In my opinion it was Kucinich. I don't agree with his politics, but I sure as heck respect his commitment to his principles. The rest of them are "politics as usual" - (except Gravel, who I've never heard of before last night).
Hillary Clinton will say anything she has to. Now she's saying she only supported the war because Bush said he'd go to the UN and have inspectors sent back in to search for WMD. If that were true, she'd have raised her voice in April 2003. She didn't back off her support for the war until 2005.
Obama and Edwards are smooth talkers, but they really don't "say" anything. Edwards made me cringe when he told us his dad, who was sitting in the audience, couldn't afford to buy them dinner at a diner after church one day. Imagine being his dad? Everyone turns and looks..... "really, you were so poor you couldn't feed your kids?"
2007-04-27 04:46:15 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The best thing Gravel said was "...the rest of these guys up here SCARE me!"
He also rightly pointed out that the Democrats, in control of Congress, could end the Iraq War with one vote: make it illegal to keep the troops there, and he offered to give the Senate leadership the text of a bill to do it.
2007-04-27 04:53:51 · update #1
I understand what edwards was getting at with the father being poor story -- but nobody wants to sit in a room full of people and have his son tell them he was a financial failure who couldn't afford to buy a hot dog for his kid at a diner. It was also an unlikely story. He said his dad had them all go into the diner to eat, but said they all had to get up and leave because he couldn't afford to pay the prices on the menu. Does that sound likely to anyone? I mean, was he oblivious to food prices and shocked to see how much a burger cost? I doubt it. I bet his dad forgot his wallet or something, and that's why he couldn't afford to buy that meal. Politicians are glorified resume' embellishers....
2007-04-27 04:57:10 · update #2
For those scoffing at actually having listened or watched the debate, and for those who claim it was a waste of time, etc. If you are a Republican or oppose the democrats, then that is ALL THE MORE REASON to watch their debates. There's not much to be gained from listening to someone you agree with reaffirm your already held beliefs. There is a lot of learning and thinking that can be done when someone expresses contrary views, and if you want to be able to debate with your friends and neighbors effectively, and persuade them that they are supporting the wrong group, you better know what the democrats actually say and believe.
2007-04-27 04:59:34 · update #3
The most alarming thing was the basic response they all gave to the question about "what if the US was attacked in two cities simultaneously and you knew for a fact that it was Al Qaeta that did it -- what would you do?"
And they all fumbled around with that and came up with elaborate answers about "strengthening the intelligence community and strengthening the borders and making sure that the intelligence was correct," and all that.
It took Governor Richardson to chime in (in answer to a different question) to say, unequivocally, that he would attack militarily the culprits.
2007-04-27 05:02:42 · update #4
As for the questions being given in advance... if they were given them in advance, then I am VERY disappointed in the answers, and much more concerned than I was about the field of Democratic candidates.
As for having the American people ask them questions... the average American trying to ask a coherent question is like asking a blind man to describe what the color orange is like. All you usually get are questions like "what makes you think you can identify with the average American" or "there are potholes out in front of my house, what are you going to do about them," followed by "boxers or briefs?"
2007-04-27 05:21:20 · update #5
Dennis Kucinich did do the best job in the debate, I agree. The others embarrassed themselves.
2007-05-01 11:10:49 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To me last nite the debate was funny. Gravel put a lil humor in the light. I just wish that they talked more about natural crisis and attacks. I wanted to know how they would have handle them. I know that we need a change. I hop that Obama or Mrs. Clinton wins the election.
I think that they can really make a change. They think fast on their feet.
Gravel scares me. He is so blunt about things. I never heard of him before! Being that I am from SC, I know about Mr. Edwards. He is pretty good, too. So the 3 that I think will go head to head with be Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. We need a little youth and opened- mindedness in the seat now. I think that they will try and listern to the people.
But the best line of the nite was by Gravel, "Who in the hell would you nuc?" (spell wrong)
2007-04-27 05:47:18 · answer #2 · answered by funoburgmom 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was really impressed with Gravel and Kucinich, although I know that there is no chance in ---- that either will get the nomination. It's too bad because they both are coming from the right place and genuinely would do what's best for this country. I do think Edwards has strong values, but he comes across as too weak. As a woman, I'd love to see a woman elected as President, but not Hillary. Obama? He is very young and still needs some years behind him. There is something to be said for the wisdom of age and years of experience.
2007-04-27 04:59:06 · answer #3 · answered by Betty M 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You call that a debate? A bunch of politicians getting thrown "softball" questions from a journalists (not the people) that they have been told about days before the actual "debate"?
I say they go back to that diner where Edwards father couldn't afford to pay the bill & let the people in that diner (w/o any warning) ask those politicans the questions.
2007-04-27 05:11:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
i agree about kucinich, finally there's a politician who will stand his ground. it's a shame that the others can't be like him. i have mixed feelings about clinton, i'm not sure yet just what i think of her. i didn't know edward's dad was in the audience, how embarassing that must have been for him. but i do respect edwards honesty about his upbringing, and i think a lot of the lower class people will identify with him more than any of the other candidates because of that.
2007-04-27 05:02:00 · answer #5 · answered by LoriBeth 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you about most things you said. Kucinich did do a good job expressing his views. Obama was a disappointment, with his little speech about war with Iran. Gravel was hilarious, never saw him before either. I think John Edwards did OK and I don't think it was horrible that he told that story about his father being poor. It shows how incredibly hard his father worked to make him a succesful young man and how hard he worked to be successful himself.
2007-04-27 04:53:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
HILLARY CLINTON. HANDS DOWN. THOUGH THE OTHERS WERE NOT BAD.
2007-05-03 17:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by 10-T3 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mike Gravel he was great!
2007-04-27 04:50:45 · answer #8 · answered by perrrfection 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
OBAMA .. may look relaxed but you always study the prey before you pounce..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18300340/
2007-04-27 06:55:04 · answer #9 · answered by 2008 matters 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I thought Biden did great. I was not a fan, but he did well last night.
2007-04-27 04:51:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