OK, its been a month since the debate and despite all the attention on websites, Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul still have less than 1% of their respective party's vote. People still do not know who these people are. In the vast majority's view the race is between Clinton and Obama, or Guliani (whose credential was only being in a city that was bombed), McCain, and (Jeeez) Fred Thompson.
The reason.. people don't think about this, as Churchill said, you only need five minutes with the average voter to realize democracy is in trouble. Hell, it took 6 years for most Americans to realize that Bush is a dangerous fool!
If you like what Gravel etc. want, I am afraid that you will have to take a Nader-like approach, support legal groups to challenge the way the system is now.
Oh, I am going to wear my Gravel buttons, keep the bumper stickers on, the sign out in front of the house, and tell them what he wants to do, but realistically the American people have too short an attention span to seriously consider and choose someone that would make a difference. If they do pick someone, it will be out of sheer luck!

OK, its been a month since the debate and despite all the attention on websites, Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul still have less than 1% of their respective party's vote. People still do not know who these people are. In the vast majority's view the race is between Clinton and Obama, or Guliani (whose credential was only being in a city that was bombed), McCain, and (Jeeez) Fred Thompson.
The reason.. people don't think about this, as Churchill said, you only need five minutes with the average voter to realize democracy is in trouble. Hell, it took 6 years for most Americans to realize that Bush is a dangerous fool!
If you like what Gravel etc. want, I am afraid that you will have to take a Nader-like approach, support legal groups to challenge the way the system is now.
Oh, I am going to wear my Gravel buttons, keep the bumper stickers on, the sign out in front of the house, and tell them what he wants to do, but realistically the American people have too short an attention span to seriously consider and choose someone that would make a difference. If they do pick someone, it will be out of sheer luck!

OK, its been a month since the debate and despite all the attention on websites, Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul still have less than 1% of their respective party's vote. People still do not know who these people are. In the vast majority's view the race is between Clinton and Obama, or Guliani (whose credential was only being in a city that was bombed), McCain, and (Jeeez) Fred Thompson.
The reason.. people don't think about this, as Churchill said, you only need five minutes with the average voter to realize democracy is in trouble. Hell, it took 6 years for most Americans to realize that Bush is a dangerous fool!
If you like what Gravel etc. want, I am afraid that you will have to take a Nader-like approach, support legal groups to challenge the way the system is now.
Oh, I am going to wear my Gravel buttons, keep the bumper stickers on, the sign out in front of the house, and tell them what he wants to do, but realistically the American people have too short an attention span to seriously consider and choose someone that would make a difference. If they do pick someone, it will be out of sheer luck!

OK, its been a month since the debate and despite all the attention on websites, Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul still have less than 1% of their respective party's vote. People still do not know who these people are. In the vast majority's view the race is between Clinton and Obama, or Guliani (whose credential was only being in a city that was bombed), McCain, and (Jeeez) Fred Thompson.
The reason.. people don't think about this, as Churchill said, you only need five minutes with the average voter to realize democracy is in trouble. Hell, it took 6 years for most Americans to realize that Bush is a dangerous idiot!
If you like what Gravel etc. want, I am afraid that you will have to take a Nader approach, support legal groups to challenge the way the system is now.
Oh, I am going to wear my Gravel buttons, keep the bumper stickers on, and the sign out in front of the house, but realistically the American people have too short an attention span to seriously think and choose someone that would make a difference.

OK, its been a month since the debate and despite all the attention on websites, Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul still have less than 1% of their respective party's vote. People still do not know who these people are. In the vast majority's view the race is between Clinton and Obama, or Guliani (whose credential was only being in a city that was bombed), McCain, and (Jeeez) Fred Thompson.
The reason.. people don't think about this, as Churchill said, you only need five minutes with the average voter to realize democracy is in trouble. Hell, it took 6 years for most Americans to realize that Bush is a dangerous idiot!
If you like what Gravel etc. want, I am afraid that you will have to take a Nader approach, support legal groups to challenge the way the system is now.
Oh, I am going to wear my Gravel buttons, keep the bumper stickers on, and the sign out in front of the house, but realistically the American people have too short an attention span to seriously think and choose someone that would make a difference.

Ron Paul for President!

Kucinich and Gravel. All the other candidates are puppets with excessive PR campaigns and people to tell them what to say in order to get more coverage. They're the only ones who think on their own and have the guts to stand up for what they believe.

Since our government has the right (actually -- the obligation) to issue its OWN money, millions of workers should never have been working all these ungodly long hours just to support lazy, useless David "Welfare Queen" Rockefeller and his (its) ilk since 1913 -- by paying compound interest on the national debt through fraudulent income taxes. The only way to stop this vulgar inflation that his family created (and he continued to sponge off of) is to abolish HIS Federal Reserve Bank.

The only Democratic candidates who would have the guts and intelligence to accomplish this world-saving feat without being JFK'd (like all but one of the other central bank abolitonists in our history were) are Kucinich and Gravel.

On the Republican side, obviously Ron Paul is the only clear choice.

The ideal Unenrolled ticket:
President Dr. Ron Paul/Vice President Mike Gravel in '08!

Secretary of Peace Dennis Kucinich in '08!

Hillary isn't going to end the war and has said so. So .. a vote for hillary is a vote for more insane spending and more war.

Either Mike Gravel or Ron Paul are the only two that showed they actually knew what Americans want. Ya Chris .. we do want an angry candidate...

Mike Gravel did win .. Seriously, if you dont want another 40 years of the SOS then start looking carefully at Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Ya we do want angry candidates Chris, were tired of the same ol'e s---.

We relly need to work for little kids at school they are doing so many wrong things.We should get rid of drugs that hurt are deer children??!!?!?!We should do the right sutff for they and are safty!!!!!

mike gravel won!

At least Mike Gravel is an actual person, who, instead of smiling blankly, was actually angry at the atrocities being continuously committed by those in charge of this country. I liked his fire and brimstone patriotism and his revolutionary spirit. He was saying things about not using nukes, and about who are we, the most powerful nation on earth, afraid of? He was right, and like Dean before him, his demeanor and not his policies will be laughed at by the idiots that occupy this country.

Chris, you couldn't be more wrong about Gravel being one of the big losers. From what I understand, his fundraising began to take off (relatively speaking, of course) as soon as that debate concluded.

Obama didn't do himself any favours, he looked a little uncomfortable and didn't mention Israel when he should.

Hillary showed off her experience, and was composed throughout.

Edwards did well with what he was given.

Biden was supurb, and highlighted his experience. Those who dismissed him (myself included) will now have a 2nd look. Can he pick up his fundraising & poll numbers?

I really wanted Richardson to do well, but think overall he missed an opportunity to step up. If he performs like that again he'll stay locked in the second tier.

Gravel showed why he shouldn't have been there.

Overall, a fascinating debate which bodes well for the next few months. Well done to the moderator, he performed very well in what was an almost impossible job.

