ABC now. Official Thread # 1 Democratic Forum.

on Pakistan

There is a difference between being a President and a Senator, Joe, and in the aftermath of the Bush disaster, the next President will be facing things that no other President has faced before.

All new Presidents go through on the job training. Joe Biden is delusional.

much more prepared than Bush. He is thoughtful, cleaver, likable,and smart. However,I'm not anywhere close to selecting a political favorite. I'm blocked/distracted with all the ridiculous excuses that are coming out of Washington.

To prepare for the debate, he rode the bumper cars at the state fair.

qualified to be president.

Canidates doing a bit better in actually answering the substance of questions.

Dodd is really a statesman, smart and balanced. He said that a president can not make change without being able to work with Congress

Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel. I heard a rumor that they actually may have some ideas about issues affecting our country. But I can't confirm it because ABC, like all the other media outlets in this country won't give them a whole lot of free airtime. And that needs to change.

I have it on but can't watch.

Hard to tell by the coverage, but they were there. And Kucinich actually "thanked" Stephanapolous for calling on him. "I've been standing up here for an hour. Thanks for calling on me George", or something to that effect.

and brought the house down.

interrupt two nights of Extreme Makeover and Desperate Housewives to put on the GOP and Dem Debates. ABC sucks. Everyone watches the debate at a different time.

All Debates should be only PBS and C-Span. All of them.

I was going nuts looking all over for it. Bleh.

What happened to this guy at the Clinton White House that turned him into such a despicable slimeball?

It appears Stephanopoulos' only goal in this debate is to fan the flames of discord between Clinton and Obama. I have no respect for him.

plays it safe most of the time.

. . .

is the most dangerous game in town."

Robert Pante

ABC insists that I be preached at from Houston instead of watching the candidates.

plan---says need to get rid of Pharm and Insur taking the money

No follow ups on their policy statements.

MKJ

What an idiot. I just turned it back.

Hillary Clinton is less experienced than Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd, and no more experienced than Obama and Edwards.

Dennis Kucinich offers the greatest combination of experience and change, if that's what you're looking for, not Hillary Clinton.

Why are they asking Dodd? What about asking Obama? Who cares what they think? Are you f'ing kidding me? This debate is about beating up Obama????????

Hillary Clinton is no more experienced than Obama is.

Dennis Kucinich should have a bumper sticker that reads, "Kucinich - More experience and change than Hillary Clinton."

Since the candidates rarely directly attack each other, they had to do something to try and stir up trouble. Therefore, the netwoks and neocons could then say, "See? They can't even agree with each other?" Ok ok, it's just a theory. I have no proof of my theory, but it does make a little bit of sense.

Started off terrible with about 15 minutes on hearing how inexperienced Obama is. Kucinich finally got a question after that.

Gravel just got more annoying as the debate wore on.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

they keep talking about Pakistan being a hypothetical ... Obama just pointed out IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL!! but everyone just ignores the obvious and goes right on with the talking point.

listening to the other candidates tell the audience how inexperienced he is.

I'm really enjoying hearing the policy questions being debated.

Edit: wow, apparently I'm alone in my opinion. Oh well. Isn't the first time.

to be unprepared for the tougher debates in the "big game." :hi:

What did anyone expect from ABC? They're worse than FOX by far.

As for Stepinacrockashit, he's an anti-Dem stooge just like everyone else on ABC. He's not a Clinton lackey, BTW, he's an RNC stooge who's fluffing Hillary now to help her get the nom so he can pound her in the general.

Calm, composed, Presidential. And don't think that I just cheer on John Edwards because I support the guy either.

some of his earlier debate positions.

MKJ

the time of need.

response to the silliness of that question.

He and Edwards both talked of prayer in allowing one to transcend personal grief and tragedy, as opposed to GS's implications that prayer can somehow prevent things like Katrina or the bridge collapse. MKJ

Very clever.

:-) MKJ

over who will get the most sympathy for losing a family member.

"stood by his statement."

I mean.... does anyone else get to speak???

Clinton hasn't beaten anyone, which is why the GOP took over Congress and gained and gained and gained seats in the House and Senate throughout the CLINTON PRESIDENCY, and during DLC-led campaign efforts.

If she "knows how to beat them," so much then the Clinton years and the DLC led campaigns wouldn't have resulted in so many lost seats to Republicans.

so you need someone who will bring in a greater majority otherwise it's the same ol same ol ---- of course with a Dem pres, it's a bit easier

That's one of the main reasons that I'm supporting him. This is about more than just squeaking a President into the White House. We need someone who can help Democrats pick up seats. Clinton would hurt Democrats in many areas of the country, which is why I'm so against her winning the nomination. It's about preventing damage that anyone should see coming.

I'm supporting Obama, but Edwards would also do that to some extent. I just think Obama has a broader appeal. Hillary, in my opinion, would lose us the WH -- but that's just my take.

people 18 to 29.

I think that Obama would have a hard time in a General Election, winning states other than Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and California.

The media might make it seem that way, but the crowds that come to his rallies are all ages. The people I know who are supporting Obama are over 35.

He might have more younger people volunteering for his campaign but his support is broad.

only 3 blacks have ever been elected to a statewide federal office (Senate), and any President would have to win more states than just Illinois and Massachusetts, I'd have to say, based on historical evidence, Obama would actually have less appeal than you think he does.

2 States - Illinois (Mosely-Braun and Obama) & Massachusetts (Edward Burke).

I don't think Obama would overcome those odds.

With that kind of logic, we might as well only nominate white men from the South. Sorry, but I'll stick with Obama. I think he would do a better job as President.

he's "too inexperienced." If establishment Democrats are saying that, you know Independents and Cons are going to not vote for him based on that false reason.

WISH would win in an ideal world is not always who CAN win. Ideally, I'd like to have a lot of non-career politicians who aren't wealthy representing us in Congress, but it's not going to happen. If we want a Democrat to win the next presidential election, we have to nominate one who can win in a landslide because of the electronic voting crap & not take any chances.... IMO.

"divisive," and by definition, divisive means "close election at best." Obama, I like the guy and believe that his time has always been 2016, but I know that he would lose in a landslide in 2008. Again, I base that on historical voting trends in this country. The electorate is changing, yes, but a much favorable electorate for Obama is 2016.

BROAD appeal... but I agree. He's very strong with the younger voters .. they know he really stands for change..and this is their future. The problem is getting them involved enough to actually get to the polls.

The other problem, for all candidates will be accurate vote counts. No one is talking about that much and that problem has not disappeared

The people at his rallies are mostly Democrats, curious people who won't all be supporting him come primary day, and less than 0.0000whatever percent of how many people will be participating in the primaries and caucuses.

Of course most people will be Democrats at the rallies. The same goes for all the Democratic candidates.

And there is polling that proves that Obama is favored by Independents and some Republicans as well.

The polling about Obama is suspect, considering the fact that there was one poll that showed that 30% didn't even know that he was black. So, I don't trust the polls about Obama. I look at what voters have actually done when it came time to vote, and how even though they said they would vote for a black candidate, on election day, they did not.

Only two states have done differently for a statewide federal office, and that's Illinois and Massachusetts. I could be wrong, they could prove me wrong. But I don't for one second trust that the American people would buck the past in 2008 and elect Obama President. The establishment Democrats are already trying to paint him as "inexperienced," and they are supposed to be Democrats, for crying out loud.

Most of the polls for Obama and Clinton right now are based on pretty favorable television coverage of them. That's all.

just this past november. Don't underestimate them. And I am 49 and am leaning toward Obama

:hi:

morning's debate he rode the bumper cars at the State Fair.

Very witty. :-) MKJ

Iraq.

So I guess Buddhists and Pagans need not apply. They really make me sick with this religious stuff.

And how is it no one mentioned that prayin' fool President, *, and whether his prayers held the levees in New Orleans, or whether he was praying while listening to My Pet Goat when the SECOND WTC tower was hit, or whether his praying helped us "liberate Iraq"?

I am really less interested in their "personal God" and their reliance on prayer, than on whether they will pay attention to what's going on, and whether they think the Constitution should be recycled into the NEW Wall Street Journal.

"Let's give Jesus a break and start doing the hard work." That would have been an answer.

Buddhists or pagans. The truth is most Christians believe that their faith is more about "relationship" than "religion."

The truth is also that most Americans want a Christian President because most Americans are Christians. They also want a President who believes in a God, because in a convoluted way, it means that that President doesn't believe that s/he is a God. It's a sign of "humility," to many Americans.

If you want to win an election, you can pull your hair out over the discussions of it all that you want to, but the Democrats have to show people that they aren't in fact, "Godless," as Ann Coulter suggests, and that they will not try to destroy religion, as Karl Rove propagated over the past 6.5 years. Americans have short memories, and they apparently don't remember that every Democratic President has also been a Christian, who didn't wear religion on their sleaves, but they didn't mind saying "God bless you," like Carter and Bill Clinton.

"The truth is also that most Americans want a Christian President because most Americans are Christians."

First of all, it's a little over the top to begin your comment with "The truth is" unless you've got the research link to back it up.

