Who performed best in the debate?

I think all of the Democratic candidates did well, but let's see what most people think. Regardless of who you support, who did the best?

Just kidding. He sucked. I liked all of the others. And I'm proud of my man Dean handling those attacks really well.

that CNBC said Lieberman 'won'.

and the CNBC folks, including Gloria Bolger, are all Republicans. If they love Lieberman, you decide what that means.

I believe he did super, but also think Kerry was impressive. He got my vote.

And all the rest except for you-konw-who.

As for Holy Joe, his big moment was the line about the "Dean Depression," which HANNITY liked very much, and which plays right into the hands of the enemy.

He also wants to send more troops into the hell-hole.

I say, SEND JOE to Iraq!!!!

"Who is the best candidate?"

"Who did the best at the debate?"

"Whose hair do you like best?"

"Who is the nicest to small children and animals?"

Everyone's just going to vote for their own candidate, LOL.

and I don't think she has a lot of supporters here at DU...

at 10:22 p.m. EST.

and I appreciate her presence in the race. She articulates some things that only her perspective can offer.

Great VP candidate with Dean IMO.

I didn't.

"Everyone's just going to vote for their own candidate, LOL."

I voted for Kerry, though they all did great. I am a fan of Kucinich. Poor guy couldn't even get his name pronounced correctly at the beginning of the debate.

Could it be - possibly - we just happen to think he did the best in the debate? Perish the thought that we know what the hell we are doing.

He wouldn't be your candidate if you didn't like him and his abilities best. I'm not so much saying you like him so you vote for him in these polls, I'm saying you wouldn't like him if you didn't vote for him in these polls.

But, Dean does win all these polls at DU, whether some defect and vote for Moseley Braun or not.

> Everyone's just going to vote for their own candidate, LOL.

I didn't, BTW, I'm one of the CM-B voters even though I back Dean.

Atlant

I went with Gephardt with Carol MB coming in a close second.

Dick did VERY well.

DK, who I have supported til now, IMO proved himself to be a worthy Congressman but not quite up to Presidential Snuff.

The only way for me to describe my reaction to him tonight is he's got a bit of a "tin ear". He doesn't quite make the high notes and is often somewhat flat. However, his message is what I believe in.... so there's a bit of conflict there...

Kucinich, even though I like his message, sounded silly when he ended onece with "Hello!" That was dumb. Liebermann should pack up. All the rest were very impressive, and it was nice to see the unity.

Even though it was a swipe at Dean, I thought DK's "Helloooo..." was pretty damn funny.

If Dean wins he should ask Bush a debate question in spanish. It'll cause an instant deer-in-headlights look from ol' whistleass, who claims he speaks spanish.

You hear that Howard?
Bone up on your Spanish!

:)

It would be fun to sneak "Que sabrosa la cervesa que me chinga la cabeza" into is notes.

But then I really do think he came across very mature, knowledgeable and presidential.

which candidate sucked the most?, and then just listed JL's name :)

Great answers (the latter part of the debate that I saw) and that smile - she exudes comfort and security and intelligence and humility and a caring, almost motherly persona with that contagious smile.

Too bad she doesn't have a shot, with Dems much less the American voting public as a whole.

(but don't mind me, I still have my secret draft Gore candle burning in my closet ;-) )

But ANY of them put the moronic imposter to shame shame shame...

She'd make a damn fine President.

Based solely upon my impressions of the candidates at THIS debate and not the viability of what they were saying.
Winner: Carol Mosely-Braun. She came across as warm, knowledgeable, and with apparent common sense.
Runner-up: Surprise! Gephart. Where was that anti-Bush fire when we really needed you, Dick? :eyes:

Loser: Who else? Lieberman. He tried to be an attack dog on both Bush AND Dean and it fell flat.
Runner-up: Kucinich. I was very sad to see his immature "Hello" quip directed at Dean. It was unbecoming and made him look petty.

My candidate did fine and I was happy to see the lot of them attacking Bush.

That REALLY turned me off. :wtf: was up with that?

Congratulations, DK. You get to sit next to Joe LIEberman on the flight home!

I would have done the same thing. This time, it was made to make a point - wake up.

Earth to Dennis? Helllooooo? You sounded laaaaaame when you saaaaid that. (sarcasm off)

Dean is constantly talking about how, while Governor of VT, he balanced the budget and provided healthcare -- and that is how he plans to do it on a national level.

Dennis's comment was meant to highlight the fact that Dean didn't have to contend with a bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget while doing those things, and that it is just not possible to balance the budget and provide health care to all Americans while maintaining Pentagon spending at such absurdly high levels.

While I can see and agree with the point that Dennis was trying to make, it was painfully obvious that his "Hellooo!" comment was so, for lack of a better term, UNPRESIDENTIAL.

maybe we should throw off old notions of figureheadism, like the president must be some Emily Post graduate in order to lead.

When I read Dennis's speeches, I get goosebumps. He says almost all the things I want to hear, he inspires, and he comes across as -- well, a VISIONARY.

But the effect I get when I see him on TV is quite different. Last night, while he was speaking, my wife said to me, "This guy yells an awful lot, doesn't he?" And she said it in a tone as if to ask, "Is this guy for real?"

The fact remains, as much as we don't like to face it, that appearances DO matter. They matter IMMENSELY. And throwing off these "notions of figureheadism" isn't something that will happen overnight -- in fact, it will be quite a sea-change. As such, we're simply stuck with the fact that we have to deal with the present reality that a great majority of the electorate bases their votes on appearances and impressions, rather than an in-depth look at the issues.

I don't care for Lieberman's politics, but I think he did reasonably well in the debate.

Every nominee came up a notch (save one), Kerry and Gebhardt perhaps a couple of notches, in my estimation.

But I have to say I was unimpressed with Edwards, who seemed rambling and incoherent in several of his answers.

I'd say Edwards, Kerry, CMB were best.

and then......


Never mind.

:dem:

Why I think he did the best was that even though Dean bashed Bush, he gave solid ideas as to what HE WILL DO in office. To me Kerry, Gep, Edwards, Lieberman - they only stuck on what Bush hasn't done. They should have stated what THEY WERE going to do, not just continually bash Bush.

IMO the three that did well are:

Dean
Kucinich
Braun

All gave valuable reasons to what they would do as president.

I thought Howard Dean (my guy) did fine. Lieberman tried to
bait him; it didn't work. And wow, haven't a lot of the other
guys picked up Dean positions, or what?

I warmed up to Graham.

I cooled even further to Kerry.

I'm unchanged re: Lieberman: I think he's vile. My wife,
on the other hand, is now a very vocal Lieberman hater.

We were hosting a "watch the debate" house party and
EVERYONE like Carol Mosley-Braun.

Kucinich sure gets shrill, doesn't he? In any case,
while I like some of his policies, I still think he's
completely unelectable.

Edwards who?

And Gephardt sure gives one hell of a stump speech,
doesn't he? He's not so good at answering the question,
though, is he?

but think Edwards did OK.

I was rooting for Dean, but I really enjoyed watch Gep and Braun. Tonight's goal for Dean - to not screw-up royally - was met. I can relax now.

Anyone else get really nervous watching these things? During the Bush-Gore debates, I paced around my living room cheering and booing at the TV, and even though my bladder was empty, I still had "that feeling." Maybe I need valium to watch important debates?

They make me crazy.
I agree with your assessment as well.

I'm a pacer as well. I don't know what it is. I just get so tense watching the debates. Which is really odd, because when I AM debating I'm not nervous at all.

Go figger.

I think most people at DU who don't like Carol Moseley-Braun are anti-semitic.

Sorry, but I live in Illinois and had to endure 6 years of Carol's stint in the Senate. She is very charming, but the business of cozying up to a murdering tyrant has stuck in my craw. Her own campaign manager had to sue her to get paid. As much as I like some of her positions, she is not qualified to be president of the United States.

You can't possibly defend that. You're confusing campaign rhetoric used to smear her with the actual facts. The facts are a matter of record, and they in no way support your choice of words.

You say "endure" but again I suggest that it sounds like you're talking about negative press and not Carol's record in the Senate.

