I am tired of personalities. I am looking for a leader, someone who can inspire and take us in a new direction. That is definitely not Hilary, Obama
or Edwards. Biden seemed to carry himself well but didn’t offer anything of substance. The same with Dodd. Richardson seemed like he had a lot to say and not enough time to say it. I don’t like his personality but I do like his message. Dennis appeared as a small man with big ideas. He was not particuarily inspiring, but he was the only candidate with a clear vision for the future. Gravel was their for entertainment. He had nothing to offer but outrageous comments.

Given the choice between, Hilary, Obama, and Edwards. They are all like Kerry in 04′ — who cares! They all offer the status quo. Pick one it doesn’t make any difference. Who do you think is the prettiest?

With Biden, and Dodd they have enough guts to stand up and make some changes, but mostly they have nothing new to offer. Kucinich and Richardson are two guys who could really make a difference. Gravel was there for entertainment value. He has no clear position. Why is he even running?

You know, the presidential race isn’t a horse race. You don’t get a payoff because you bet on (voted for) the winning candidate. The media slants everything to support their favorite candidates. If you buy what they are selling it becomes a beauty contest. Vote for the prettiest candidate or for your favorite personality because nothing is going to change.

If you want your vote to count for something. Then vote for change, stand up for the little man and vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Overall, as much as I disagree with the policies of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, I haven’t been too enthused about the Democrats, and last night’s debate did nothing to change that. Four years after our government invaded Iraq, the Democrats have finally solidified themselves as antiwar. Unfortunately, the party seems divided between those who want to end the war now and those who seem content to allow it to drag on until the end of the Bush presidency. And despite their attempts to appeal toward the political center of the American electorate, the Democrats running for president continue to espouse an unabashedly economically populist message. Apparently, even after six years of out-of-control spending by President Bush and a Republican-controlled congress, the Democrats aren’t willing to abandon their “Big Government” ways.

His one-word answer was “YES.” It was NOT “No.”

Here:

“Biden, however, got the biggest laugh of the night when moderator Brian Williams brought up his well-deserved reputation for talking too much and committing gaffes. “Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?” Williams asked. Biden’s answer: ‘Yes.’ Which was followed by a long, pregnant silence. ”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1615356,00.html

I thought the debate was wonderful.

Almost all of the candidates were able to get their points across without cutting each other down or tearing each other apart for the amusement of an audience of people many of whom just love to see friends and colleagues shred each other for sport.

By doing this the Democratic hopefuls are showing an example of unity, with grace and dignity and an example of performance in which the good of the people, the country and the party are put above and ahead of personal goals — which may never be met, but are even less likely to be met vaunting ego over ideals.

Kucinich got a little over the top with his passion and Mike Gravel got a little crabby and crusty, but I was mostly proud of all of them.

But for me, Biden’s one word answer that momentarily stunned Brian Williams into slack-jawed silence, was the high-point of the night.

And I never been so fond of Hillary as I was last night, when she held herself with grace and dignity, answering the questions directly and with confidence. She looked downright Presidential!

The one who really did himself in as far as I’m concerned was Richardson, saying that he was willing to give AG Gonzales a pass for all his… deceptions… because Gonzales is Hispanic.

No one gets a pass for the things, Gonzales has done and covered up and flat lied about.

And the people of the country would really have a problem with someone in the White House who was willing to give people a pass for their bad acts simply because they have the same genetic origins.

Richardson may have been honest about his feelings, but his feelings need serious personal reevaluation and he should NOT be in the White House while he sorts this out.

Oh, and he may have mentioned Darfur, but he tried to lasso and use all the hot topics he could gather in his kitchen sink of ALL the things he’s gonna do and problems he’s gonna solve in the first 4 days in office…

Ye-ah.

Well that’s my opinion and hopefully worth more than anybody paid me for it. *L*

I agree that Richardson was much too unpolished for network TV, but I feel like at least he had a personality and said something of substance – he was the only candidate to mention Darfur.

http://www.ExpertVoter.org

Debates have their place, but sometimes you need a simple, quick way of comparing the candidates based on their own words.

gary

I originally started out this campaign season as an Obama supporter. But the more I watch him, the less I like him. He is interesting to listen to but he doesn’t say anything.

Hillary’s problem right now is that she is playing ’safe’. I don’t blame her, I would probably do the same thing if I was her BUT I wish she would stop playing to all sides. Like her comment on Walmart. It is early enough in the campaign for her to take a stand.

Richardson was the disappointment of the night. I have been open to him because of his impressive resume’. Yet he appeared nervous and unable to get his ideas out in a “Presidential” manner. I do give him kudos for his line about people don’t want a blowed-dry President. I pick him for VP.

I’d say Clinton won due to the format, yet she did give one answer that may come back to haunt her–her answer to the question of what she would do if America were attacked again by AQ was essentially a regurgitation of the George W. Bush philosophy. She obviously doesn’t understand terrorism or how to succesfuly fight it.

If it becomes McCain v. Richardson, I would go Richardson.

Random thoughts…..

MSNBC does a good game show format, but not a debate…

Does anyone actually ever answer the question asked? (which tax would you raise? how would you react to a terrorist attack?)

Richardson sounds more cogent on healthcare than Edwards ever has.

Why is everything tied to Bush?……is Bush a candidate in the next election? They had better learn that isn’t going to work too well in a real head-to-head debate wiht the Republican candidate.

Kucinich owns a gun???? Whoa, nellie!

Please make Gravel your candidate.

Everyone in the mainstream press seems to parroting the same lines, choosing to emphasize certain candidates over others, and ignore important issues and questions in favor of

I got to go for now, but I intend to write up something later today about last night’s debate, focusing not only on the candidates themselves, but the way the mainstream press and bloggers have reacted.

Gravel tells the naked truth: the others say the same thing in a more “presidential” style and thus what they say is not deemed radical any more – it was just 2 years ago when it would have been tagged as “socialist”. Now it is middle-of-the-road.

Great overall. They all did well (although Obama’s inability to say anything concrete about anything drives me nuts), except I cannot stomach Biden – he is deeply wrong about everything he ever said in his life about foreign policy and the world, yet he is somehow regarded as an expert in exactly that area! His analogizing Iraq to Balkans is wrong because his understanding of the Balkans was always completely wrong. Duh! Growl!

DKos readers thought that Edwards won the debate and I agree although he looked tired – he can be much better. It looked like Edwards and 7 dwarves as far as seriousness, maturity, content, presentation and even that “presiential look”. Clinton needs to start looking AT the camera. Dodd is grey in every way. Richardson disappointed me.

At the end of the MSNBC coverage, when their online poll was announced, Matthews said something about the way teh audience disagreed with pundits. It is because pundits are ignorant. The audience who watched and voted online has a much better grasp of politics and better knowledge of all candidates’ positions, voting records and personal histories than any of the pundits. And why are Republicans, Republican sympathizers and people who think that GOP is stilla legitimate political party allowed to comment on Democratic candidates on TV?