And the winner of tonight's debate: George Bush

A ninety minute circular firing squad.

Jeff Greenfield declares that Democrats are out of touch with middle class values.

Judy Woodruff paints Wesley Clark as a Bush Republican.

Nobody has a chance to stand out, nor will they as long as you have nine people on stage and answers are limited to the length of a soundbyte.

nt

in the two debates I've seen he's come off the best, and I'm leaning towards Dean and Clark.

My hope is that non dems and swing voters aren't that interested yet.

n/t

the good news is that practically nobody watched the debate.

:pals:

Lieberman's shrill whining is grating.
Gephardt-pompous mannerisms...
Kerry-the pontificating bore-
Clark actually spoke well...he is sharp
Edwards-not ready
Sharpton shines
and the rest were fine.

I should have read your posts and not watched the post debate analysis with David Gergen and Bill Schneider...


They said Clark was defensive... Like him or hate him... He defended his position with passion......

And he didn't attack the others...

I used to think folks who said the media were biased against the Dems were tin foil hat conspiratorialists....

I am revisiting that assumption.... Big Time....

No offense meant, really, but this is a revelation to you?

The media is right leaning? No way. I'm still trying to figure out why I thought that way as little as six months ago. It's frighteningly clear now that they are so right-wing.

When I finally figure it out, I'll post my revelations here. Just haven't figured it out yet.

Ten years ago, I knew there was a problem with the "liberal media" in this country that didn't make sense to me. I became more and more certain of it as I watched the press hound-dog after Bill Clinton. Now I hear that others who I regard as being intelligent folks only recently reached this conclusion. What were you smoking? Ten years ago I had no idea what the internet was, and no source of factual news to double check the lying bastards.

Next time you want to call someone paranoid, remember that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

When they put two RIGHTWINGWINGERS on after a dem debate to "analyze" it. Gergen and Schneider are too biased to give an opinion on ANYTHING pertaining to a democrat. Geesus....

Schneider was concise and closer to the mark.

when Judy "Pinched Face" Woodruff runs the show. I really, really wanted to slap her, many times (and I'm not a violent person).

Wonder if they'll be just as "pit bull" to bunkerboy IF he decides to debate? I can't see it. Were were they for the past few weeks in CA?

What mediawhores they both are. Absolutely sickening.

In spite of it all, I thought everyone I heard on the radio on the way home handled her pretty well - every single one of them - even holy joe. Got to strengthen their interview/debate muscles pretty well and it showed.

Really surprised at Gephardt. Pleasantly surprised. Did he get a transplant of new balls? Where was he for the past 2 years!

ALmost everyone had both good and bad moments except Dennis, Al & Mosely-Braun - they never missed a beat. Too bad they'll never win the office, let alone the nomination.

i remember when she was in Austin during the florida debacle - had friends who waited on her, others who sat at tables near her - she was, umm, unpleasant. Ever since I've watched her reporting closely - she's got a real authoritarian streak - generally grinds a pub axe.

why can't we get a democratic press person to moderate - hell, make Cronkite do it. We're the ones that are watching - we're the audience.

The poor thing looks like doom and gloom all the time. You'd think she just came from a funeral. :evilfrown:

rolling her eyes?:eyes: I did, I know I saw it!
She'd ask the question and then she didn't want to let them answer it. Did you hear her repuke line to Gephardt about how he wanted to raise the taxes on the middle class? disgusting!

What needs to happen is the debates need to be taken out of the hands of the corporatist media!

CNN's debate framing stunk and there's no way I left it on to hear the talking heads yap at me about what I should or should not think about the debate!

I think they all did a good job and I do like Al he made me clap and so did Braun.
Al's got class and he showed it when he spoke about hearing stories like Edwards and it gives people HOPE I cheered for his words and the class he showed.

I loved it when Braun made her woman empowering statement about how the men had messed it up and it was time to give a woman a chance!
She get's a shout out from me on that one! Woman Power! I like it :) Braun has a grace to her that shines out, at least that's what I get from her. I just like her :)

Gephardt looked good as did Kerry Dean Edwards and Clark. I have to be upfront and say I don't like Joe but I've seen him do worse and I don't think he did bad tonight.

I loved the Kerry line about getting prescriptions from 'boil boy's' housekeeper hee! hee! oh and the one about the leaker good one.

I do like Edwards (home boy!) and I do think the WH is scared of him he's got it. He's got what Clinton had it may not be his time now but he's got it! I got a lot of respect for people that come from where he came from the topper is he took getting out and doing better than his parents did and gives back! Edwards didn't just settle for a C and he used his skills he 'Earned' and used them as a lawyer for justice, fighting for children that where harmed beyond ever having a normal life.
He wouldn't be a corporatist President if he got the nod. I also gotta admit it sure is nice to hear someone speak to the whole country in a Southern accent that isn't a mean spirited biggot like say Lott or Sessions or Helms! I hope it sends a message out to the country that we all aren't a buncho' redneck selfish goober heads! ;)

Kucinich my choice I loved hearing about his Peace Plan and I think he did good although I don't think he got enough chances to speak and there are others that I thought the same about that just goes back to the crummy platform that CNN had.