A) She would do a good job.
B) That means America has finally grown the fuck up.

1. Gephardt
2. Lieberman
3. Braun
4. Kerry
5. Graham
6. Dean
7. Edwards
8. Kucinich

Gephardt was strong during the debate and seemed to take control of the issues. He attacked Bush solidly and argued well for his opinions on healthcare and trade. Joe Lieberman attacked Bush harder than he usually does and also took a swipe at Dean. He was really the only one willing to dare to attack Dean. Carol Moseley-Braun was also articulate, as always, and solidly attacked Bush . Kerry and Graham were really just okay. Neither really stood out much and both argued for mostly traditional democratic ideals. Dean didn't fare well in the Lieberman vs. Dean battle on international labor standards. He didn't really defend what he said and let Lieberman spin what Dean probably meant. Edwards seemed like he was pandering to the Latinos all the time. He went on and on about Latino issues while the rest of the debate focused only a little on Latino issues such as immigration.
Kucinich again attacked on the solid left but looked stupid when he said to bring the troops home and basically abandon Iraq and he was sort of weird when he talked in Spanish.

Lieberman is definitely a better friend to the Republicans
than the Democrats, and he proved that again tonight.

Atlant

I really didn't like that and I really have a problem when people say that Bush is better than one of the other candidates. That makes it seem like they wouldn't definitely support the democratic nominee. However, I still think that Lieberman was the only member of the stop dean campaign at the debate today and that is probably good for his candidacy. Kerry and the others didn't want to fight Dean but Lieberman did and it made him look more courageous.

for such an extreme and speculative statement, so, to me he came across as a tired politico taking potshots at the frontrunner.

as the VP candidate he is gettin no props.
BWAh ha ha ha-that's because YOU were part of the PROBLEM in 00' you putz. NOW GO AWAY!

> That makes it seem like they wouldn't definitely support
> the democratic nominee.

There's no "seem" about it. If, by some miracle, Lieberman
were to be selected as the Democratic candidate, I assure
you that I will be voting "further left" than Lieberman.

I will NEVER vote for a DINO like Lieberman.

Atlant

That's a stretch. All I see is more campaign dollars for Dean - just like last time he attacked him. I just gave another $50. Thanks for reminding me.

and Dean had a very reasoned comeback..

And what is the point of that? Hell, electing Whistle Ass would "stop Dean." Seems like a petty objective.

1) He did a great job keeping his composure and cool even though he was attacked.
2) He speaks Spanish quite fluently, and much better than the others who tried. Since it was a "bi-lingual" debate, he gets points for being fluent in the second language.
3) He was really more specific than anyone else with his answers. He brought up issues that no one else did. And overall, he made the most sense in his answers. He also made his points quickly instead of rambling on and on. He came across as very decisive and informed.


Worst:

A three way tie between Lieberman, Kucinich and Edwards. Edwards did the least worst of the three. If Lieberman had not chosen to lower the quality of the debate with his dumb attacks on Dean, he would have actually done much better than I've ever seen him do...but alas, he always has to be a dumbass. Kucinich is too damn extreme for me...and he also did his best to minimize the quality of the debate. When you only have a minute to sell yourself on an issue and you waste it attacking someone else, it's dumb.

Although I don't like Kerry as a candidate, I give him props for speaking better this time than he usually does. Normally I lose interest in what he has to say almost immediately...and this time he did a little better keeping me interested. Enough with the repetitive references to being a Vet, already! Same with Edwards and the fucking mill...SHUT UP both of you! NO ONE CARES!!!!!

I still couldn't warm up to Kerry, and I went into this with the express purpose of doing that, in case he's the one instead of my first choice, Dean. It didn't happen. He's a good guy, but no fire.

from his campaign always attends our district meetings.

I don't like him either and I see him as kinda dull. Gephardt and Graham are usually the same way to an extent. Gephardt did well tonight, I think. Graham did okay, but he just doesn't stand out. He's like the kid you went to highschool with for 4 years and had in most of your classes but the only time you remember he exists is while he's speaking...and as soon as he's done, you forget about him.