In my opinion, most Americans want a "Christian" President because they've been hammered with this issue, beginning with the Moral Majority nonsense 20 of so years ago. When the "Christian" right decided to use their congregations to gain power in the secular, political arena, they started a divisive war that aimed at "converting" American politics to Christianity, while lining their pockets with their members' money and falling prey to the ultimate corrupting influence--greed for power. "Greed for Power is the new Cocaine"; you find out how good it feels, and nothing else seems to matter.

As for Democrats defending themselves against the likes of Ann Coulter, give me a break. They should be pointing the finger right back at her, *, and the whole god dammed lot of Rethug hypocrites that spew their love for Jesus while lying, stealing, hating and killing their way to "Heaven". Doesn't one of their sacred texts say something like "By their deeds will you know them"?

And one of their great big lies, frequently perpetrated, is that our founding fathers were "Christians." Not true (and easily documented).

And you never heard me say anything about the "founding fathers" being Christians. Do you think most Americans are Christians just because they believe the founding fathers were?

There have been more than enough surveyes done over the years showing that Americans want a President who believes that there is a God, and if you think that a muslim or an atheist would have a chance of winning the Presidency in the United States any time in the near future, then you are speaking out of principle instead of honesty.

And no, I'm not going to go dig up a poll from anywhere, any more than I'm going to ask you for a citation of every piece of information that you've ever come across over your lifetime.

"The truth is, you know that it's the truth, as your angry response proves"

You aren't very teachable, are you? You infer that I am angry, and I am not. I would not waste anger on such a relatively benign, though lively, discussion. You affirm the "truth" of your statement by the fact that I strongly disagree with you. That is not logical, and displays poor reasoning skills. And speaking of things I did not say, I made no mention whatsoever to Muslims or Atheists, where did that come from anyway?

And you don't seem to be able to properly assimilate the comments of others. My statement about the founding fathers was made after I noted the tendency of the very "Christian" * administration to propagate lies (and in this case, as in many others, to attempt to rewrite history in the process); this example seemed relevant in light of the topic of discussion. Do I "think most Americans are Christians just because they believe the founding fathers were?" I said nothing of the sort; that would be silly, and stupid. What I did say was that the current crop of "Christian" fundamentalists that are holding the Constitution hostage would like you to believe that the United States has always been "Christian"; and that contention is disproved in pointing out that the architects of our governmental structure were not.

s, and want a President who believes that there is a God.

I'm still waiting. Since the electorate is that way, you can argue that it shouldn't be that way, but the Democrats would be stupid to try and run against that just because "you" don't think they should even be discussing religion.

and I do not have to prove the negative.

Once again, you have missed the point of my communication. I am beginning to suspect you of being a freeper.

most voters in the United States "are" Christians and do want a President, Democratic or whatever, who believes that there is a God.

What making that observation has to do with me, makes me "suspect" that you are the one missing the point, which is, if Democrats want to appeal to voters, they have to show that they are "comfortable" with religion.

I actually think a better Democratic strategy would be to stress religious freedom, as opposed to just trying to look like they are as "devoted" as the Republicans try to prove. They need to stress the fact that this country, in modern times, has always been a diverse nation with people of many faiths who lived and worked together to help make America great.

And that's the subtext of what the Democrats mean when they talk about religion, but they are getting sucked into a Rovian trap of trying to continue what Bush started as looking the "most Godly." What they need to instead be stressing is that while they have strong beliefs, as shown in yes, the fact that they pray and go to church, they understand that this is a country where many people have many religious beliefs or none at all, and that's okay, because we all love the United States.

That's what I think they should be doing, but I guess that makes me a "freeper," instead of someone who can make an observation without revealing how I "personally" feel about it. Apparently, you can't do the same.

I agree with most everything in the above post.

religion has a place individually, but why is specifics a part of a political discussion? How about character?

He gave some great responses to questions at this debate.

He's much stronger than I realized, earlier.

That in spite of George Stephy cutting him off too many
times to count!

What was up with that?!?

I could use a little help.

so I'm getting a preview of what's coming up ... :)

so also.

:applause:

The new XM channel, POTUS(130) will be replaying it for the next 24 hours. They also carried it live.

Also Cspan is going to repeat it a few times this evening (Sunday night).

these trade deals.

He knew they would result in lost American jobs, but as long as they resulted in corporate profits, like John Edwards said, the deals were good deals as far as Bush is concerned, because, like John Edwards said, the threshold question has been "are they good for corporate profits, instead of for American families and their jobs."

Because the Christian god owns a lot of stock, and loves the Corporations more than families, and children, and the planet itself.

Apparently, you seem to believe that me stating that is more about me than about what most Americans believe, which reflects poorly on your intelligence.

Your aspersions are, once again, unfounded.

they show his wife.

:wtf:

LOL

I love Kucinich.

Dark bug and white hair do not mix.

J

at www.abcnews.com

I voted "no one- i'm waiting for Gore"