Watched the April 26, 2007 first democratic debate and only two candidates ever mentioned anything about equality or Race discrimination and neither of them were Barack Obama. I say there is a reason a former civil rights attorney does not run for president with civil rights as a main issue and if you are a Hispanic American from the state of Illinois this concerns you. It can be verified having already been placed on repeated formal notice Barack Obama has taken no action to stop or even call for any investigation into IDHR & EEOC's discriminatory practices that mistreat, harm , and prevent Illinois Hispanic American complainants from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to by IDHR & EEOC. There can be no dispute that since 2004 I was and still now am not being allowed to assert & memorialize a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official "IDHR & EEOC" charges of discrimination with IDHR & EEOC focusing instead on manipulating the charging process by IDHR & EEOC repeatedly pressuring me to sign (upon threat of dismissing my charges) only IDHR & EEOC prepared "IDHR & EEOC" charges of discrimination in which IDHR & EEOC never memorialized my clear unambiguous claim of discrimination based on RACE that I have always maintained against Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW since 2004. Even to date IDHR & EEOC have not provided me any state law or state rule and/or federal law or federal rule that excludes and/or prohibits any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from asserting and memorializing a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official "IDHR & EEOC" charges of discrimination at the agency IDHR and/or at the agency EEOC. Despite bringing this to Barack Obama's attention Barack Obama and his office having full knowledge and understanding has continued to ignore the fact that I, one of his Illinois Hispanic American constituents, is unlawfully being treated unequally by IDHR & EEOC. IDHR & EEOC (For instance but not limited to) has attempted to dissuade me, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, from filing charges, misrepresenting facts in the public record, and IDHR & EEOC is excluding & denying me , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, a fair & full opportunity to memorialize my assertion of discrimination based on RACE on formal official "IDHR & EEOC" charges during the charge process without IDHR & EEOC ever providing in a clear straightforward honest manner an actual written legal justification that shows under what actual discriminatory Illinois law and/or federal law allows IDHR & EEOC to exclude any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to & enjoy as matter of record at IDHR & EEOC. As a result of Barack Obama's failure to insure that his Illinois Hispanic American constituents are not being prevented from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert discrimination based on RACE at the agencies IDHR & EEOC and Barack Obama's failure to even call for an investigation to immediately redress this serious matter Barack Obama is effectively aiding and abetting Race discrimination, obstructing justice, and shielding Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW from ultimately being held accountable for Hormel Foods Corporation and UFCW (for instance but not limited to) violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting me an Illinois Hispanic American citizen to discrimination based on RACE. The fact and truth of the matter is Barack Obama can not deny that I one of his constituents, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, brought to his attention that there is substantial evidence about IDHR & EEOC interfering with my right for an investigation into my claim of discrimination based on RACE against Hormel Foods & UFCW from ever being conducted to date. Because I , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, have the audacity to believe I am equal under the Laws of the United States Of America I refuse to believe IDHR & EEOC, Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW (Despite Barack Obama's inaction) are above the law and will not ultimately to be held accountable for the above mentioned actions.

What a garbage article this was.

Don't even mention some of the best candidates, while lambasting against Gravel, who was angry, but should be angry. We should all be angry the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, they are all liars and cheats. He won't be invited back because of people like you who don't like it when someone calls 'important' Dems on their failures.

I have read more of the comments than I should have, by and large, it is fairly disheartening. People are committed to those who they feel will win, and these are the people that say the least for fear of losing their position in the polls.

Please ask yourselves, if my candidate will not come out and be honest and direct about their positions, why should I believe that they will ever do so? I wanted to believe that Obama would be the JFK of the future, maybe he will be, but not now! He has to speak his mind, clearly and specifically.

The only ones that I knew were Democrats that I could trust were Kucinich and Gravel. People have whimpered about how angry Gravel was, but how would anyone react to be being ignored because he has good strong positions and reasons for those positions. As long as Americans are so afraid to be strong and honest in their convictions, we will continue to suffer from Iraqs, Bush's, Chenney's.

Until the others become honest and forthright SUPPORT KUCINICH / GRAVEL!

thank you very nıce muck vary very comment...

This article claims Gravel was a 'loser' in the debate. "Losers" don't top Digg.com charts.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

Here comes Gravel.

The only truly worthwhile candidates are Kucinich and Gavel. Why? They speak the unadulterated truth. They are not afraid. They are intelligent, knowledgable, experienced (in fed. gov.) plus they will, do doubt, surround themselves with great, capable people when the get elected. What a great team they would make--real honest people in the White House. A pipe dream? I hope not. Wake up Americans--vote smart, not popular!!

Watched the debate and only two canidates even mentioned anything about equality or Race discrimination and neither of them were Barack Obama. I say there is a reason a former civil rights attorney does not run for president with civil rights as a main issue. If your an Hispanic American this concerns you, Barack Obama has no right to look the other way when clear racial discrimination happens to you in Illinois. And if your dissuaded from filing charges at IDHR & EEOC or then denied charges based on race with no explanation ever given by IDHR & EEOC. It is not fine becuase of Illinois Law, How IDHR & EEOC treats Hispanics during the charge process or whatever IDHR & EEOC gives you instead of Race is not just as good as Race even Though other non-Hispanics are not excluded from actual Race charges at the same agencies. And it is discrimination. Remember "seperate but equal" was legal too at one time. Hispanic's are entitled to say Race if other non-Hispanics can or no one should be allowed to say Race in Illinois or anywhere in America. It does matter but not to Barack Obama. I an Hispanic American was actually harmed by this discriminary practice in Illinois and was never informed of having un-equal rights or that there was any exclusion under Illinois law preventing an Hispanic from filing a charge of race when filing my charges at IDHR & EEOC. If there is such a law it was not disclosed even when I needed an explanation. What came instead were only threats of dismmissals when I complained about them not addressing my concerns and the written record in Obama Barack's hands reflects that fact. Regardless if there is any exclusion in Illinois law it would be discriminatory and IDHR & EEOC are not in a position to use any law to discriminate against American Hispanics and Barack Obama has taken no action despite being placed on repeated notice and not to mention being guilty of preventing an investigation of Hormel Foods & UFCW and having them ever held accountable for there own racial discrimination.

I can call Barack Obama Racist and invite him to sue if I'm acting in bad faith.

Barack Obama is racist to Hispanic Americans in Illinois!
It can be verified with documented evidence Barrack Obama as an Illinois Senator has been placed on repeated written notice of (for instance but not limited to) ongoing illegal race discrimination against American Hispanics. I ,a Hispanic American citizen, with parents who are both Hispanic American citizens have myself been denied the right to formally officially file race discrimination "IDHR & EEOC" charges against Hormel Foods Corporation and UFCW at the agencies IDHR & EEOC in Illinois since 2004 when in fact other nonHispanics are allowed to file such charges of Race discrimination. Despite Barack Obama and his office having full knowledge and understanding of this serious situation Barrack Obama a civil rights attorney himself has refused to hold anyone at IDHR & EEOC accountable for their actions regarding the issue of IDHR & EEOC discriminating against Hispanic American complainants and to date Barack Obama is not investigating or even asking for any independant third party to investigate this racial discrimination citing only a separation of powers. It is unconscionable for Barack Obama to have used this device as it regards race discrimination which has effectively empowered IDHR & EEOC to maintain their illegal & discriminatory position and with Barack Obama's inaction Barack Obama is in fact discriminating against Hispanic American constituents of Illinois.
American constituents who happen to be only Hispanic are being harmed by Barack Obama who to this date continues to condone such illegal and discriminatory misconduct by his inaction.
This information can be verified by any news media so if you want the truth demand they cover this story!
Barrack Obama does not care about every Americans civil rights and equal rights

How a candidate's personality makes you feel should not be the primary factor for your vote. We have seen in the past how this turns out.