I actually thought Lieberman sounded more like an actual Democrat than I've ever seen...until he started trying to get into a poop tossing exchange with Dean. So glad Dean didn't play. Kucinich makes me like him less everytime I see him. Last time it was all the shrill screaming and attacks. He toned down the screeching this time, but his positions are extreme, and I don't like them. The fact that he wants to attack is a huge turnoff and I like him less and less everytime he does it. He also says he's going to do things that he can't legally do and would never accomplish. Nothing would get done if he were elected because he's too extreme.

I'll put aside the smarmy "Vermont doesn't have a military" remark, since as we all know, Cleveland doesn't have a military either, Mr. Kucinich, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

One thing is a given - a presidential candidate must appear presidential. A level head is a requirement for president. And there is no way on earth enough people in this country will go for someone they perceive as just right of socialism. Like it or not, we need to have some of the independent/swing voters to pull this off.

That is between the US, Canada and Mexico, not all the other countries in the world. Yes, there are some issues in Mexico that need to be addressed and can be. But Canada? He wants to throw out the baby with the bath water. He's radical on everything and to me, he comes off soundling like a raving kook. There is no way he can sell what he's peddling to middle America. Single payer won't pass, so we'd still have millions uninsured. He'd bankrupt the damn country to stand on "principle". Sorry, but I'd have to seriously consider voting for the other side if he were nominated because I think he'd be worse for the economy than what we have now. I have children to think about, and I just am not going to trust a whacked candidate. I know lots of people here like him, and he's a perfect fit for where he's at right now because that extreme idealism helps keep the rest of them a little more honest. But president? No way. No disrespect meant to his supporters...they seem like great people. I just can't ever get behind what he stands for because it's too radical.

Kucinich is replying to a debate that began in Chicago at Rainbow/PUSH when Dean made a point of criticizing Kucinich over his argument that in order to pay for the things we want we have to cut Pentagon spending.

It is relevant to mention Vermont because Dean uses Vermont as an example for what he can do to balance budgets. Whether it's a kind of synecdoche or a false analogy or whatever is a debatable point. As for Kucinich's experience with federal budgets and military spending, that's what congresspeople do, and Kucinich is a congressional rep. now, not the current mayor of Cleveland.

Smarmy? Distasteful? I wouldn't presume, but it is definitely not off-topic.

Arkansas didn't have a military but Bill Clinton managed pretty well as president. Perhaps someone needs to remind Kucinich that governors have a habit of becoming president.

Kucinich is there as a representative to represent Ohio. He doesn't single handedly decide on military spending. He's one of MANY people who have INPUT. His previous experience was as mayor of Cleveland. Let's see a representative and a once mayor trumps a governor in his childish game? :eyes:

Dean was the chief executive of Vermont. Dean is perfectly within his right to mention his experience as governor balancing budgets. It's an important part of his qualifications.

Kucinich would have sounded far more like an adult (and thus presidential) had he addressed one issue (the Pentagon spending disagreement) without bringing in another (the childish slam on Vermont) like a petulant child.

I mentioned Kucinich's experience because you raised that issue as rebuttal, but actually Kucinich doesn't need any special qualifications or credentials to make that argument. It's based on logic.

About Vermont, Dean is not simply mentioning his experience as Governor. He offers Vermont as an example of what he can accomplish, in this case specifically what he would do to balance the budget. (He's withing his rights to make such arguments, of course.) Kucinich's criticism goes to the heart of that claim, namely, that if it can work in Vermont, it can work in the nation's capital, by pointing to an inconsistency.

Well, no analogy is perfect, and at the very least Kucinich's argument shows that Dean's analogy does not completely account for all the items on the table. Obviously in your present state of mind the analogy is not falsified. But the next time I hear it, I'll be listening for how much it really encompasses, what it leaves out, and what Dean is really trying to say.

Just to be clear, I don't share your characterization of Kucinich. I believe you're attacking the messenger because you don't like the message.

