CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate Thread (7.23.07)
Submitted by Knightrider on July 23, 2007 - 5:59pm.
Democratic Primary Debates | DNC | Democratic politics
Might as well have a separate thread(?)
Since there may be little substance to them:
1. Who had the best YouTube question?
2. Who had the worst?
3. Which Dem candidate had the best hair? ;p
4. Which was the best "softball" question?
5. Recommend other questions?
Go for it :I
Hmmm,.. I think that the candidates are finally being addressed substantive questions (stumped). It's refreshing not to have DC pundits ask questions and frame the debate.
JRE is being stumped right now for justifying his use of religion (as a Sth Baptist) to ban "gay marriage". Overall, only Kucinich seems to have defended it, whereas the others (Richardson and Obama) advocated for "civil unions."
Earlier, I think that Hillary got stumped using the label "Liberal". In fact, she evaded that term, preferring her own definition of her views as "modern progressive" --- whatever that means. ;/
I really wished Clark was asked that question: His response is classic and for the history books.
"We live in a liberal democracy.... You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back."
- General Wesley K. Clark
Its entertaining and informative; includes real peeps participation, which makes it closer to real world! (and song HAIR, but could do without the issue!)
richardson - darfur = diplomacy, china, eu, leadership. no- fly zone. strategic interests. un peacekeeping troops- muslim troops
Just curious. I understood Biden's moral outrage. It reminds me of Bush's moral cowardice with milk toast moral outrage while the slaughter goes on.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
obama - blather; 'no military solution.' just heard wh spokes person. march 31, + initiate diplo.
Biden - from today, would take one year; can't pull out w/out political solution; 3-way govt. has legis out.
on the timeline. Something I think a lot of Americans do not comprehend. They cannot just come out, "tomorrow."
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
Unfortunately; It appears that biden and hrc may have made that clear for the people now.
Wes did it in recent speech; peeps have to see it.
richardson bring all home by end of year, no residual forces.
He said both in Vietnam and now in Iraq. He mentions the unmentionable.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
but there is at least some entertaining, engaging stumping goin on.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
Gravel had a strong and passionate response to a U-tuber:
Referring from his experience dealing with Vietnam he responded,
"You know there's something worse than having soldiers 'dying in vain' (in Iraq), and that's having more soldiers dying in vain."
Here I actually agreed with JE response, who said that he does not believe no American soldier ever dies in vain,... when defending the country and being called to harm way. He rightly argued that this was a question better addressed to Pres. George W. Bush for his failure in leadership. True :)
where I feel, that a serviceman or woman always dies with "honor," in service and defense of our country and yet in a cause which was in vain. In this case, serving the vanity of "the great leader."
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
obama =- would talk to anyone; not doing so 'ridiculous.'
Send signal ready t talk to iran and syria.
hrc; will not promise to meet, during first year. could be used for propaganda purposes. would use high level envoys: not the president.
interesting that she made the distinction.
Bill for instance?
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
and I don't give a da**, unless she announces that to be the case before primaries. She did make the point of the necessity, as has Wes.
simple and to the point. No lame attempt at humor. I liked it.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
richardson wants distinction made clear between him and others. There is civil war, sectarian conflict.
biden - military can't say 'could do it physically' immediately; need troops to protect. that's why he had to vote for recent bill = vehicles for safety.
hrc - 3 point plan; joe is right,. pentagon not even planning on it. safely, orderly and carefully.
kuch- send message to congress - get them home now; don't wait 'til next pres takes office.
BIDEN AND HRC understand 'military tactician' job, which is what she asked wh about; they wouldn't even tell her about that!
realized he had dyslexia, and helped him learn to read!
Which I get little chance to use here tonight." That was a good zinger.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
Good response by Richardson! :)
Dump "No child left behind", which is structured around penalizing under-performing schools. Rather, he favored a minimum salary for teachers @ $40,000/yr.
The last couple of debates have been horrible for Richardson. He seemed unprepared. I'm not watching this one so I can't judge for myself.
I don't know why Clarkies would have an aversion to Richardson who was UN ambassador and Sec. of Energy. He's called on as an envoy for international crises. He's very well respected internationally, and doesn't really pander like, say, Edwards. He has substantial overlap with Clark (really, there is no difference between any of the serious Dem candidates' philosophies, try as you may to find one). Plus, Richardson has executive experience.
If Clark jumps in, Richardson will be a great running mate. They would help to ensure a longer term Democratic majority.
I work as hard or harder (and more hours a year) working with many students with learning problems and I have a masters degree and don't make that much. However, I wouldn't begrudge them if I thought it would really benefit students. The system itself needs to be fixed and discipline needs to be brought back into the classroom.
