Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think this guy explains last nights debate pretty well. Not exact. But close

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 11:03 AM
Original message
I think this guy explains last nights debate pretty well. Not exact. But close
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13612.html

I watch debates, so you don’t have to

* Obama has really grown as a candidate in recent months. In the early debates, he’d respond to every question with generalities, painting every issue with a broad brush. There were a lot of “ums” and “uhs,” as he collected his thoughts. He’d start almost every sentence with, “Look…” Not anymore. Last night, I thought he missed a couple of opportunities, but he demonstrated a lot of policy expertise. Gone are the generalities; Obama backed his opinions up with details.

* You know who had a good night? Dennis Kucinich. In the other debates, I could practically recite his soundbites along with him as he robotically repeated them for the 400th time. Last night, he actually sounded like a human being. When Wolf Blitzer noted that he was the only person on the stage to vote against the Patriot Act, he didn’t hesitate: “That’s because I read it.” He even mixed it up, effectively, with Edwards on China policy. It was the first time this year when I was marginally glad Kucinich was on the stage.

* Bill Richardson said at one point that human rights are, at times, more important than American national security. That probably wasn’t a smart thing to say. Chris Dodd followed up with the right answer: “Well, obviously national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20th, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously, yes, all right?”

* If most of the attacks were geared towards Clinton in Philly, most of the attacks were geared towards Edwards last night. He can reasonably make the case that this was a positive development — he’s important enough to go after.

* The last question of the night was whether Clinton preferred diamonds or pearls. I like the occasional off-beat query, but c’mon. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

* Watching the Dems debate is a reminder of just much more impressive these guys are than the Republican presidential field. These seven knew policy, cared about details, and engaged in substantive back-and-forth discussions, without mindless soundbites. If Dems are the New England Patriots, the Republicans are a Pop Warner team.

Ultimately, last night was largely forgettable. There were no huge mistakes, no knock-out punches. It’s hard to imagine the debate changed anyone’s mind about who to support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think that the two best debaters in the race
are the two "fringe" candidates on each side. Dennis and Ron Paul. They are both well read and details guys with alot of experience and their own brand of disarming charm. I think that is always the story though and just proves that no body but us junkies actually pay attention to the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think you are half right
Dennis, yes - Ron? I have seen him on C-Span at local campaign events and calling Ron Paul either well read or a detail guy might be technically true but what he makes out of his reading and the detailed things he recalls come together in some of the most absurd nonsense ever uttered by a candidate for office - with the exception of the other absurd nonsense uttered by the other dozen or so Republican wanna-be Presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, Dodd made a fairly big mistake, if you have him quoted right.
Edited on Fri Nov-16-07 11:14 AM by Dhalgren
The oath is not in two parts (unless you count "foreign and domestic" as two) and "country" is not mentioned. It is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Dodd should know better. The question is simple there is no difference between Human Rights and national security - they are the same thing...


edit to add - here is the Oath of Office for the President of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-16-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Many people decided to look a second time at Joe Biden..He was great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC