Radio. After hearing 15 minutes on Iraq, this Democrat is going to find it difficult to support any of those speaking tonight for President in 2008.
You can watch on MSNBC, a channel that I don’t get.
Hmmm. Senator Gravel is immoral.
On the domestic issues, they seem far more tolerable.
OTHER BLOGGERS ARE WATCHING AND LISTENING TOO
NEWS MEDIA
Nedra Pickler / Associated Press: Democrats Criticize Iraq in 1st Debate
David Weigel at REASON Magazine
New York Times: Democratic Hopefuls Square Off for First Time
26 Responses to “Democrats Debating Now”
I just tuned in. Comedy so far in the artful dodge of the moderator’s question. Case in point – “How would you pay for health care” to which the candidates answer what their plans actually are. Brian Williams thanks them each in turn for completely failing to answer the question he asked.
Good Holly, we never needed you before, we don’t need you now. P.S. Lieberman will never be president…nor will Bloombutt.
Ahh, the plight of the Poor Pro-War Faux-Moderates.
For both your sake and America’s sake, Holly, I hope that McCain and Lieberman team up and run on a “moderate” third-party ticket. Split that pro-war vote down the middle…
Actually, the Democratic Party has needed (and had) me in every election since 1976. I’m one of those people who has both given $$$ and volunteered in the field.
BTW, I’ve already been asked to work on the campaign of one of the Democrats in this debate. I declined.
Holly- Well so do a hell-of-a-lot of other people. Pro-war Democrats, for all intent and purpose, are non-existent. It ain’t gonna happen Holly, but feel free to beat a really dead horse if you like.
Classy bomb throwing there. Want to back that up?
While bombastic, he was the only candidate besides Kucinich that seems genuinely anti-war and anti-nuclear weapons. How is that immoral Holly?
Does it bother anyone how little al Qaeda and the War on Terror generally made an appearance in this debate? I mean, most of the questions regarding AQ and the GWOT where with regard to whether there was one, and the political implications of Mr. Giuliani’s comments. There was no real discussion on the one war that is just and from which we cannot withdraw but must fight, a war brought to our shores on September 11, 2001.
What’s more, all of these questions came during the last 25 minutes of the debate.
I didn’t watch the whole thing- but I thought they did pretty well. Kucinich is definitely a character-likeable and sincere but not very pragmatic, and Gravel was actually very radical- what a firebrand.
I read somewhere that the lesser candidates would have to be really aggressive and go after the frontrunners, and Gravel definitely did. Kucinich knows he has to work with most of these people in Washington.
I actually liked Hillary more than I thought I would. She has an air of confidence about her and gives very complete answers. So does Obama- who has the WOW factor. I always think of JFK when he speaks.
I was glad to see that there was an e-mail about having the debate in SC because they still fly the Confederate flag at the statehouse. Obama nailed it when he said it belongs in a museum.
He denounced the war apologists in both parties. He’s pretty much saying that it’s not enough to put all the blame on the Republicans. He’s arguing that Democrats are part of the problem with regards to our foreign policy.
No wonder you don’t like him, Holly.
Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate up there. Streight forward, no BS. His entire career has been exactly that. Honest and true. I’m impressed.
White Agent,
This is one of the few times that I actually agree with you. Kucinich came across as more principled in the debate than the triumverant of first tier candidates. The point he made about the Democrats being able to end this war if they really wanted to is true. Congress has the power of the purse, and it takes a majority of congresspeople in BOTH Houses to pass the supplemental bills needed to fund this war. Politically, it would be a risky move, as Republicans would paint the Democrats as “voting against our troops”, but there’s no point being in congress if one’s going to refuse to take positions that are politically risky.
Democrats have the power to end the war. The Democratic Leadership just doesn’t have the backbone to do so. And Kucinich is calling them on it.
That being said, Kucinich’s move to impeach Dick Cheney was a bad idea. I don’t see how a futile attempt to remove the Vice President brings us any closer to ending the war. It may even hinder it.
On the other hand, Kucinich did flip-flop on abortion a few years back.
It’s too bad that Kucinich can’t win, not because of his politics, but entirely because of his image.
Yeah withdrawing immediately would be a great idea. Only hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Iraqis would die.
[...] See our earlier post on the debate HERE. [...]
Democrats have the power to end the war. The Democratic Leadership just doesn’t have the backbone to do so. And Kucinich is calling them on it.
That is because even the Democrats realize that the antiwar in this country only consists of 20 percent. Actually last figure I saw was 19 percent.
Antiwar=Those who are actively and vocally opposing the war and working for its end.
Displeased with George Bush and the Republicans 61 percent. I have been polled twice in the last 6 months. Both times they asked are you satisfied or dissatisfied with Bush. Both times I answered in the negative. However I am not an AntiBush or Antiwar. The Democrats understand this.
The smugness of the antiwar is that you think because 60 percent of the people disagree with the job Bush is doing that when it comes nut crunching time that they will be against the war and on your side. They wont. Everyone except this 19 percent understands that you just can’t pull out. That is why the Stupid, stupid, stupid Democrats are pandering to the 19 percent by passing NONBINDING legislation. Everyone in the world understands this but the 19 percent.
Nobody- they’d have to override Bush’s veto in the Senate with a two-thirds vote- where it basically a virtual tie- even though they do nominally have the majority. They would have to get 16 Senators to change their minds to do that. They know they do not have the votes- so they are trying to force a compromise, and also show put pressure on the GOP Senators who are standing with the president on the war.
Kucinich would get eaten alive in Washington if he did manage to win. He would make Jimmy Carter’s presidency look successful and popular. Kucinich doesn’t have the support of his own party, much less the ability to build a consensus with the other side. That being said- at least he is always himself and doesn’t compromise on his convictions.
Wrong. They just don’t have to pass anything. Bush can not appropriate funds, that’s the job of Congress, and if Congress doesn’t give Bush any money for the war, it will end.
They’d only need to override Bush’s veto if they want to extend the war while instituting a timetable.
kritter- You are wrong kritter. just watch him during Congressional Debates. He lays it down hard and fast…..then laughs. For me it’s extraordinary to watch. You just gotta love the guy.
WA- Its not that he’s not a firebrand- he is- but he would have too much opposition. Look at how many people raised their hands last night to show support for his resolution to impeach Cheney- none. Not that Cheney doesn’t deserve it, but they know it won’t happen.
Washington is a very brutal town – I think that’s why our president’s have to be political powerhouses to survive it. Think of how many presidents recently have complained that their enemies have coopted the media- Nixon, Clinton , Bush 43. 41 was brought down by his own party who were angered that he raised taxes. Carter, likewise had a lot of enemies in his own party- Ted Kennedy fought him tooth and nail, because he thought Carter wasn’t liberal enough.
Nobody,
You are either out of touch with the facts or deliberately lying. That 20% figure you cite is completely bogus.
According to a poll conducted Rassmussen on April 23-24, 57% of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq or a firm deadline for withdrawal while 35% of American voters oppose either an immediate withdrawal or a firm deadline for withdrawal:
Moreover 37% of Americans favor an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This number is up from 28% on November, 1, 2006.
In other words, Nobody, even if you discount the people who oppose the war but don’t want an immediate withdrawal (20%), the number of people who want our troops to withdrawal immediately (37%) is roughly twice as high as the numbers that you just made up.
Also, several recent polls conducted by CBS/New York Times disprove your numbers:
Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?”
April 20-24
Should: 64%
Should not: 32%
Unsure: 4%
April 9-12
Should: 57%
Should not: 38%
Unsure: 5%
Also, several recent polls conducted by Pew Research Center (scroll down page at previous weblink) disprove your numbers:
The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?
April 18-22
For: 59%
Against: 33%
Unsure: 8%
March 22-25
For: 59%
Against: 33%
Unsure: 8%
Nobody,
Even polls conducted by your buddies at Fox News disprove your numbers:
Do you approve or disapprove of Congress setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?
April 17-18
Total…………….54% approve, 42% disapprove, 3% don’t know
- Democrats……78% approve, 18% disapprove, 4% don’t know
- Republicans….29% approve, 70% disapprove, 1% don’t know
- Independents..56% approve, 41% disapprove, 3% don’t know