I watched the entire debate twice last night

[hey2370]

Lieberman whined less than usual. Though the "I'm a bulldog! Grrrr!" act was a complete joke to anyone who watched the guy give up in Florida circa 2000.

Braun was great. I love it when anyone calls the Congress out for letting Presidents start wars, but I also understand Kerry's reasoned defense. That was probably my favorite part of the debate.

Clark had some really great rhetoric about not invading countries and stealing their resources. He lost me on the force structure stuff, but if he loses and Dean wins, Dean would be an idiot if he doesn't put him in charge of making the sow's ear that is Bush's Iraq into a silk purse. The guy would obviously be better than Bremer at that job.

Dean had a nice little speech about the important subjects that were not covered because of the incompetence of Koppel's questions, although I thought the candidates answer first question was shocking to the extreme ("raise your hand if you think Dean can beat Bush"). Incredible stuff. Are all the other guys so self-centered/deluded that they don't think anyone but themselves can beat Bush? C'mon, Dennis, Sharpton, Carol. If you think you could possibly beat Bush (why else would you be running, right?), how come you think Dean's much more successful campaign (so far) is not equally as viable as your campaign? That was scary. If Dean is the candidate against Bush, anybody have an over/under how many of these candidates will endorse Bush or the Green Party candidate?

Sharpton made a facile point about Iraq that shows he would either make poor decisions as President or ,more likely, his rhetoric would change when elected. "If they break into your house and you call the cops, and the cops tell the burglars they can stay in the house, that's just like wanting to do anything besides just leave Iraq immediately". It got a lot of applause, but c'mon. Everybody has to know that even if Kucinich is elected, our troops are going to be in Iraq for at least a year waiting for UN/NATO negotiations and troops. And his shot at Gore acting like a boss was so classless I almost couldn't believe it. Al Gore keepin' the black man down, Rev? Is he plotting to keep minorities from voting in the South now? That was so offensive as to be surreal.

Edwards was right about us needing representation. It's not his message that is failing, he is just not the right guy at the right time, I think. Maybe he just looks too young or people can't see past his looks.

Kucinich was ok. He had a ton of good points about how Bush has managed the Iraq situation to enrich his political supporters.

Kerry was good about MTBE, but what the heck was up with the "get the pope, mullahs, etc. together" stuff? Maybe they could play poker Wednesday nights, this week the Vatican, next week Mecca? It just sounded like a strange idea to me, I guess. Maybe requiring the anti-Islam righties to spend six months living with Muslim families would do more good. And make for some GREAT reality TV!

[papau]

1. Joe dumps on Gore - then is "hurt" that he did not call

More than a year ago, Mr. Lieberman took the occasion of a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist party organization of which he is a prominent member, to say essentially that Mr. Gore had blown the 2000 election by sounding too liberal. Mr. Lieberman, in a meeting with reporters, suggested that Mr. Gore, in using the theme, "We're for the people, they're for the powerful," had harmfully reminded voters of the party's liberal, New Deal roots with divisive rhetoric that Republicans call class warfare.

Mr. Lieberman's remarks were taken by some Democrats as rank ingratitude by the Connecticut senator to the man who, with some potential risk, had made him the first Jewish politician on a major party national ticket. But policy rather than pique probably was at the core of Mr. Gore's decision to endorse Dr. Dean.
Gore's blessing
Jules Witcover
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.witcover10dec10,0,4428015.column?coll=bal-home-columnists

[eissa]

2. I watched it twice also

I've always been a political junkie, but this year....WHOA! My hatred (yes, I said that!) for this administration has gotten me fired up really early this time! I share most of your sentiments, but I disagree with your assessment that DK was just "ok" -- I thought he won the debate last night, and thought Kerry did really well also.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I watched the debate 3 times...and I saw something you didn't

"Dean had a nice little speech about the important subjects that were not covered"

First Dean was corrected for his exaggeration as to how much time the debate was abour Iraq. So that point was incorrect.

Then Kucinich had an even better comeback to that whine Dean gave. He said that the war in Iraq is the issue, as it's this war that has drained our treasury and will not allow us to really deal with most domestic issues....because there is no money.