Just my $.02
more money isn't THE thing; unfortunately people tend to look for THE fix, and of course there is none.
Each district, in each state, has to come up with its own; I think it has a lot to do with 'administration,' and obviously each state has its own approach. State education 'chancellor,' city 'superintendent,' diocese 'director,' have to know how to 'lead,' that is, select excellent 'principals,' who really know how to get things done, AND GIVES THEM ENOUGH ROPE TO DO IT.
public schools because what you state above hasn't yet happened and if left up to each state, probably won't in many of them. Then the students and America lose out.
As for the rope, that is something that could be argued has too MUCH national oversight. I don't believe in paddling students but there should be something done to bring order back to the classroom. You would not believe some of the schools I go into. I would pull my kid out of those classes asap. It really is scary if you can't afford to send your kid to private school these days. Then again, there are issues with those as well. Grrr...
It's like many other issues, though. Since politicos don't like to discuss things that may make them unpopular or that seem insensitive, they often just say throw $ on the problem.
with change in tax structure.
dodd - autos, corporate carbon tax
edw - wind solar, biof; nuc prob - long to build; no liquify coal
obama - explore. have been talking about this for years; special interests
I've notice that Obama responses are mostly framed to appeal to Indie or moderate voters . He typically panders to them by saying that both Dems and Repubs must be responsible in resolving these issues of inaction (whether it's on the Iraq War or Global Warming), thereby not directly answering the question.
plans for universal coverage
obama - pres must fight med. cos influence;
edw - got to stand up to drug/ins cos.
hrc - disgrace that talking about it now. plan impt, but must make it high priority
UNDOC WORKER COVERAGE?
richardson - yes
Undocumented worker insurance coverage????
They can't/won't even do anything ab. illegal hiring but they can consider this?
I'm still ticked that the two border patrol guards are in jail and Scooter isn't. This country/government is just so a88backwards.
Why must it be this way for 20 years. Question addressed to HRC, who responded with a good joke, but Gravel it is a problem and charged that she represented the DLC, who sold out to Wall Street.
brings up the case of two families running the country for so long. Hillary largely dodges it and is proud of Bill.
Gravel, the DNC and the Clinton's sold out the Democratic party to Wall Street. Another great reality stinger from Mike!
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
Typing fast during the debate. :-)
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
gravel - clintons - dlc sold out PEOPLE!
obama - who can unify country? me.
obama - separation of church and state. translate into values for all.
guns -
richardson -instant background checks; attack poverty
biden - if gun is his baby, he needs help; he's made 'admission against interest.' wrote initial bill.
British Columbia is lovely. And the parlimentary system of government and Canada have a lot going for them.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
well the ones I like anyway: Biden, Gravel, Obama
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
Well, I look at it in terms of who's best prepared to debate the Repug. ticket and win? Who's not going to stumble and back down to the attacks of Giuliani, Thompson, Romney? Who's gonna stand at the podium and be that bulldog on the offense and convincingly articulate the Dem. message?
Geez, I hate to say it, but I think Biden actually has done the most consistent job in these debates. Poised, unflappable, makes good points, supports them with facts...seems to have a real clear vision of what he'd like to get accomplished.
Jezus Wes, I'm slowly inching toward,(gulp), BIDEN-??...will ya run already??-C-mon!!
Yup, you got it...For me, it's between those two right now. Dodd has worn the military uniform in the Army Reserves, so I like that, and he's a solid debater too. Biden/Dodd would do an excellent job taking on Thompson/Romney/Giuliani....
The other candidates just seem like inexperienced fluff, suceptible to Repug. dirty trick attacks. I think Biden/Dodd are better prepared to throw it right back in their ugly sh!t a$$ mugs. Luv Richardson's resume, but he's no attack dog,.. and actually shows signs of being a great doormat.
Gravel said more with fewer words (and/or options to speak) than anyone on the podium.
(oh, and somw really needs to shop around for a better stylist - he's not getting much bang for his bucks)
"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007
Whether you agree or disagree with what he says; you can tell he doesn't want to BS around and succinctly tells it like he sees it.
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
That's his whole purpose > keeping them honest.
...and why princess-inevitable and somw's little tete-a-tete caught on tape was so despicable...because Gravel and Kucinich wagging their fingers re: the IWR and a few other issues are extremely inconvenient for those two bush-enablers.
"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007
http://action.chrisdodd.com/t/41/signUp.jsp?key=1478
No surprises.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Hillary Clinton emerged as the easiest to snap into place candidate, radiating cool confidence & steady after a stumble at the gate regarding the word liberal. Barack Obama has some sequences of sentences & thoughts that sound good but blow away like gossamer threads, very little substance on balance. His rock star video was a snoozer, but not as ill-advised as Hillary's take on Talking Subterranean Homesick Blues. It was too small for me to read so maybe it was good. The PTA mom thing can get grating.