I'm not attacking the "messenger" - I'm saying the mocking by Kucinich was not only a drag, but nowhere did Dean say "I'm going to handle defense as president exactly the way I did in Vermont." Kucinich is making that leap. And mocking. Nobody, Kucinich included, has an ironclad budget worked out. If Dean wants to highlight his accomplishments to point out that as Clinton did, balanced budgets are a priority, that's fine. If Kucinich wants to point out that Dean needs to keep in mind social programs, that's fine. But if Kucinich wants to mock Dean, then I'll speak up. That was his forum and he chose to mock. This my forum, and I choose to say it wasn't cool. Dean is the candidate I'm backing, and I think he's got the best plan for the budget and the military and social programs. So I'm going to speak up and say Kucinich was making his own false leap. Also that Kucinich could have attempted to make his point more effectively without mocking. You talk your guy up. I'll talk my guy up. I want him to be the candidate because I think he's got the best chance of beating Bush. When it's all over and Kucinich is the choice, I'll vote for him. Hopefully if it goes the other way, you'll vote for Dean. That's politics.

BTW, Charlie on the other thread found this link -

In peacetime, the National Guard is commanded by the governor of each respective state or territory.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/downloads/fact_sheets/guard.asp

Dean does say that he will handle the federal budget the way he handled the budget in Vermont, not so?

In Kucinich's argument, defense policy is not the main point. That's a leap you're making and attributing to him. The argument is in the first place about budget priorities. In fact it is an argument Dean began by forcefully disagreeing with Kucinich's plans for social spending, which would be paid for in part by cutting Pentagon spending. Of course Dean didn't say "I'm going to handle defense spending the same way I did in Vermont." That would be ridiculous, which is of course Kucinich's point.

I will go so far as to concur with you that Kucinich's mocking tone is disagreeable. However, his attack did not come out of the blue. It is a specific response to a specific attack made by Dean, which I also happened to find disagreeable. In that light, I don't particularly fault Kucinich for taking an opportunity to launch a counter-attack.

You're not understanding me and I'm apparently not understanding you. I think we've tried to understand each other, and kept a civil tone, so it's best we shake hands and move on.

Re: the charge of your post title - I RARELY diss the other candidates (and I NEVER start a thread doing so, unlike some who start anti-Dean threads on a regular basis.) That's been my biggest complaint about the Dean bashers - they area so obsessed with Dean, they fail to talk up their candidate. Kucinich deserved dissing this time. I lost a lot of respect for him. I'm not alone. I just don't look at him the same way anymore. The out of control delivery of his that I've been overlooking suddenly just got to me. I'll give him another chance, but if he keeps up the mocking, he's on ignore, just like the people here who are nasty. I'm sure he'll lose sleep knowing that I and a number of Dean supporters are dissing him for this - NOT. But it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

understand the difference in the profitability of Kmart and Wal-mart and that that was relevant to the point he was going to make, and didn't react well when this was pointed out to him. He did seem quite sincere in his comments, though.

Kmart's not profitable? It sure was profitable for that Conaway fellow.

I think I know what Kucinich was talking about. Ray Suarez? I think he was making a silly joke.

Conaway, and specifically to the use of sweatshops and other questionable business practices. One can (and should) criticize the org. for doing these things, but the argument is weakened considerably if one adds something like "the org. is flush with cash so it could easily afford to pay more." That's clearly true for Wal-Mart, but DK did not appear to know or grasp, when told, that K-Mart does not illustrate his point well. It made him look poorly informed, IMHO, but others obviously could have perceived it differently.

and just stumbled across this!

I have yet to hear Dean speak Spanish and for me it will be a treat since I learned it when I lived in San Diego!

I was reading comments on a few message boards and it didn't seem that Dean was doing all that well. Is this an honest assessment?

Forgive those of us who voted for Dean for being so misguided as to think he did best. Or for being compulsive liars. We know not what we do. Dean has us hypnotized. We will be so sorry when we find out what he's really like. :eyes:

he did pretty well. Gep was on fire, and Mosley-Braun was charming. I thought Kucinich's "Hello" was a bit childish... Lieberman is still lame and Kerry did well also but not great. Sorry... Edwards and Graham just don't inspire.

I only saw about 40 minutes of the debate and my preferred candidate is Kerry, but I was pleased with all of them.

Voted for DK as best performance.

