In the recent debates the Analysts and majority of Viewers thought Joe Bidden knew most about the issues.
'Best Response', Bidden and Dodd each got one analyst's vote, while Edwards got popular vote and the remaining analyst's vote.
'Most Surprising Performance', Edwards received one analyst's vote while Obama got the remaining two and popular vote.
'Participant whose campaign benefited most', two analysts gave specific accolades to Obama's response and he also won popular vote. One analyst said, "Clinton's camp has to be pleased".
'Most Creative campaign video' saw analysts split between Obama, Dodd and Richardson while Obama won the popular vote.
Total results relating to: knowledge, response, performance, recognition and creativity
Clinton, 1
Richardson, 1
Dodd, 2
Edwards, 3
Bidden, 5
Obama, 8
The only positive vote she got was for having pleased her camp by throwing out 'red meat' especially in regards to the 2000 campaign'. We need a candidate to address today's issues
2007-07-25 19:31:27 · 5 answers · asked by Caretaker 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I apologize for forgetting the link. Sorry
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate/results.html
2007-07-25 19:58:54 · update #1
Do you have a link to this? If so, this is really stupid. How can people not see through this crap?
On the Democrat side, Mike Gravel, and Biden make the most sense, and seem the best choices to me.
EDIT: From the link, it was most definitely stupidity. Clinton's eyes dart around when talking, but look at nothing. Her lips move, but none of it is believable, and a lot of it is contradictory to her prior statements. When she gets applause, you can see in her face she craves attention and approval and her expression changes. It's subtle, but watch it.
Dodd's voice gets higher and higher/louder as he answers, Kucinich looks like an alien, but confident. Gravel makes the most sense, and has a right to be as angry as he is, with the tiny amount of response time, and softball questions. Biden won. Gravel should be pondered. The rest, not contenders. Richardson was funny at the very end, but this isn't a comedy or popularity contest, don't make promises you can't keep.
2007-07-25 19:41:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He,what can I say,Blowed them away...Just like the Red Meat,if you leave it there long enough,they,ll Bit.
We need a Campaign thats in reguards to all people
in our Country.And a candidate to bring this public out cry,
back. NO more self promotion! One nation under Who?
Please let the People back in goverment. We ran it once
or twice before.
Remenber-Truth,Honor,an Respect those are now the
TOP POLE RUNNERS. So now YOU be the Analsts.
It,s talk no Homework, Just Buy it...
2007-07-26 03:25:45 · answer #2 · answered by toy2toy33 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Easy, the cards were stacked in her favor. Everyone knows she's going to get the nomination, so why all the fuss? As long as she doesn't get the White House, I don't care.
2007-07-25 19:40:29 · answer #3 · answered by C J 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you don't think this has something to do with policy do you? hillary's got the unlimited corporate funding and total media backing. it's over baby
2007-07-25 19:48:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
She's good with lots of experince....it's her game and she knows how to play it like the pro she is. I trust her with the game of politics as she knows the rules.
2007-07-25 19:50:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