Obama and Hillary talk the smooth talk, but Gravel is the only one speaking honestly and right up front. I'd rather have an honest, straight-shooting fool, if he is a fool, than to have a dishonest fool who slicks his hair back or gets $400 hair cuts, or grooms himself the best, or has the most money. Ridiculous, you people.

Care about the issues and what will be done about them, not about how shiny their darn shoes are.

Edwards did okay at the debate, though not great. However, he should be very worried about one of the questions. I'm not talking about the moral leader question. I'm talking about the gun question.

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were the only candidates not to raise their hands when the moderator asked who has ever owned a gun as an adult. Southerners may forgive Clinton and Obama for being removed from "gun culture," but they might view Edwards, a North Carolinian, suspiciously. "Is he truly one of us?" Could that one question derail his campaign and limit his appeal in Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and other Southern states?

Read more analysis at http://theseventen.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-debate-second-analysis.html

I thought Gravel was highly entertaining, playing the role of crazy old man (ala James Stockdale in '92). He will continue to be great comic relief if he is allowed to participate in future debates. Obama at least deserves a mention in the winner's category. Clinton deserves the win, in my book. She was impressive (and I am not a big Clinton fan)

I'm late to this, but I just saw the debate, and the most damning answer of the night was one of the ones I was supposed to be impressed with. It came from Senator Clinton:

"Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

Well, if this is the case, THEN WHY DID SHE VOTE FOR THE WAR? Hasn't anyone else found this answer shocking? She just admitted that either her judgement is severely impaired or her vote was a political act. And both of those fly in the face of her current explanation.

Hillary is unattractive. What's on TV?

WHAT HILLARY SHOULD SAY, REGARDING HER VOTE ON THE IRAQ WAR, IS THAT SHE WILL THROW OUT OF THE OVAL OFFICE ANY ONE WHO SHOWS UP THERE WITH FALSE INTELLIGENT REPORTS AND KEY INFORMATION ABOUT A SITUATION THAT REQUIRES THE POSSIBILITY TO GO TO WAR, ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY OR RESPONDE WITH MILITARY FORCE.
IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THAT BUSH HAS CLEARED AND ACCEPTED ALL THE FALSE REPORTS THAT LEAD USA INTO WAR, AND HE FEELS NO REMORSE AT ALL. BUSH SHOULD HAVE FIRED ALL THOSE OFFICERS WHO CAME UP WITH THE WRONG STRATEGY AGAINST SADAM. NOT EVEN HIS OWN FATHER HAD THE NERVE TO GO TO BAGDAD WHEN THE GOLF WAR.
THEREFORE, HILLARY SHOULD NOW SAY THAT YES, SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR IN THE SENATE, BUT SHE WILL FIRE ANY SENIOR OFFICER(S)WHO ALLOWS A PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS, THE MEDIA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SUPPORT A WAR BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENT REPORTS. YES.I WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY!

Hillary showed why she is the frontrunner. No one even came close to knocking her off. Obama was by far the biggest dissapointment of the night.

I watched the debates and frankly I was not happy to see that most of the questions that were worth answering were directed at HRC and BO when I would have liked to hear more from Edwards .
I do agree that even though Gravel was a bit harsh he also was right on .Too bad he isn't anywhere in the polls because next to Edwards he might be the man to do the job honestly !

Anon (the one that actually makes some sense),
"We all know the war in Iraq has not gone well," McCain said. "We have made mistakes, and we have paid grievously for them."
I'll agree that Repubs have not been living by Reagan's 11th for sometime now. But i don't think being realistic about the war is a violation or a personal attack on Bush.

Webb,
"We could have learned a lot more with just some up close and personal interviews on the issues, one by one. Personally, I feel the the questions were ridiculous....such as who was John Edwards personal moral mentor? WTF?"
While i agree that an up close and personal interview with them would be much more informative, its not just about positions on issues. We elect candidates, especially presidents, on other things including their character and, quite frankly and unfortunately, their appearance. I think that question was more than appropriate as it helps people to see what kind of person these people really are. Every one of them is very well versed on the issues. I do similar things when i am interviewing potential employees - they get "describe your work experience" questions as well as the "who was your favorite manager and why" questions so i can try and see what kind of person they are.

and rufus you're right.. the dems should declare limbaugh and coulter as enemy combatants--they are traitors. how much would i like to see that fat lying pig dope addict sqeauling...

razorback is some mutt without a uniform. i think he should be tortured.. he is a chickenhawk traitor after all, refusing to serve his country in a time of war.

i know! take away his TV and computer. Then he'll just sit on the floor and cry like a baby all day.

please, please don't take away jack bauer! he's more real than real life! he's my manly hero!

rufus1133,
"The questions were hard. Some were ridiculous." Quit whining. I guess that democrats should only get softball questions? Get a grip. If your candidates (or any candidates) can't answer any "hard" questions, they should not be on that stage. Ridiculous questions should also be a requirement as that lets you see how candidates think on their feet. If the only questions they got were ones that they had stock, well-rehearsed answers to, it would tell you little about them. This is just like a liberal - if somebody does not do well at something, it can't be their fault, it must be the fault of the question, the person asking the question, the format, the VRWC, the time of day....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When it comes to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans" -- GOP presidential candidates seem to be losing their religion.

Republican candidates have been speaking a lot of ill -- sometimes quite directly.

"Governor [Mitt] Romney, his views ... have been moderate to liberal in [the] North, in the Northeast, and it's all on videotape," former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore said on "The Situation Room" recently. "And now he's trying to shift to be a conservative."

At a Republican dinner in Iowa this month, Gilmore took on his party's front-runners collectively, saying, "Rudy McRomney is not a conservative."

The former Massachusetts governor's response? He said his rivals -- Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- have changed their minds on issues, too.

And talk about speaking ill of a fellow Republican, President Bush is not off limits:

"We all know the war in Iraq has not gone well," McCain said. "We have made mistakes, and we have paid grievously for them."

Bush is very unpopular. Conservatives want to make the point that it's not because he's a conservative. Instead, they say, it's because his administration has wandered away from conservative principles.

Republicans are supposed to be disciplined and on message. Not this time.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

This is the usual helping of braindead, odious punditry that characterizes the sham democracy of the US... so and so seemed "composed," so and so seemed
"angry," so and so "scored points," so and so "lost face" etc etc... the usual horserace sideshow

Another MSM crook who should be forced to walk the gangplank

Notice how he suggests that in order to pony up a "mature" foreign policy platform, a candidate must accept the baseline premise that evil terrorists and rougue states menace the imperiled US... the matter is not even up for a rational debate... the normal b.s. "vetting" role performed by the thumb-sucking establishment press

Anyway, I'll shut up b/c to this crowd I'm sure I resemble a dog barking into the lonely night

clinton/obama or clinton/edwards. we are ready for BIG change, and what bigger change than a SEX change? clinton has experience, a husband with experience and she is female. a big plus is we know all her skeletons already, a big minus is not being strategical about her war votes.

in '08, women know, this is it. any dem running against her, even a possible third party candidate we not know of yet, will have to deal with her FIRST, no matter what. not sure, but not only do we suffer from bush fatigue, but women want their chance and Hilary is the One.