One other thing I think Judy was crummy towards Clark as was Candy<----the worst.
Candy only used half of what he said out of an article could she be anymore obvious?

Dean I like him I think I've seen him do better but I still think there where times that he had it tonight!

Gosh, sorry for the long yap on my part. I hope it's better than listening to the CNN yap heads which I suspect had a hay day trashing our candidates :)

I am despondent again...

The more they debate, the more diluted the message becomes...

I haven't seen it yet, but it sounded like one giant clusterfuck, even accounting for the DU bias. Too many debaters, and 'moderators' who might be a little light in the qualifications department. Reduce the field and reduce the problems.

three three-person round-table debates of 20 minutes each with a panel of debate experts picking the winner of each and then for the last half hour had the three winners go against each other.

Would that add a little interest and shed a bit more light.

Even better if they made it a "Steel Cage Match" and had Vince McMahon moderate it, but I digress.

I wouldn't know where or HOW to begin to do that and I've been here over a year now! :D

I was impressed with the candidates and am somewhat baffled by the negativism. All the candidates made solid strikes on Bush. Guess what people, these people are COMPETING. They all want to be President, and one of them will be. I want to see more and more debates because they demonstrate to the American people just how much more lucid, intelligent, and impressive our candidates are than Bush.

There are differences between them. But they are all well spoken and on the right track.

The corporate right wing media is to blame here, IMO. Yes, we have too many candidates, but when we have Repukes moderating the debates, I think Bush will often be the winner.

I think that Kerry had another impressive outing.

Honestly, every time I watch this guy, I like him less and less. That little exchange involving Dean was just pathetic.

But worst of all was that lame ass response to the question about Iraq.

Question: If you had proof that Iran was about to start building nuclear weapons and you went to the UN but it refused to do anything about it, would you be willing to act on your own?

Answer: I disagree with the premise of your question.

BEEEEEEP! WRONG ANSWER.

Let me get this straight -- you have PROOF -- that Iran is going to star buildnig NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The U.S. has the ability to stop them from buildng those weapons. You have tried the diplomatic route, to no avail. You've exhausted your options in the UN. So what do you do?

Well, if you're John Kerry, you disagree with the premise of the question. That's what you do.

And you honestly want this guy to be president?

but he either comes across as arrogant or a cold fish. And, his jokes are really "off." They aren't funny and sound more like snipes than good hearted humor.

about "belief" like bunkerboy whistleass did.

It was a blatent attempt to give bunker boy a pass and he did well by not accepting the bait.

As the general has said...he's learned not to talk about hypotheticals...and that's what this was, folks...a hypothetical.

Kerry did well, here...and several other places...but he still comes across in a most irritating way sometimes.

I thought Gephardt did well tonight, even though he's not my top choice. Clark and Sharpton were too vague at times. The others seemed to do reasonably well -- at least as well as they could given the abysmal debate format.

Clark is the only one near him now, Graham was there, and I am talking about foreign policy.

..how Judy Woodruff ambushed Dean with Kerry campaign talking points? Man that was bad. Dean looked pissed. I would be too, whats up with the moderator taking talking points from the "spin" room DURING the debate?

Is CNN shilling for Kerry and the establishment?

given the format. I love hearing all of them, and they are getting better and better since that first puny debate so many months ago. They need the practice. sheesh.........:shrug:

another disgraceful thread.

;-) Some here have been converted.......some take longer.

I didn't see much of anything tonight (except perhaps for that brief moment when Edwards pulled a Clinton and started bonding with a questioner) that made me feel any better about our chances.

I saw a debate that consisted largely of petty snipes between the candidates and shameless appeals to interest groups.

To deal with Junior's next campaign in Syria.... saying we can't wait til '04.

They didn't direct a question to him the rest of the evening....

From an elitist Ivy League liberal, as a caveat, but...

They all did well, given the idiotic format which appeared to allow exactly 30 seconds to reply to even the most complex questions and in which there was no fair distribution of questions, but an arbitrary free for all in which sometimes you were allowed a comment or rebuttal and sometimes you weren't.

Nonetheless, silly format and media bias aside, they all aquitted themselves admirably. Lieberman pissed me off at one point attacking somebody, but then said how great they all were. Edwards came off very well. Clark was hammered with questions about his inconsistencies much more so than any of the others. Kerry strikes me as very thoughtful and serious and articulate, but I worry that he just doesn't connect. Dean still needs to hone his television skills. Gephardt did better than other appearances I've seen, he seems to be getting on the anti-Bush bandwagon with more conviction, but still creeps me out by mentioning his kid with cancer. Kucinich is hot and cold, he says some great things, but bulldogs his opponents in an unpleasant way.

