Hillary did a pretty good job last night
I have to agree, Steve.
Hillary wasn't awful and I'm no fan of AIPAC's Queen.
Richardson was creepy. Especially after learning he is the NRA's darling.
Obama was OK. Not great and not terrible.
For me, the surprise was John Edwards. He seemed gracious, informed, intelligent and poised. He handled himself well.
Posted by Christopher at April 27, 2007 11:34 AMIn case anyone had doubts that first impressions make a huge difference - I caught only the last 5-10 minutes of the debate, and that via audio only.
Starting at where Obama was replying to the question concerning terrorism and sounding like a complete beltway war thug.
Edwards sounded plowed over on the question of who his moral leader was. He got fucked with - I'm not sure that there's a decent answer to that question that doesn't sound like Dubya's seconds on jeezsus. And then I heard about the haircut question after the debate. I'm surprised John didn't just tell Williams to shove it at that point.
Gravel started that wonderful quote about nukes:
Gravel: No, with respect to Iran, we've sanctioned them for 26 years. We scared the bejesus out of them when the president says, "They're evil."
Well, you know something? These things don't work. They don't work. We need to recognize them.
And you know something? Who is the greatest violator of the non- proliferation treaty? The United States of America. We signed a pledge that we would begin to disarm, and we're not doing it. We're expanding our nukes.
And then fucked it up - "Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barak. Barak, who do you want to nuke?" Aiighh.
Hillary's answer to wal-Mart was pitch perfect - which apparently reflected her preparation and performance for most of the night.
Biden should have called Williams on who the Democratic insider was . . that "some say" parphrase in media needs to die a painful gory death. But was right on until he felt he had to swing back to the necessity of force.
I'm still uncommitted. I think the GOP debate next week will be far more fun.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 27, 2007 12:19 PMGotta love this:
"[No hands] went up when Mr. Williams asked if any of the others on stage supported the call by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio to begin impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the vice president."
Jeebus, candidates. IMPEACH, already!
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 27, 2007 12:27 PMahhh....the GOP debate. My interest will be to see whether the GOP and Bush will be able to turn it into a "Dems are Traitors" fest, with all these zombies spewing the Party Line for Bush, or if they'll actually go after each other. The Wild Card is Rudy, who is neither a Conservative or a RoveGOPer. He's there for the picking if McOld or Mormon Mit wants to knock him down a peg or two. Given McOld's performance on a comedy newsmock earlier this week, he'll be lucky to make it through without a coronary. Is Newt appearing? If so, maybe we'll be treated to a couple good "my third wife" stories between him and Rudy.
Posted by T2 at April 27, 2007 12:31 PMSorry -- this isn't a strong field. I want to like Richardson because at least he has experience in various government/political jobs, but I fear that he's like GHB, long on resume and short on accomplishments. Biden is the DEM McCain - a narcissistic blowhard. The last thing this country needs is more neo-liberalism from the Clinton's. Obama is the most talented (and perhaps the smartest) of the pack -- but damn is he green.
Posted by Marie at April 27, 2007 12:39 PMWas it decided by the Honchos, the Powers that Be, the "leadership" of the party what we would not impeach so it wouldn't be seen as a cheap form of payback for Clinton?
Or that we would seem as petty and immature as the Republicans when they impeached Clinton?
It's more outrageous by the day that the party base doesn't get a straight answer: Why Not?
It better be a good one, too, because there will never be a better case for impeachment in our lifetimes, no way anyone is worse that Cheney and Bush, the Worst of All Time.
I'm going to start demanding answers--I have been very faithful with my votes and money and god damned if I'm going to get stiffed like this.
If I get one I'd be respectful and dutiful, I would. But ignore me and the base....not good at all.
Posted by paradox at April 27, 2007 12:42 PMNo Newt, so sorry, T2. But since Rudy still leads and all of them are madly trying to claw right, I expect his martial fidelity to come up anyway.
Once again - Yepsen proves he's a beltway twit in the middle of the cornfields:
One wonders why debate organizers include candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel in their gatherings. They stand no chance of winning and are not running viable campaigns. But they do articulate a point of view, and when they are allowed on stage, they use the platform to needle some of the leading candidates - as well as increase their post-campaign book and lecture fees.
That may seem counterproductive to the party if their attacks damage one of the leading contenders, but what the heck. If the front-runners can't deal with a little Gravel in their throat, or the menace of Dennis, how will they deal with what the Republican attack operation and nominee are eventually going to hurl at them?
Since when has either even been on book or speaking tours?? And such witty framing! Yepsen has obviously been overlooked for the DM Register's replacement for Dave Barry.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 27, 2007 12:44 PMAl Gore would have cleaned their clocks.
Half the undecideds will vote for him 'cause he should have been president anyway in 00. No one has his experience or integrity or record--not even close.