I forgot about that Kerry quote... it was great!

to the southern hemisphere. He said something like " Bush has to learn the names of the countries in the southern hemisphere first." Not an accurate quote.

eom

if only for the parameters and simplicity.
I learned as much from your scores as i would wading through the multilple messages about the debate and all of the rhetoric about who did what and why their guy is right, etc.
less flammable to boot.
If there is another debate, i'd be interested if a group of DU'ers could just use the 2 conditions (P&C) and scale (1-5) and post a thread with the results.

Thanks, :thumbsup:

dp

Then Mosely Braun comes up short. Her best was at the end.

Don't you know anything?

Deandeandeandeandeandeandeandeandeandean.

It's simple to remember, it sounds like a pinball machine.

Actually most of them acquitted themselves well. Lieberman went for Dean's throat with the Bush recession/Dean depression line, for which he will pay; it's the end for him. I just can't stand him, but even he'd be infinitely better than Junior. (Well, duh...) He's the only one of the bunch I truly don't like.

They all got a little sucked into their pat answers, rather than directly answering the questions at hand.

I also wonder how many caucasians understand that the term "fall out" means "pass out"...

Much as I like Kucinich, he's mighty left there. Truly, though, profit should be taken out of healthcare; medicine for money is murder.

Gep got mighty worked up; he's starting to get frantic.

Graham's still awfully awkward.

My guy (Edwards) could have done a lot better, but still had his moments. I like the line about how everyone on the stage had a healthcare plan and that the only one in the '04 campaign without one is Bush.

As a caveat, I only saw the last half; I recorded the beginning and will watch it later.

They all got a little sucked into their pat answers, rather than directly answering the questions at hand.

Like this one: "Would you increase the number of troops, keep them at the same level, or reduce them?"

So a candidate is "stuck" spending 1 1/2 minutes on a multiple choice question. This just encourages them to go off on tangents.

Debates should stick to essay questions.

so those of you who say we are only voting for our candidates, there is a word for you, I am not aloud to say it but we know what it is, now don't we.

That said I think she did the best. She is clearly getting much, much better at speaking without looking at notes. She sounded confident, competent, and poised. It is too bad she had the problems she had as a Senator. If she can be confirmed she should be in the next Cabinet.

Dean did the next best. He performed very well, kept his cool, and clarified very well his position on what to do with Iraq now. He needed to do this and he did.

Gephardt did well. He is a very different candidate than in 88 and this is the better one. He still is very far down on my list but he is rising.

Graham got his governor's record out there. He needed to do that.

Kerry did well for the most part. His amnesty answer was spot on. His answer for the parents wasn't so great though. Overall he did well.

Kucinich reverted to his new shrill persona. He started off so well too. He never behaved this way running around here. I don't have a clue what he is thinking but it wears horridly and he needs to stop it. For close to 2/3 of the debate he did well then he just went off to shrillville.

Edwards was Edwards. I remain unimpressed. I just see so little depth. In a few years he will be a great candidate but now he is just a candidate.
Lieberman has lost his mind. His sort of square, goofy, nerdy, kindly personality was one of his assets in my book. Now he is trying to be a Bob Dole. Using the d word was stunning. And stupid. He had better hope Dean isn't the nominee because he will be the poster child of foot in mouth if Dean is. Gore ran a vastly better campaign than this clearly Lieberman didn't get Gore's staff.

I thought she was outstanding.

It's a Deanie conspiracy!
:silly: :hi:

Braun's Nomination for Ambassador to New Zealand was confirmed by a Senate vote of 96 to 2. McCain and Kyl didn't vote. Helms and Fitzgerald voted against her. The allegations made against her were shown, after intensive scrutiny, to be either utterly baseless or trivial. They had no merit in 1998. They have even less merit in 2003.

The records can be found in thomas by entering "Moseley Braun nomination" as search terms. The Senate vote was on the 9th of Nov., 1999.

is HHS Secretary and I am particularly worried about the charges of Welfare fraud. I had forgotten about the NZ Ambassadorship. Provided the fraud charges were baseless (and that was dismissed in the 92 campaign I think) then she should be OK.