John Edwards hurt himself badly with the preacher, but also in his constant self-centeredness & tried to be cuttingly witty at the end about Hillary's jacket when actual statesmanship or at least being collegial was expected. While terrific on health care, and if I recall also good on Darfur, he shows himself to be an overeager student with a truly dismal video. Yeah that Rove tactic of go right for your own weaknesss & turn it into a strength thing doesn't always work.
Biden was a surprise, in a pleasant way, for the most part but was somewhat mumbly. Mike Gravel said the things so many on our side want to hear said - like "follow the money" & want something done about, but was so hurt & offended by the allotment of time & the annointed special glee club of the frontrunners that it got to him a bit & he came away a little like a grouchy old crank (sorry, Mike).
Richardson just didn't register much on me either way- his own understated businesslike youtube video was perhaps the best one of the ones I saw. Chris Dodd got in a few good licks & otherwise kind of floundered. I once had a soft spot for Kucinich & in 04 thought there was a place for him at the table- now, not so much.
The winners were the askers of the questions & one just wishes more time could have been alloted & that the candidates could be seated for the duration in a more comfortable extended setting & each allowed to answer the questions.
The questions were tremendously better & the funny real artfulness & lack of artfulness & genuine weirdness & rawness were really a huge asset.
Anderson Cooper did a good job for the most part as traffic cop, but it remains unclear as to why those selected to answer any given question were so chosen while others were not granted an opportunity. He stayed in the background, expediting- congrats Anderson.
A lively debate. Eager to see more. But I wish there were a few different faces on that stage, I must say.
Of those standing, I would choose Hillary. Based entirely on tonight, and most of that PTA stuff gets on my nerves pretty hard pretty fast.
----
Anyone coming to Yearlykos on Wednesday potentially interested in taking in a Phils/Cubs game at Wrigley? We may potentially have two extra tickets.
Contact me through the form if you have interest.
- I really did- and I've been dreading & slogging through the 08 field like I'm carrying a ring through Mordor since this all started.
But it was valuable despite the fact that there was no Clark, Gore, Webb or Spitzer to be seen.
My 95 year old father watched the whole thing without complaining. My 85 year old mother thought it was a very good format. I thought it was refreshing. The questions came from people who were allowed to be even more real than the people they let ask questions at the townhall meetings. It was more relaxed and Anderson Cooper forced the candidates to stick to the questions and move on.
She easily won the last debate. I didn't see this one, but I'm not surprised if she did well (to the objective, nonanti-Clinton people). She has a deeper grasp of the issues than Obama or Edwards and I think it shows dramatically every debate. Must be why Clinton's numbers are actually improving across the board.
Too bad about Richardson. He's by far the most qualified. Good for Biden, too. Really, many of the Dems talk about issues (like women's rights, cops on the street, guns, etc.) but Biden and to a lesser extent Dodd, have already written great legislation on these issues. It's a shame they don't get the credit they deserve.
well, 'cept I disagree with whom you thought "won". Honestly, I don't see that anyone has did,.. it seemed very evenly split; although JE may have suffered a bit. In the end, I believe it had no impact on voters, other than reinforce the convictions of those who've already committed to a particular campaign.
CNN is accepting viewer analysis of the YouTube debates;
The CNN/YouTube presidential debate is all about you. You're asking the questions and driving the discussion. But that's just the beginning. We want you to give us your take on the candidates and issues during and after the debates.
This is your chance to be a political analyst and call the shots. Watch the program at 7 p.m. ET on July 23, take notes and share your views via I-Report. ....
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/2007/07/cnnyoutube.html
..Candy "Ms. Thinks She Knows It All" Crowley this afternoon saying that this would be a chance for JE to have his big "break-out moment."
That comment, of course, made me break out in laughter. After all of these years and countless opportunities, if he hasn't been able to break out of the pack, he's not going to do it in one simple debate.
Well, plus, the way she talked about a "break-out moment" made me think of skin care and that green tea leaf stuff that you said last night he puts on his face before he goes to bed. ;)
I do realize that MSM needs to give pundits like Ms "Thinks She Knows It All" Crowley something to do.
Imo, our own bluemoon summed it up exceptionally well! ;)
for anyone to call 'winners' and 'losers' among candidates; We the People won the opportunity to watch them, how they work, personality, etc.
PRICELESS
I briefly watched it on YouTube and so far Mike Gravel seems to be the most honest candidate but he is not a powerful speaker. Obama’s voice sounds strong/leadership type but his looks throw me off and I guess I can go on. And the rest I already have an idea even though I didn't watch the entire debate.
