2007-08-08 23:48:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Maybe they're mutual Master Debators? You know, give a friend a hand.
2007-08-09 01:13:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They're all full of distortion and would jeopardize the welfare of the United States if elected.
They are master deceivers, not "master debaters."
It's a disgrace that Obama was ever elected by Illinois liberals to U.S. Senate, over another decent black candidate that they could have chosen. That was an act of betrayal.
Edwards is a cunnng trial lawyer who has the demeanor of a laughing hyena, wheras Hillary has already been in the White House for 8 years as a part of the hideous Clinton regime.
Her running to get back into the White House is a way of skirting the Constitution in order to resurrect the rule of this corrupt pair, in my opinion.
2007-08-08 23:51:14 · answer #2 · answered by Joseph C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Edwards is a shrewd attorney and I have found him to be the best debater. Hillary and Obama are actually behind Edwards and Joe Biden in my opinion when it comes to substance. Rehashing campaign speeches is not debating.
2007-08-08 23:52:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The divisive nature of the two campaigns would perhaps reason irreparable harm to the social gathering. the shortcoming of management via Howard Dean had created this mess and allowing this sham to proceed purely demonstrates the shortcoming of the social gathering to take in charge movements. Edwards lacks the credentials to be President and Al Gore is so tied up in himself that he would sense being President would be a step decrease than him now. i think of the Clinton prolonged family contributors won't in any respect take something decrease than the nomination. The Republicans will somewhat take exhilaration in bashing whichever candidate gets the nomination.
2016-12-15 09:58:49 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess that depends what standard you use. If you are looking at style and playing to the crowd, Obama has it all. If you want substance, youd have to look to Biden, as much as that pains me to say.
How sad are the Democrats when the only one making any sort of sense is Joe Biden. Scary.
Oh, and no one wants to lay a hand on Hillary. Not even Bill.
2007-08-08 23:59:36 · answer #5 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter anyway cuz the elections are all rigged. They all say that Americans' votes count but yet if that were true then the winner would be a winner by public majority. Gee a coincidence that Bush was elected president and his brother was also elected governor in a major scandal at the same time? Hah. I think not. If we really had a choice of who would become the next president then there wouldn't be a need for the Electoral College. So if we have so much say then why does the Electoral College still exist? Hmm...somethin smells fishy to me.
2007-08-09 00:07:31 · answer #6 · answered by iceyblue1986 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think Edwards is the master bator, or maybe Hillary
2007-08-08 23:58:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
(cricket-noise)
For one of them to be a good debator, they would first have to answer the tough Q's and have truly good thoughts on the issues. Unfortunately that is just a pack of liberals that have no good ideas for this country except higher taxes and a weak foreign policy.
If they cant even stand up to fox news, how are they going to be able to stand up to Al Queda and communists?
2007-08-09 01:19:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since when has pandering, & making false promises been considered as 'debating'? Anyone can do that.
Does anyone know where these top contenders stand on immigration/amnesty and the closing of our borders?
2007-08-08 23:59:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton has the edge because she is a lawyer.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.
2007-08-08 23:52:03 · answer #10 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