Needless to say, if Kucinich won the debate, which many are saying, then Dean's point was countered in a very effective way.

Furthermore, there was a question Dean was asked that many have conveniently erased from their memory banks.....question to Dean, "when is it alright for the President to LIE to THE American People?"

It thought for sure Dean was going to say "never". But instead be mushed his way to an inadequate answer by answering in a real strange and inept way....even had to have the question repeated to him initially. Then he searched around and came up with....Maybe about a National security matters?

Bottomline is that there is never a time that lying to the American people is justified.....period! A President has the option of omitting information.....but to justify lying.....

So if Dean is a candidate of the people, for people power sake, why did he answer that lying to them was ok?

That's how he lost this debate....apart from his bumbling answer on what he would do in Iraq.....do it like Afghanistan....then muddled his way through some jumbled talk to arrive at less than anyone would have expected.

Those who feel like Dean peformed well at this debate, were looking at the debates through some kind of filter.

It's called lying to yourself.

[hey2370]

4. Dean was pragmatically correct, as usual

If someone asked Dean if Wilson's wife was CIA, he should tell the truth? If he was asked if US forces are about to capture bin Laden, he should answer in the affirmative if it is the case?

There are possible situations where the President should have latitude, all of which have to avoiding deaths of American citizens.

The reason I say Kucinich was just okay was because he doesn't seem to see the pragmatic reality of the mess Bush has created in Iraq. Just my opinion. He didn't refute Dean's points about Koppel's questions, he just amplified them, or maybe Dean amplified his points. Either way, I don't see those two candidates as being as far apart on that issue as you do. And c'mon, Koppel refuting the time comment was lame. If it wasn't Iraq, it was endorsements or money, which should be even less important to American voters than the candidates hashed-out Iraq positions.

ON EDIT: Would you want your chosen candidate to endorse the Green Party candidate or Bush if Dean is the Dem candidate? Just curious, because you really seem to dislike Dean.

[AP]

6. I missed the debate. Kucinich definitely sounded best in NPR coverage.

He won the post-debate media spin.

[hey2370]

9. I really don't think any of them won outright

All of them did very well, and made good points.

Kerry was dramatically better than he has been in the other debates (maybe good enough to make him competitive with Dean in NH), as was Braun, maybe because she got more speaking time. I came away feeling Braun has been shafted to some extent in the past debates. She is really an admirable lady with some valuable ideas.

In my opinion, Dean did just okay, as well. I enjoyed his foray into Iraqi constitutional ideas (despite several minor gaffes), and I loved it that he brought up Sistani (not by name but by inference). Shows he does his homework. His explanation of his why Bush should open up to the 9/11 investigators was right (to avoid a Kennedy-assassination type cottage industry of conspiracy theories), but again would have been more powerful if he would have said "Kean commission" instead of "Kane commision". Dean is much like Bush in that you have to see through the gaffes to understand what he is saying, with the difference that Dean is trying to make valid intellectual arguments.

Lieberman would be my choice for the worst performance, but only because I really don't like him as a candidate. I would still want all of the candidates to endorse him if he won, though, and I would vote for him versus Bush.

[RetroLounge]

7. Must be nice in the world you live in.

So do you think if Clark was asked a question that could endanger american lives, he wouldn't lie?

Right...

Welcome back to the real world.

Dean's answer was right on. It was an attemptem "gotcha" question, and he deflected it honestly. Get over it.

[Jim Sagle]

8. The only liar here is you, not Dean. He did fine.

[bitchkitty]

11. I heartily agree! n/t

[sendero]

12. Lots of people

>>>Bottomline is that there is never a time that lying to the American people is justified.....period! A President has the option of omitting information.....but to justify lying.....

There are many people who feel that a lie of omission is no less repugnant than an overt verbal falsehood. In many situations, failing to disclose a key piece of information is nothing more than a lie.

You choose to interpret Dean's comment one way, and I'll choose another.

[dwckabal]

5. Is it just me,

or in every debate has Lieberman used Sharpton as foil for some kind of "talk to God" joke? That is really annoying, and not very funny at all.

[LauraT28]

10. I missed it...

Is there a transcript somewhere?