R's aced themselves out behind the not-so-great 43's legacy of failure. At any rate, they have to serve their jail time first, then who knows? it's more likely pardons, medals, then comfortable retirement after the obligatory slap on the wrist, but that may be a small price to pay for our constitution.

Senator Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the USA, a woman first president in American History, you like it or not. She is the one .....on my 'Prediction.'

Obama is the realist. I like him.

HILLARY HAS TERMENDIOUS STAMANIA AND CONFEDENCE gary -freiwald -

Gravel is from Alaska. I think MSNBC made that clear during the debates with their visual label.

J Perez: there are these really useful things called paragraphs. They're great to use in long posts.

Is Mike Gravel from Alaska or Arkansas? I've heard 2 different states too many times?

I at first thought Richardson did ok, but after analyzing his facial expressions I dont anymore. There's a thing about Richardson's face. It kinda looks like his mouth twitches. Sometimes he smirks arrogantly and frowns. He seems to try to turn it into a smile usually. It seemed like Richardson suffered more from Senate-speak than Biden, (though he's never been in the Senate...yet('08?))frequently exceeding his time limits. I think Richardson wasn't as likable as usual. Chris makes a damn good point about not appearing Presidential enough. I think he was uncomfortable, probably not ready for the national spotlight. Plus the remark about his reluctance to condemn Gonzales due to his race may have made some people appreciate the honesty, but an equal or larger number probably took it as racist. I doubt it sat well w/ everybody. I think Richardson has the same problem as Newt Gingrich: if they throw out sound bites, they sound ridiculous, but if they get into a long, detailed answer you cant help but be impressed by their intelligence. Problem is sound bites and slogans won elections way before television, but television made it worse. I also agree that Hillary did very well, and every time I watch her speak since she announced I am (at least temporarily) impressed. In general Hillary seems to have learned from many of her mistakes (like how she no longer nags at the audience). Honestly, part of my uneasiness about Hillary was my Republican influence from my parents since I was 7(he was one of the few to vote Bob Dole). If she can remain so controlled she could win the primary and the general, but choosing her as the nominee could always be a gamble for the Dems in the general election. I think Obama didnt wow or screw up in the debate. I disagree totally with Chris about Gravel being a loser. Things he said like Bush's foreign policy should be a felon, and that 16 GOP Senators would vote for it, were ridiculous(in MSNBC's post-debate analysis). He sure said some crazy stuff, but I think he out-Kuciniched Kucinich. Kucinich is the only candidate he's trying to beat. Crazy crackpot hippy liberals need a candidate, and Gravel not only more colorful but more liberal. He acted like a baby over supposedly not getting equal time and attacked Chris Matthews because the media ignores him. Boo hoo. If George Allen's out cuz he was unseated in the '06 general election, then Gravel's loss for renomination for the Senate in 1980 and being invisible ever since will ensure he stays invisible. But Gravel's true goal is to beat Kucinich and have an impact on persuading party policy. Also his supporter's (not supporters', because 2 is pushing it)2nd choice votes in the Iowa caucus will help determine the nominee. If Nevada works the same way that'd make him twice as influential. But who knows if his supporters will coalesce around another single candidate, and if he can influence it much. Kucinich lost WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than Gravel. His candidacy may have been destroyed, and I think he should drop out and support Gravel. Gravel stole Kucinich's thunder completely. Edwards seemed out of it and not particularly impressive.

I am from Mars.

At least, I like to pretend that I am when I watch Presidential debates. And I must say that were I truly from Mars, without preconceptions about the candidates, I would have to conclude that the winner of debate #1 was Chris Dodd.

Senator Dodd was well spoken in every instance, made moderate, reasonable arguments and policy statements, and appeared far more Presidential than I expected. I give Hillary credit; she performed extremely well under high pressure, but why isn't anyone willing to recognize the remarkable performance by Senator Dodd?

I was not a big Dodd fan coming in, but he will receive a closer look from me after his performance. His sober, intelligent, authoritative presence deserves a longer look from the voters, and I hope the media will allow it.

I might also note that Barack Obama was quite underwhelming. He looked and sounded like an inexperienced first term Senator. Wait...he is one! Mr. Obama has loads of potential, and might make a fine President someday. Last night, however, he hardly looked Vice Presidential.

Chris, this is a first comment by a long time reader. You DO seem very Hillary leaning, Maybe, just once or twice, try to lead an analysis off without putting her first.

MSNBC did a really shoddy job producing this debate. Changing plans in the middle of a question? Asking the candidates their model Supreme Court Justices--but limiting them to those still alive (effectively limiting the choice to Breyer and Ginsburg)?? Having them raise their hands? Telling Obama to talk not about organizing 3000 people to plant trees, but light bulbs in his home? I felt embarrassed for Brian Williams having to look as dumb as they made him.

HIlary did a great job, however Oboma will not be our next president!

And may I add, there are no "winners or losers" in a question and answer format. It's just another skewing of the facts by the press that leads others to unwarranted decisions and conclusions. Thanks a lot.

Your right. The questions were hard. Some were ridiculous. MSNBC is scared of Fox. Fox says "everyone in the world is bias but us." This was an attempt to put a slight conservative slant in there. I just wish the conservatives could deal with reality. Not us twisting reality to appease them and make them feel safe. If msnbc changes then fox wins. I hope the republican debate is much harder. THEY SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE TO ANSWER FOR

No, this was not a debate. We could have learned a lot more with just some up close and personal interviews on the issues, one by one. Personally, I feel the the questions were ridiculous....such as who was John Edwards personal moral mentor? WTF?
And to be even more candid, the media is so out of touch with the average American, that they did not hear all of the cheers go up around the country when they stood up from their sofas and said, "hear, hear, Mr. Gravel! Who the heck are you?"
He may or may not be fluid in the snooty, Washington DC, doublespeak diplomacy that we have become so used to, but he certainly represents clearly all of my political views. Give him the coverage he deserves.

Look forward to a bounce on Wall Street once they realize stable fiscal policies are likely for at least two years.

And eventual lower interest rates with the Federal government out of the borrowing market - but that may take awhile with the Bush Hole which was dug.

KOZ -- So bad economic news, when the country is still following this administration's policies without exception, is now Democrats fault even t hough they've been in power since January? That's pretty ridiculous even by your standards.

As to torture, I'll let McCain make my case for me:

"But I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence."

Feel free to argue against that though. I'm sure you have more credibility on this issue than that "liberal" McCain.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday accused his Democratic rivals of embracing health care plans that would amount to socialized medicine

finally an honest politician.

The worst economic growth in four years is raising concern that troubles in the U.S. housing market will spread and throw the country into a recession before the year is out.

Only took the Dem congress three months to throw a wet blanket on the economic fire. Wall street sees what is coming - more taxes, more regulation.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Former state Sen. John Ford (D), a prominent member of a politically powerful family, was convicted Friday of accepting bribes in a statewide corruption investigation.

Another crooked Dem caught lining his pockets. the party of corruption.

Gravel is the man. He was up there saying "hell" an awful lot, which reminds me of my grandpa after a few PBRs and a viewing of "Meet the Press". Quality.