I really like her. I know she has some press baggage from previous campaigns that would make her a poor candidate vs. the shrub, but damn, she shone in this debate: witty, articulate, and pithy.

Standing out in an 8-way debate is a major accomplishment in my book.

And I say that as a Graham, then Dean, then Edwards supporter (who likes all of the candidates).

I saw the first half and the last fifteen minutes and think Gephardt's eloquent passion in his denunciation of Bush's performance (esp. on Iraq) stole the show.

I missed Lieberman's 'Dean depression' line and am glad I did as that would have spoiled the mood for me. :-(

--Peter

Though he's not my candidate.

I think Bob Graham was near the bottom of the bunch.

Dean and Kerry did well. Kucinich came across as a strong debater.

Carol Mosley-Braun scored big w/ the single-payer health care answer.

Lieberman was the worst of the bunch.

And I'm missing someone here... so who ever it is, they must not have come across as very memorable.

Braun-- Concise and answered well.

Gephardt-- Passionate and dramatic, but to the point of annoyance, it's never a good idea to get caught being told your time is up. The impact is lost. Also if you yell everything, it seems forced.

Lieberman-- Puh-leeze. The attacks on Dean were cheap shots and jingoistic.

Graham-- He gives detailed answers, but with a dis-jointed rhythm.

Kerry-- Low key. Seemed to be relying on his manners.

Kucinich-- Good ideas, but I agree with the "tin ear" comment. Also, like Gephart, he yells too much. Yelling, or a loud voice should be used for emphasis, not the entire dialogue.

Dean-- Also low key, didn't let the the Lieberman smear affect him. He was calmly blunt, but with feeling. There is no reason for a front runner to take chances in a debate.

Edwards-- Very breezy, definitely played to the Hispanic community. I think this is a case of playing for the local audience. In all likelihood, this is a tactical move, but may not play into perception of him winning it nationally.

.

Gephardt was a little over the top.

I thought Dean was forgetable. He did not impress me.

Joe. What a jackass.

I thought Kerry was excellent. Besides Carol he was the most articulate.

Kerry came off well, too.

Lieberman I found to be annoying most of the time.

Okay, I know that belies the meaning of "best," but I could pick no clear winner. I tried to keep track of who had the best answer on individual issues, but even that proved difficult.

Instead, I was left with a great sense of optimisim that almost any of the candidates would do a great job. Some had opinions that were closer to mine, but each sounded far more thoughtful than Whistle Ass.

My only strong negative reaction was to Lieberman's attack on Dean. To suggest that Dean's policies would result in a "Dean depression," was uncalled for, fodder for the enemy, and divicive.

So, all in all, the debate left me assured that if Lieberman is the nominee, I won't be voting democratic, and that I'd support and actively campaign for any of the others who may get the nomination.

> I tried to keep track of who had the best answer on individual issues,
> but even that proved difficult.

The debate format wasn't conducive to direct, point-by-point
comparisons. Because each candidate was asked (essentially),
the logical follow-on question to the previous candidate's
response, they couldn't give answers that could be directly
compared, policy point by policy point.

Personally, I think this was a good format. When there's a
huge field of candidates, I HATE the format that asks
each person the same question. By the time you get to the
eigth candidate, it's almost impossible for them to say
anything original, and the answers start to sound like "I
agree with what bachelor #5 already said".

Atlant

it was a collective bash on Bush. The momentum was awesome, I was applauding each candidate.

Saying the "Dean Depression" was vile (and I'd have said that if he'd said it about any other candidate as well.)

And as a Dean supporter I will admit that. But Mosley-Braun, Dean and Gephardt also did well I think.

Also....besides impressions, were there any surprises regarding the answers and their content? Anybody learn anything new?

> Anybody learn anything new?

Did you already know that Lieberman ought to be a Republican?
If you already knew that, then, no, not much new. Just a nice
opportunity to see 8 of the 9 on stage together.

Atlant

I didn't know that they were on until today when CNN gave me Candy ass Crowley's version of the debates.

She wasn't interested in any of the positions of the candidates, just the horse race.That sucks because it is SOOOO early.

To keep things "simple," the media mouthpieces will focus on the horserace to the detriment of the candidates, the issues, their policies, their vision, and, of course the nation.