The "unserious" candidates like Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich were given charity questions so they had air time but were not challenged like the front runners. Dean was hammered a little more thna the others (except for maybe Clark), so it seemed as if you were ahead in the polls, you got more criticism and tougher questions.

a movie, playing with playstation or surfing...
Unfortunately most can't sit and watch anything for very long and if they did...they would have thought Woodruff was a corporate whore.

...I would have decoded Jeff Greenfield's question and outed him, then correct him on what the Party is about.

What the guy was asking about, in code, was the fact that supposedly much of middle America is freaked out about gays let alone gay marriage, is still uncomfortable with minorities, and is traditionally religious. The Democratic Party -- so say those who would seek to fragment and weaken it -- has turned away from their natural base -- hard working people and working people who are getting the shaft -- and focus more attention on "fringe" interest groups.

Hell -- here was an important moment to get to be the front-runner and the next president -- and no one caught on to how this was a loaded question, and no one was prepared to give a magnificent, unifying answer. Boy -- what a missed opportunity -- to denounce the lies of the Reich AND to make a grand declaration as to the nature and goals of our Party!

Sooner or later -- SOMEONE has got to address this issue. It was a sneaky question -- but if these guys can't respond to sneaky mean-spirited questions by thinking on their feet, how the HELL are they going to stand up to the heavy artillery that Mr Rove has in store for them when they go up against his precious pet monkey? I am not saying this to be nasty, because I respect all of the candidates -- I mean this as constructive criticism, because they MUST be ready to go up against all the power of the Reich and their attack dogs!

That's exactly what Greenfield was saying - and yes, it was a freaking batting practice lob - and NO ONE jumped on it. They were too busy thinking about how to shoehorn their scripted 'i came here to say the following' 3x5s into their 10 minutes.

Only Al seemed to be there without any scripting - and he performed better than most of the others on stage. Campaign HQs need to take note - if this isnt a standard debate format then bringing standard debate tactics to the game dont work.

You managed to sink lower than Faux - and that's no mean feat.
Faux had the hecklers planted in the audience - yours were on the moderators' podium.
Judy Woodruff reminded me of a school teacher I had in the 5th grade who hated me and never
let me finish a sentence.
Jeff Greenfield's questions were like Rush Limbaugh rants - long , vicious and unsourced.
Judy Woodruff insistence that Bush not be criticized revealed your bias. Shame on you!

would lay waste to Shrubster in a one-on-one.

Every one of our nine standouts shows up GWB for the dolt he is.

Why would you try to cast this debate as a win for a dumbass who can't stumble his way thru a teleprompter speech?

There's no way you can have nine people fighting for one job and not have them say something to one another that isn't polite. Once the Democrats decide on their nominee, he or she will represent all nine of the perspectives now up there fighting it out.
The one who should be scared IS George W Bush. The Little Turd from Crawford knows he's not competent enough to read a TelePrompTer without sounding like a frustrated third-grader, let alone argue with one of the nine Democrats without peeing in his hand-stitched cowboy boots.

The image of the unelected moron going mano-a-mano with a Democrat for 90 minutes is a most happy one. The idea of a debate with Kerry brings up a most special future — for it conjures images of a small minded man driven to acknowledge his incompetence or criminality as commander-in-chief. The debate would end with Bushler giving a "hoot hoot" sound, jumping down from behind the podium,dragging his hairy knuckles past his lovely wife, Pickles, and to the semi-kindly Babs, who would cast a leery eye toward John Kerry, the man responsible for bringing her monkey boy to tears.

Thanks for cheering me up, DemLikr

You too, dolstein! How's Holy Joe doing in the South these days?

...by that rationale, Gore would have killed Bush. But he didn't. Because he "sighed" and the public is stupid, and listens to the media and does that ever the media suggests.

Debates have nothing to do with the content of the debate. Debates let the media provide the spin and that, that, THAT my dear friends is what the public base their decisions on. :)

Our guys are idiots for letting Republicans make the rules.

Republicans would never let Democrats do that. Look what Arnold did in California - he only went to the one debate where he made the rules and where they had a Republican politician as the moderator.

If Democrats are stupid enough to ass kiss the right wing media, then they are going to get the kick in the teeth from the right wingers that they asked for.

It's stupidity.

you're focussing on the negative.

You mention the crappy Greenfield question but you don't mention the great answers. That's your problem, you must want to be bummed out.

The Clark/Republican thing is a huge and valid issue, I don't see any problem with Woodruff asking about it, and I didn't notice anything wrong with the way she asked it.

Finally, why does anyone have to stand out?

I thought they ALL did well- even Dick & Holy Joe...

I would like to them critcise each other much less though. having said that, no one went too far out of bounds either...

made them all look like weak....she and cnn are crude $2 bushco whores
did you really expect anything else knowing who the mediators were?