The only candidates to say anything about disarmament were Gravel and Kucinich, and as far as I'm concerned that's a pretty major image problem for the US. I was especially excited and then quickly disappointed when Obama said he didn't believe it was a disputed fact that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. I was lying down, heard it, sat straight up and said "Yes it is!", and then heard good ol' Denny say "It IS! It is in dispute." Then nothing. Made Kucinich like like he was just whining without basis of fact. Boo.

Biden was great last night. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say his "clean" comment is no match for a 400 dollar haricut, so maybe he's back in the thing. Bully for him, even if he is arrogant.

What happened to Barak Obama? I was disappointed. The hype is officially misplaced. He needs another '04 DNC moment, like, immediately. What's the difference between Obama and Clinton aside from basic plumbing?

Bill Richardson was a little long-winded last night, but he came across as intelligent, thoughtful and able to form an independent thought. No wonder he's in the loser column today. John Kerry is sending an "I Know How You Feel" bouquet as we speak.

Surprisingly enough, I actually did take the debate seriously. The most authentic, could-viably-win-a-general-election candidates from my biased perspective were Richardson, Biden and Dodd. That was unexpected.

We are all zouk to you coward.

I think the case against failing government schools has been made very effectively today. the funny thing is, this would help Dem voters most, yet their leaders stand athwart progress. why? Power over the people. same as refusal to fix social security. Dems need lemmings to keep them in office. Keep em dumb and poor and dependent on government handouts.

that the Dem leadership would sacrifice the most helpless (along with unborn babies) is despicable. They are also willing to sacrifice soldiers to win elections. how low can you go?

Komrad Zouk - You may as well use your normal posting name. Your fingerprints are all over the Trotsky post.

Fine - apply the Geneva convention. you may notice it doesn't cover non-uniformed personel or fighters not associated with a specific country. It also prohibits hiding in mosques, killing civilians, targetting non-military sites, etc.

Are you suggesting we stick with it despite our enemies ignoring it? Are you suggesting we expand it to include terrorists (un-uniformed fighters with no country, formerly known as spies). Or perhaps full US citizenship with all the rights.

Yep - you Libs are weak and can't be trusted to defend us against outsiders. you seem to be pretty good at defending us from bush. Is that your enemy? Your leader dirty Harry would rather win an election than a war and has declared so. he also is calculating soldier deaths to trade for Senate seats and has announced the war is lost to enhance his position. Is that how you Dems win a war? Perhaps our enemies are closer than we think.

but this topic clearly points out the differences among the parties. I hope you proclaim these views loud and clear for all the voters to contemplate.

Hillary and Biden were the best. Obama and Edwards not so much. Even Gravel would be better than dubyah!

To bring any racial card into this is to play into the hands of the enemies of poor, middle class and disadvantaged people. That is why Richardson and Obama just exited my list. Gravel brought up the most important issue facing us, hilary walked up to it and backed off at the last moment. The issue is military-industrial complex. If we as people do not get ourselves out from under this, we too will be like the folks of Costa Rica who now, under law, must pay Beuchtel for the right to collect water running from the roofs of their houses. Perhaps you may not have noticed but the REAL winners in dividing the classes are the corporations that profit frpm class struggle and war. Never forget that outsourcing is just a PC word for taking advantage of the disadvanted people of all colors in the world. Who do you think shifts jobs around globally? Who do you think profits from the slums in Mexico, Chicago or East LA? In case anyone has not noticed, the terrorists of the world have made it clear that it is not the PEOPLE of the US they hate but the policies. Who establishes those policies? Educate not only yourselves but your children, friends and people you meet even casually. It is the only hope we have. It is the best way to combat death in the minorities, global warming and the continued wars for profit. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a survival issue.

Razor -- the career folks in the CIA, from what I've read, don't think torture produces effective information. Neither does John McCain, who knows a little something about the topic. So I actually don't think there's much to debate on the topic. The problem is that not everyone running the show, in the CIA, at DOD, or the plethora of other intelligence gathering agencies that continue to resist communicating with one another, are actually awawre of what is effective. They're more concerned with...as you alluded to...covering their own behinds.

Ultimately, my problem with your entire position is that it creates a false dichotomy. You say, essentially, that "liberals" -- which I guess means everyone who doesn't vote for the GOP in a straight ticket -- are somehow precluding effective security measures b/c we disagree with torturing suspected terrorists. In reality, folks like me are saying that there's nothing incompatable with applying the geneva convention AND defending our country.

As a matter of fact, we've managed to walk that line for a long time. Heck, some guy named Ronald used to talk about the importance of the United States being the "shining city on the hill." What do I know though -- I used to think "conservatives" cared more about civil liberties than anyone. Clearly that's not the case anymore.

Razorback: DEMOCRATS WOULD PURSUE TERRORISTS MORE COMPETENTLY THAN REPUBLICANS. Hell, Republicans don't believe in government, so it is difficult for them to be competent at anything relating to it. Democrats would, however, retain the Bill of Rights, including habeas corpus, for American citizens who are suspects. Over the years, these have served us well. An act of terror is a crime, and should be handled by the local, state, federal, and international (as, Interpol) police, and, if state-sponsored, by the military as well.

I think biden and richardson and gore would all make great vice-presidents. Team one of those guy up with obama. That is scary against a rudy/brownback. or mccain/gingrich

sdasdf

Senator Biden is a first-tier candidate.

Does it matter? Bush lost all the debates in 2000 and 2004 and he was still elected. The American people are looking for a weak loser that they can identify with. A dry drunk Jesus Freak with dictatorial fantasies will do just fine. Keep your eye on Neil Bush for President, that's a Bushie Americans can relate to.

I am surprised by how much collective opinion seems to have been shaped or reinforced by this shallow exercise. My own view may be no exception.

I suspect that for moderates and independents like me, the "two" who desperately tried to outflank each other on the left made the "six" look thoroughly centrist.

Will a similar dynamic appear in the first Republican debate?

Will the Republicans have been schooled on the many absolutely irrelevant questions that wasted my video recording? "Who is your moral leader?" Indeed. And does Williams think that it is "controversial" for New Mexico's Governor to be well regarded by the NRA despite his four Nobel nominations? That questioning Edwards' spending $400 for a haircut with campaign funds addresses an issue, or a personal shortcoming of some relevance to the Presidency? I could go on.

The "six" all were polite in answering foolish questions at one point or another, and I suppose the mainstream Republicans will be, too. Polite is good.

By that rational razor. Bush is 100% responsible for the over 3,300 deaths in iraq. As has been said. If you don't know the blood of american and iraqi blood is already on our hands

roo - from Wikipedia (and I know it's not a perfect source) "summary executions occur without any meaningful inquiry or investigation, they are often considered illegal, and therefore acts of murder. They may, in rare cases, be more acceptable under extreme circumstances, such as in a war zone, or a similar context of profound instability where the criminal justice system is non-functioning, or otherwise too overwhelmed to deal with a widescale breakdown in government."

From the Post News webpage: U.S. Captures Senior al-Qaida Operative
By Pauline Jelinek, AP
Friday, April 27, 2007; 4:45 PM

WASHINGTON -- ...Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi is believed responsible for plotting cross-border attacks from Pakistan on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and he led an effort to assassinate Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and U.N. officials, the Pentagon said.