Mark Hertsgaard in his study of Reagan and the Press: "On Bended Knee" had it right. He said Deaver and Reagan's PR pros thought what was being said on TV had little or no bearing on how the viewer remembered the news. What mattered was what the pictures looked like.

In one example, IIRC, Hertsgaard reported that Reagan was delivering some sour economic news, but the location was some pep-rally filled with shouting, "happy" teen-age faces, baloons lifting off and confetti coming down, and lots of applause. Afterwards, people who were asked thought the newscast had been about something good happening, which, of course, they associated with Old Pruneface, even though he'd been describing some outrage to American workers.

No wonder the sheeple don't know what's happening to them. Their brains have been dry-cleaned by television. It's just like the red General in "Manchurian Candidate" described: "Brainwashed."

Not surprising :eyes:

virtually ignored the whole thing, just showing three of the candidates' faces!!! But, the media bastards wasted huge amounts of time, telling about fucking SPORTS!!!!

Like THAT is important!!!!! :eyes:

Moseley Braun was at her best describing universal health care,a la DK, except his is more spelled out as so how to finance and carry it out over time.

Dean looked the worst I had seen him, but I didn't watch that Fox show some of you watched where he was supposedly so terrible. He was playing it safe and not saying much of anything.Seems as if he does better at criticizing the Pretledent than putting out a positive plan.

Graham played his "homeland security" card once more. But he never says that he wanted to go to war in three places,not one. Just slyly mentioned that he was against the Iraq war for "different reasons" and that was because of "terrorists." So he's not being truthful with the public.

Edwards was disappointing, and he played his "son of a mill worker" CARD AGAin. Guess recycling pays.

Lieberman : I'm not gonna say it, but some other candidate could sure use the money.

Kerrey seemed SLIGHTLY less arrogant, but still comes over as if he deserves the job and doesn't really understand the plight of the common people. Did some better this time, but was a mixed bag.

DK was the clear winner.(I support DK, disclosure statement)
HE ACTUALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS, and didn't go flying out in left field like some of the candidates did to bring in their pet points.

And when he said that undocumented people should get overtime and pension rights and health care and join a union and all the other things that American workers have a right to expect,HE BROUGHT DOWN THE HOUSE in our group of about 550 Kucinich supporters, at least one third of whom were Hispanics, many descendants of the Conquistadores.

And his crowning moment: when he said 'HULLO" regarding Dean's saying that he would pay for the moon and the stars and the whole galaxy without reducing the defense budget!!(My take of that Russert statement)Everyone was laughing so hard we couldn't hear the next question!! HE NAILED DEAN TO HIS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE WALL.(Funny how when Dean is passionate, everyone is praising him, but when DK is passionate, he is "shrill" or "yells.") And Gephart did some pretty good yelling to. Much better for the party.

A GOOD DEBATE, except when Suarez set out to ambush Kucinich.

The Dean-supporters need to admit that their candidate had an off night, and truthfully pick the candidate who did the best job.

I lean toward Dean or Kerry, but I honestly thought Gephardt and Moseley-Braun sounded the best.

You can tell that Gephardt and Braun did the best because they are polling ahead of the support on DU. Dean, Kerry, and Kucinich are just up there because some people just support them and think that they are so brillian that they are unable to see that they didn't do that well. However, I don't think that would change if you did a new poll.

You said we "need" to admit something and that we weren't "truthful" so you are saying we lied and now must please you by doing as you wish.

Has it ever occurred to you we think Dean did the best overall?

Braun performed well, Gephardt, too. But Dean had the best substance. It's not about "sounding the best" - it's about who came across with the goods. Braun would make a lousy president - she has zero substance behind her campaign. Gephardt may talk a good game, but he helped to get us into the mess we are in. I picked Dean because he "sounded" well but also had a good plan and came across as someone who could handle the heat - only he was strongly attacked by two different people that night - and he came out looking level headed and composed afterwards, also he came across as someone who is flexible.

I picked Dean because he did best overall, and it's pretty nervy of you to suggest people were lying - er not being "truthful."

The rest did okay.