If Gen Clark was up there then I would have watched the entire debate. I think Pres Gen Clark and Vice Pres Mike Gravel could be a great team, but of course this was just my first impression on Mike Gravel and I need to study him further…
Oh yeah! I could live with that! :-)
Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)
but briefly researched it and only found the old debates... anyway, 70% of it is all about charisma and how you speak…
I did NOT watch the pablum called the YouTube Debate. But seeing as Mensa Man's approval rating is at an ALL TIME LOW and IMPEACHMENT is gaining ground, why did no one, NOT ONE ask:
Do you support Impeachment of the Prezident or VICE-prezident and WHY or WHY NOT?
Perhaps they received HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of this very question, yet THE ONE QUESTION that NEEDED to be asked was not, no doubt due to the Corporate Media/DLC Filter.
We know where Dennis stands on this. How about the rest of the DLC Seven Dwarfs?
First, I really liked the debate. What I liked best was that there were NO questions on the horse race and no "gotcha" questions the pundits are so fond of. It was issue after issue after issue. All issues and nothing but the issues. How refreshing!
Second, there was plenty of humor to keep me entertained as well.
Now, to me there are six good candidates, eliminating Gravel and Kucinich. I put them in two categories -- the competence/experience group and the vision group. We could probably argue about Dodd and Biden, but I'd put them in the vision camp along with Obama and Edwards. The competence/experience group is Clinton and Richardson.
Frankly, I thought the weak sticks tonight were Richardson (again) and Edwards. Johnny-boy just seems more of a fake every time I see him. Biden and Dodd really have substance but can't be heard above the din of the frontrunners.
Clinton or Richardson would be probably be good presidents in a caretaker role if technical/managerial competence was all that is required. But neither is ever going to inspire in case of a major event needing a rallying cry. And the likelihood of needing a rallying cry is very, very high over the next eight years.
Dodd, Biden, Edwards, and Obama could all make a rousing speech if the need arises.
In the absence of a Clark candidacy, noting that Clark would be both a vision and competence/experience president, I'd probably lean toward Biden. I've heard some bad things about Dodd from people in or from Connecticut.
The risk of a Biden candidacy is that part of his anatomy located between his nose and his chin. You know, that thing that flaps too much and gets him in trouble. It could be fun watching him, though.
Just a few rambling thoughts.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Democrats Stand Tall on Health Care For AllBy: SilentPatriot @ 7:17 PM - PDT
Speaking out on one of the most critically important issues of the 2008 campaign, although the specifics of their individual plans may differ slightly, every Democratic nominee on stage agrees that 40 million uninsured people in the most affluent country in the world is simply unacceptable.
Download (683) | Play (658) 
Download (408) | Play (498)
This clip illustrates perfectly why I am proud to support the Democratic Party. While the Republicans are busy defending the indefensible status quo, the Democrats have the integrity and compassion to stand up for something that is long overdue and aimed at helping those in our country who need it the most.
Let’s see what the Republicans have to say on September 17th.
For specifics on each candidate’s health care proposal, follow the links below the fold:
(Read the rest of this story…)
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
Wes - at Young Democrats
this was a live feed from Dkos: Ruth is testing USTREAM.com <<<<< check out her blog http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/23/9403/92825
Hillary - on health care debate - it is an America value to have healthcare for everyone ( as I under stand it her plan does that somewhere around 2016
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2944010506300030324&q=cnn+you+tube+democrat+debate&total=781&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn8gS4phiKI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F7%2F23%2F232240%2F031
Video:
Micheal Moore - Hardball
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3489626045706379152&q=presidential+debates&total=2568&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
V.P. debate 1992 – Al Gore much better then debates 2000
Remember When:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3489626045706379152&q=presidential+debates&total=2568&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
Presidential Debate 1992
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003803239_debate24.html
reviews debate:
http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN2439421320070724
Television News
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/24/ap3943774.html
excerpt
The revelations that the questions elicited ranged from the ridiculous to the grave. John Edwards didn't like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bright coral jacket. More seriously, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be willing to meet individually with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his presidency, while Clinton would not.
"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.
Questions about health care came from brothers spoon-feeding dinner to a father suffering with Alzheimer's, a woman sitting with her mother suffering from diabetes, a man in a wheelchair and a 36-year-old woman who pulled off her wig and declared her hope to be a breast cancer survivor.
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
“There’s a problem it’s called Net Neutrality we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.” - Chairman ATT Ed Whitacre
I had no reason to watch the "debate" and didn't. I had no interest in watching the politicians on the stage give their usual answers.
I'm waiting for a leader to take to the stage.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
Character shows.