Afghanistan/Pakistan = a war zone and an area of profound instability where the criminal justice system is non-functioning.

Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi could have been summarily executed.

Now he should be a POW, and until he is going to be charged with Criminal acts he doesn't rate an attorney.

Give em' Hell, Mike Gravel... one hell of a candidate.... maybe for the 1972 Vice Presidential nomination. McGovern-Gravel might have picked up two or three states.

"|", the worst example of the bureacrats getting in the way of the field officers was when they decided that no probably cause existed to inspect the computer of Zac Moussoui.

Some were afraid of being accused of profiling a dark complected Islamic person, so they refused to agree that "probably cause" to issue the warrant existed.

The same leftists that have attacked law enforcement for years about "profiling" had it their way, and the warrant was not issued.

When the attack happened, those leftists became monday morning quarterbacks, and attacked the administration for not preventing the attack.

Libs, its fine if you dont want to question these people without an attorney. Its fine if you want to limit wiretapping. All of your suggestions are just fine ONLY IF on the morning AFTER the attack, you are man/woman enough to stand up and say that even though you regret the body count, there is a price we have to pay for civil liberties.

pEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST :)

And to jail with all the sellouts and traitors that sold the country out to line their pockets. In the old days what happened to people who did this sort of thing? Sell-out your country so you and your freinds make a fortune. Let's call the conservative movement what it is. Why suger coat it. Why massage their twisted view of the world. LETS BRING TRUTH BACK. We have justice officals taking the fifth these days. LEt's call it what it is. Feelings? Screw conservatives feelings. What do they care about other than $$$$. I'm broke. I don't have any $$$$$, only truths

I am the only one qualified to make decisions. I will appoint my fellow bureacrats to follow my wishes. We Libs love to take charge.

Love always,
Ignorant coward

While we are all studying the law, it might do some good to study Johnson v. Eisentrager, a US Supreme Court case regarding application of US law to non-citizens.

Foreign born mutts being questioned outside the US do not have a right to an attorney.

Razorback--You are right. It is not about securing the U.S. It is about CYA.

razorback - It would seem that you've never seen some of the career or appointee idiots that manage to get their way into policy and strategy making positions in the branches of the government.

Anonymous--"Sorry roo, he's a member of an organized military group, who chooses not to wear a uniform.

Which makes him a spy ..."

Actually, that is not even close to being correct viz. U.S. and international laws regarding espionage. But do not let that get in your way.

Colin, I understand there are 2 sides to what some call "torture" and that there is a reasonable debate as to the reliability of information obtained from any source.

My position is this: There are alot of really good people whose job it is to secure this nation. They get unfairly blamed for "failing to connect the dots" with respect to 9/11. People who try to smear Bush (or Clinton) for failing to prevent 9/11 are really smearing the FBI or CIA people who actually follow leads and investigate, which were pretty much the same civil service people under Clinton and Bush.

I say that those who get the blame if an attack happens should be allowed to do whatever they see fit to protect the nation. If what you say is "torture" in fact does not work, and leads to wrong information, then the professionals in charge of our security will obviously never "torture" because it wont work to secure our country. However, if the professionals in charge of our security are facing a dire emergency and decide that aggressive interrogation tactics might save American lives, not only do I think we should allow them to use those tactics, I think we should give the a medal for doing it.

"I am not aware of any wars for oil." - Hogboy

In 2003 or 2004, saw James A. Baker, III say that was why we invaded Iraq. Then never heard it from anybody remotely connected with the Administration again.

Sorry roo, he's a member of an organized military group, who chooses not to wear a uniform.

Which makes him a spy and subject to summary execution if we choose.

Attorneys, back to the ambulances!

Q--"These 8-9 candidate debates are silly and a terrible way for anybody to decide who to vote for. Nobody gets a chance to really say anything or really interact with the other candidates. Part of the problem is that joke candidates have to be invited to the debates, lest they stir up trouble for the party."

Right on! Save democracy! We have to get rid of all these pesky candidates and their views! I mean what kind of fascist commies would actually have more than two differing viewpoints represented in a democratic political system?! Preposterous!

I am not aware of any wars for oil.

Oil for WHAT? Oil to fill barrels in Cheney's basement? Oil for multinationals to hoard until the price gets higher? Oil to flood the market to bring down the price of oil?

"War for oil" is a nice slogan, but meaningless. If you have a particular accusation in mind, I will tell you what I think about it.

Not so sure we've seen the last of Gravel. There is apparently a lot of interest in him (perhaps just curiosity) after last night night's debate. My one and only blog post about him (from last month) has averaged several hits an hour today.

Razorback -- actually, some of us say (1) torture is wrong AND produces unreliable information, so there's no reason to do it; and (2) we can make the country the safest by actually analyzing intelligence instead of twisting it to fit a pre-determined course of action.

But if you want to keep pretending Rudy is Jack Bauer that's fine too.

What do you mean being the presidents wife doesn't count?

It does. I have eight years experience as president already. that makes me the most qualified.

As long as it is not oil, Razoback. Oil is a commodity that is bought and sold, not to fought for.
Don't you agree?

Someone asked earlier, if you think Hillary did badly, be specific.

Ok...just about every answer she gave, especially the gun control question, there seemed to be this awkward delay, followed by a story that was buying her time until she gathered her thoughts. And even when she did gather her thoughts, she continuously referred back to her scripted talking points. In the gun control question, she could only resort to "Bill and I went to Columbine" sympathy card.

There just seems to be, in the media, an obsession with praising her for standard or mediocre deeds, and not excellence. She is often touted as the candidate with ability and experience, when frankly no one has the depth and variety of experience for president than Gov. Richardson. And if we want change...Obama, Clinton (and to a a much lesser degree Kucinich and Gravel) are the real agents of change.

To have an ability to step right into the White House...you need a President of conviction, intelligence, and who can think on his/her toes...not off script points and polling data. Genuine honesty and a willingness to listen.

The real winners last night were the people who submitted very good questions. Other than that, most candidates delivered a good comment at one point, but not consistently enough to stand out.

Winning comments: Obama ("My bosses, the taxpayers, are entitled to the same health benefits") Edwards (the family dining experience and the real, not scripted, thought on moral leaders), Richardson (admitting, in a breath of fresh honest air, that he wanted to give Gonzalez time to explain himself because he could relate to a common Hispanic upbringing), Biden ("Yes."), Clinton ("retaliation"--scripted talking point but great tactic)

So..please stop praising candidates for performances they should be doing anyway, and let's rightfully praise them when we see true traits we want our President to have as she/he represents us in the world.

Earlier this week, Giuliani drew a sharp rebuke from the Democratic candidates for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. He didn't back down from the comments.

On Friday, Giuliani also argued that Democrats are unwilling to reform the nation's education system with charter schools. He said that as mayor he struggled to reform New York's schools.

"We weren't really able to fundamentally reform them," Giuliani said, adding that he was naive to think he could. "They have to be (reformed) if they are going to be a ladder out of poverty."

Dems wouldn't know a good idea if it hit them in the empty head. Well here is one.