Maybe it's not a strong field yet. The minute Al Gore decides to run he wins--all of it. You think we're not that strong? Take a look at the utter patheticism on the GOP side, what a bunch of creepy un-electable morons.
Posted by paradox at April 27, 2007 12:46 PMMarie, you go to the elections with the candidates you have, not the candidates that don't exist. When you stop to consider that the country has never elected a woman or an African-American as president - this will either be a first time, or we'll see the Dems get weak-kneed and one of the other guys nominated in the end. At this point, it would be Edwards. Does that make Gore jump in? If either The Hillary or Obama gets the nod, it will be a leap of faith. In an electorate that has brought us eight years of Bush, it will be a giant leap.
Posted by T2 at April 27, 2007 01:00 PMBill Richardson was bizarre.
He was asked a question and he answered an entirely different question. It is one thing for politicians to dodge questions -- to spin, but Richardson was just on another planet.
Maybe he was thinking how not to offend his supporters from the NRA?
Posted by Christopher at April 27, 2007 01:42 PMMadame President!
Posted by JoeCHI at April 27, 2007 01:47 PMI was disappointed in Richardson as well. He did seem to be a bit unfocused. The NRA thing is a bit disconcerting, but he is from the west.
Hillary was quite good, I have to say. She impressed me more than I thought she would.
Barack seemed uncomfortable, needs a bit more seasoning in the debate forum, perhaps. I don't like how much of a Washington insider he's starting to sound, though.
Edwards has an interesting style. I'd like to see him catch a bit more fire, he seemed a bit subdued.
The rest I hope will drop out soon so we can get more depth and substance from the frontrunners. I think the Dems have some great potential in this group of candidates.
Posted by ann at April 27, 2007 02:18 PM"Madame President!"
...+1
"I was disappointed in Richardson as well."
...also +1, especially the fact that he would back someone because of their race.
Hillary is changing my mind about her.
Somehow her handlers have made Darwinian strides in shriek suppression.
As one who supported Edwards in '04 and plans to again I must say that they all played it too safe except Gavel. I almost wish that he had a chance. But then, if he did his handlers would have him play it safe too.
Posted by herbal tee at April 27, 2007 05:26 PMThis makes the case more clearly that Democrats should allow the funding over the summer without strings and then take control of this war with the 2008 defense budget in the fall, calling for a wind-down by the end of 2008.
What, you mean after the Repuglicans have bankrupt the country, leaving it for the next prez to fix? Right, another political fix for the folks over there dying. Then the next prez gets the blame for the imploding economy. Haven't you figured it out yet that the ones who control the money matters are waiting to put this burden on the back of the next Dem prez?
Posted by at April 27, 2007 05:56 PMOne of the reasons we are in Iraq Rove needed a distraction for the the mid-terms, what we don't need is more politics or fence straddling from the democrats, what we do need is out of Iraq now! cleve
Since i'm from NM, someone needs to ask Richardson why he supports the construction of the huge coal fire Desert Storm, German, Power Plant in the Four Corners. cleve
Posted by cleve at April 27, 2007 07:22 PMI am outraged that we need another "Freidman" to see if this maladventure will work. I bet by August, there will be new Iraq PM, then will be told to give me another "Freidman" so he can do something.
I am outraged that US and Iraqqui are dying for no strategic war advantage. Bush is killing them so not to face the consequense of his failure in Iraq and blame his successor for the failure that Iraq is.
Posted by mje at April 28, 2007 05:15 AMThs grp f crp dps r bt th wkst bnch f whrs nd whrmngrs th wrld hs vr sn: thr s NT n hnst mn mng thm, nd Hllry s n pr wth hr 'ml' cllbrtrs.
Wht w nd s strght tlkng Gd frng mn tht s gng t tlk th tlk f trth, nd LS wlk th wlk twrd trth, nd ths mns tht ppl mst b dctd ngh t prcv crp md twsts nd trns pn thr prcptn. nd ths n't gng t hppn, s r ntr cltr ds vrythng pssbl t dstry th crdblty f ntllgnt ld tmrs, whl prmtng th nfntlsm f yth wywrdnss. Ths pltcl crps wr slctd bcs f thr nfntl thnkng nd bckwrd mrl chrctr.
Th bv nfntl syndrm smply jst ddn't hppn.
Tk jst n hmn trt: trtr, whch th S nw dsgstngly mbrcs. vry prnt wth ml sn knws tht tht kd MST b wtchd rnd crttrs, bcs th lttl vl n wll sn d smthng t hrt tht lttl bng, whthr t s n nt, rbbt, r ct r dg. Snd fmlr? yh; ths lttl pnks r N dffrnt thn lttl Bsh, nd Hllry s fr wrs bcs f hr vrs scl stncs nd Blshvk trnng t Wsly.
[Editor: ignore=off]You are the quintessential idiot, scout. You amaze me.
Posted by tempus at April 28, 2007 05:44 PM