Tish,

I felt the same way.
any ideas how we can help him.
I Think he should run as an independant with Dennis Kucinich.
To me Obama, Hillary and Edwards were more like catering to what the public wants to hear. Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel looked more genuine and straight shooters.

Since we both reject peace on bin Ladin's terms SAM, we both agree that some things are worth fighting for, even though we both want peace.

goat909295, that strategy might work until some mutt got picked up and they asked Obama/Hillary what should we do? They might say "give him a lawyer".

Rudy would say, I want to find out what the guy knows so that we can protect Americans.

Then POOF, your little security argument would disappear.

Earlier this week, Obama tried to say that we all agree on terrorism in response to Rudy. "America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united."

We might be all united, but we all don't agree on HOW to fight terrorism. Some say, "give him a lawyer" and others say "find out what he knows so we can protect Americans."

These 8-9 candidate debates are silly and a terrible way for anybody to decide who to vote for. Nobody gets a chance to really say anything or really interact with the other candidates. Part of the problem is that joke candidates have to be invited to the debates, lest they stir up trouble for the party. Vanity candidates like Sharpton, Kucinich, and Mosley Braun in 2004 and Kucinich and Gravel now have to be invited and their presence is just a distraction. Everyone knows they have no chance of winning, yet we have to go through the farce of pretending they are legitimate. Excluding some candidates would be controversial, but short of that, these debates will continue to be a joke.

Razorback said,
Bin Ladin wants peace on his terms. Pease on whose terms SAM?

Perhaps we should reason with bin Ladin SAM? Maybe bin Ladin will cut us a deal if we agree that our ladies should wear "Hijab" [head scarf]. Any takers?

Dear friend Razorback,

I didn't say peace on Bin Laden's term. The whole world doesn't revolve around Bin Laden, believe it or not. Bin Laden is cornered somewhere in or around Afganistan. And had America not built so much resentment for itself around the world, for $25 or $50 milion , I can guarantee you, half of Pakistan will be after him and his head would long have been served on a golden plate to America. just like they did with Ramsey Yussef for only $2 million.

Razorback, exactly, those are the only options. Quartering or give him a lei and let him go.

Wow! Mike Gravel grabbed my attention and I want to learn more about him before the elections.

If I had to vote today, it would be for Mike Gravel and I only heard of him yesterday!

DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO FOR THE JUGULAR ON NATIONAL SECURITY. Should portray Republicans as untrustworthy. Whose watch did 9/11 happen on? How much have our borders, airports, seaports been secured? You give Republicans an enemy (The Taliban) and they go tearing off in the wrong direction after Hussein, carrying out corporate interests. They wear down our Army and Marine Corps on a purposeless occupation. Get tough. Make national security an issue that the Democrats own.

Definetely, Hillary answer very straight and tough in all the questions and replies.
She was the greatest of all the candidates.

Obama was okey, but I have to encourage every body to seriously prepare and vote for Hillary; she is the most safe candidate to back the country to the ideals and streams of a society from people to people. I coud not see the other candidates as presidential as her to be the next President of the United States.
Isabel Agudelo

973 684 - 6179

Definetely, Hillary answer very straight and tough in all the questions and replies.
She was the greatest of all the candidates.

Obama was okey, but I have to encourage every body to seriously prepare and vote for Hillary; she is the most safe candidate to back the country to the ideals and streams of a society from people to people. I coud not see the other candidates as presidential as her to be the next President of the United States.
Isabel Agudelo

973 684 - 6179

Definetely, Hillary answer very straight and tough in all the questions and replies.
She was the greatest of all the candidates.

Obama was okey, but I have to encourage every body to seriously prepare and vote for Hillary; she is the most safe candidate to back the country to the ideals and streams of a society from people to people. I coud not see the other candidates as presidential as her to be the next President of the United States.
Isabel Agudelo

973 684 - 6179

"Putting aside biases and party affiliations, if you apply simple mathematical logic, you will see that Rudy Giuliani will be the next President."

Democrats have fielded a very weak group of presidential candidates. Putting aside biases and party affiliations, if you apply simple mathematical logic, you will see that Rudy Giuliani will be the next President. With the accelerated primary schedule, he is assured of his party's nomination. And then in the general election, all he has to do is win a couple of Blue states - and all indications are that he will do just that regardless of who the Democrat candidate is. Unfortunately, the Democrats are excessively and unnecessarily obsessed with President Bush, who is not even a candidtae. And their misguided vision is reinforced by a cheerleading media. As a result, Democrats have lost sight of what the American people are really yearning for. Giulliani has a perfect opening and he is all set to exploit it.

The debate result in terms of expectations and performance are as follows:
Bottom Tier: Gravel came across as serious and informed and seemed to be the most willing to engage in give and take. Kucinich appeared clownish at times, especially waving a copy of the consititution in front of the camera. Isn't that Bob Byrd's shtick? Doesn't matter for these guys. They both got what they wanted: a national platform on which to perform.

Middle Tier: Dodd seemed irrelevant most of night. The "years" of experience gig did not play well. Biden's supposed clever one-word response to William's question about Biden's verbosity will do nothing to erase his image as somewhat of a blowhard and overexposed. Richardson was probably the best of these three, but he is not going to win too many Democratic primary votes east of the Mississippi portraying himself as a gun-toting Westerner.

Top Tier: Based on his poll numbers, Edwards came into the debate somewhere between the Middle Tier and Upper Tier candidates, but with a red dot next to his name based on the momentum he gained from his wife's cancer annoucement and the fact that he had name recognition leftover from the 2004 campaign. But he fumbled the question about who he looked up to as a standard for morality and took a hit on the $400 haircut issue. Bottom line, Edwards needed a bump from the debate, but maybe lost some ground.

Hillary and Barack both did well, meeting the standard of performance for well-briefed, well-prepared, highly-financed frontrunners. Maybe the edge goes to Obama as looking more presidential and slightly less programmed. Both maintained the gap between themselves and the rest of the pack.

Roo, the quote stated not to believe he is a terrorist. If we assume he isn't a terrorist, what happens next? Do we send him to an Avon convention, or do we cut him loose?

You know, Razorback, I read that quoted part and nowhere do the words 'let go' appear in it. Perhaps I am dyslexic? Or could it be that you are trying to misrepresent his position? Or is it that anything short of quartering him without due process is Terrorist Enabler(tm) talk?

I would shave rufus1133's head for free, if he passed a pi** test.

I would shave Edwards head for $399.

John D in Houston said:

Just to point out that I haven't heard anyone say - "oh poor terrorist, let's pat him on the head and send him home".

Actually rufus1133 said:

"I would put to much stock in those "terrorist" arrests. Probably people who were against the iran-like muslim rule of the saudi's. I would put to much stock in trusting OUR enemies."

rufus doesn't seem to think the guy is a terrorist, so we don't have any basis to hold him.

I see edwards shaving his head by the end. The whole haicut debate show just how desperate the right is. They are scared poop-less :)

WHO IS BURDENED WITH THE LEAST NEGATIVES? Democrats should back the horse most likely to win the general. Counting on it being a negative campaign, perhaps the dirtiest ever, we ask, WHO HAS THE LEAST NEGATIVES? With HRC, there is her voice, and the surprising amount of chauvinism out there against a woman president. With Obama, there is his inexperience, and the residual racism still with us. With Edwards, there is his hair. Sweet Jesus, can't he get a brushcut?

Actually Chris, Americans don't _usually_ like angry politicians/candidates. When however, they feel that they have been made fools of by an administration, when they feel they have been lied to consistently, when they feel that their children have been sacrificed to a political cause or sheer incompetence rather than a greater good, they can sometimes feel grateful to someone who can reflect how they feel.

So says fox "news" john d. Anyone who is not with that tactic is un-american. Or even terrorist themselves. All anericans should be against that.We need Fox "News' and their distortions to reality off the air for good

Guillotine! Guillotine!? What? Just to point out that I haven't heard anyone say - "oh poor terrorist, let's pat him on the head and send him home".

I think you guys have run amuck with fear - send in Jack Bauer - yeah, let's just waterboard his ass, attach electric wires to his genitals, and generally torture the hell out of him, even if we don't know for sure what he's done or what he knows.

That's what real American's do, for sure!

Razorback--"There is an issue as to whether the Geneva Convention applies to some mutt not in uniform."

Indeed there is. If he is not under the Conventions, then normal international criminal law applies.

Oh, and the answer to your 'question' is F), none of the above. He should be presumed innocent, appointed an attourney and then prosecuted timely either in accordance with the Conventions or regular criminal proceedings.

You hit it on the head Inveigler. I HOPE Obama stays with the people and doesn't sell us out in the end. I also agree you that one can't lead the country if you are only for black/white/green americans. ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Hillary was great. She's got it all. The great depth of experience, power, know how, knows all about how the government works,
knows how to get things done, always reaches to the future. (her Health insurance plan...that got no support from the republicans...when she was the first lady, and now everyone is jumping on it). I'm voting for her, no one can come up to all she has to be Commander in Chief. It's so disappointing to have George Bush as a president....he doesn't have enough to be what he is supposed to be. You go girl. I had hoped before I died there would be a women president. Women do sooooo well in other countries as leaders. And I am in my sixties. So I have knowledge of a lot presidential qualities, good & bad.
Hillary's got it all.

Initially, when I read that the democratic debates would take place so early on in the process, I found it quite alarming. Why would they willingly open themselves up to media pot-shots and Republican swift-boating so soon? However, after viewing each segment I think overall it was a success. I hope that everyone recognizes that ultimately this wasn't the time for either candidate to trot out public and foreign policy (after all candidates were only allotted 30 second rebuttals), rather it was an opportunity for the American people to get a clear look at what the Democratic ticket had to offer, including: physical appearance, charisma, style of oration, and yes, COMPOSURE.

As for Sen. Obama's stature during the event I think he did an exceptional job. He could have easily used his time in the spot light to pelt away the misguided caricature and slander of himself as being "inexperienced", but he chose to simply answer the question(s) that were asked; which to me demonstrated composure.

Frankly, it's refreshing to see, as a Black American, a presidential candidate that happens to be of African decent not regurgitating the typical rhetoric of both Sharpton and Jackson. Rather than directing his message of Hope and Unity solely to Black Americans --Senator Obama alligns this message to all Americans, regardless of ancestry. I think we'll all get to see soon enough that he is the right man for the job.

Obama '08

Why those of you who are yellow-dog Repbulicans (if you know what that means) would waste your time commenting on the Democratic debate is beyond me. Why would the rest of us who don't hate one party or the other even care to read your attacks? You just end up sounding provincial, narrow-minded and nasty. Save your thoughts for the first Republican debate.

The only one of the lot worth listening to was Gravel. Especially now that I found out he's a fair tax supporter. I think for the next election, I'll vote for anybody that's in favor of the Fair Tax regardless of party. Right now, it looks like Gravel is the only one.

Multiple Choice:

A. APPOINT HIM A LAWYER
B. GIVE HIM A TICKET AND SEND HIM HOME
C. HELP HIS MAMMA FIND HIM
D. GIVE HIM A TWINKIE
E. READ HIM HIS RIGHTS
F. SEND IN JACK BAUER.
G. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
(Added by rufus1133)
H. TREAT HIM AS A PRISONER OF WAR, EVEN
IF THE MUTT WAS NOT IN UNIFORM
(Added by "|")

Like you razorback?

From http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm four days ago:

"For the fourth straight week, Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) has gained ground and he has finally caught New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. It's now Obama 32% Clinton 32% and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards holding steady at 17%. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth at 3%. Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden each attract 1% support. So does General Wesley Clark."

Let's see what happens (if anything) to the polling numbers next week. Bet: Richardson drops to 1%, Kucinich appears in the single digits, Edwards increases, Biden appears in the single digits, Clinton and Obama both lose support to these more minor candidates but remain competitive with each other.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the captive is Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. He was received by the Pentagon this week from the CIA, Whitman said, but the spokesman would not say where or when al-Iraqi was captured or by whom. What should we do?

Was he wearing a military uniform? Was he representing a particular country during wartime? If so POW, if not - guillotine.

Or you could do what Libs want - give him full US constitutional rights, along with full geneva convention rights along with a bevy of lawyers paid by US taxes and start the TV trial.

If Hillary's in possession of all
the "right stuff" pray tell what is
that "stuff." She is the most power
hungry politician I have ever seen.
If the person who "wants" it most
is always the one who gets it, she will certainly be the Democratic nominee.
Without Bush to bash, what hope would
she or any other Democrat have? As a
non conformist who listens to both sides
and then judges, I am not led astray by
half-truths and apparent hypocrisy, and I see Hillary for the Lady Machiavellian that she is. Hillary's political savvy can
be traced back many years, primarily when she married the charismatic Clinton so that she would one day be the first woman president of the United States. He had to lead the way for her; otherwise, she would not be where she is today, vying for the
highest office in the land.
I think she has been planning for this presidential bid since she received her first All A report card in grade school, where she was always the "teacher's pet" and the envy of all the other students
because of her boldness coupled with her
ambition to be the best, the very best,
at everything she attempted.
Despite the recent debate and who won or who lost, as for the Democratic nomination and race for the White House, this is what I predict, based on the personalities
and ambitions of both:
Hillary Clinton for president; Al Gore for vice president. Hillary will never accept a
VP spot on the ticket. Al, on the other
hand, will. He is almost as hungry for that top spot as Hillary. Almost.
Al, you may ask, Al Gore? To which I
reply, Yes, Al. He is waiting in the wings at this very moment, ready to step
forward and share the limelight with
Hillary. Please, what do you think this
constant Global Warming hype is really all
about? The welfare of the world, of this nation, of this globe? Not on your
life! It is perfect political timing.
It is purely political--totally manipulative in design.
It is what it appears not to be. It is
Al keeping his name and reputation alive precisely at the time when the nominees for the party are being selected.
However, even with the support of his
Hollywood chronies giving him an Academy
Award, Al will find that his and Hillary's names on the Democratic ticket will be as far as they are able to go in this election. Why? You may ask. Well, I will tell you. Both Hillary and Al will be left out in the cold, much to their astonishment, dismay, and chagrin,as they watch our next president, Republican in strength and stature, being sworn in. And not because this Tall Tennessean hungers for the presidency more than for life itself, as do they, but because he is being "drafted" by the people in this country who know what we "need" at this crucial time in our nation. And what do we need, you may ask? Well, I w