Nobody even comes close to Ron Paul. He makes you forget about your party allegiances and helps you remember the American Ideals we were founded on. Democrat or not, I am voting for Ron Paul.

Yeah, it says something when you get more insight and factual reportage out of the responses from the posters than you do from Chris Cillizza's completely boring, pointless wrap-up of the forum. Another good example that the people who read the Post are smarter than the clueless twits who write for it. Good job, Chris...not. Talk about pablum.

Hillary is a programmed robot. No wonder Bill had affairs. No thanks. Trotting out that AIDS stat about women ages 25-34 was simply shameful audience-baiting. She's a wretched female dog whose ambition is scary. She makes Gore look totally viable.

Biden looked presidential. That surprised me, but pleasantly so. I'm all for a thoughtful, experienced guy, and he had the balls to talk about AIDS and RESPONSIBILITY, which took guts in front of that audience.

And who said Tavis Smiley is a genius??? OMG, I'm sure he's a very nice guy, but he is otherwise a very mediocre-minded, hard-working fellow who got lucky and found a niche on TV. He did his best to be efficient on the forum, and for that I applaud him. But let's not get crazy throwing the word "genius" around.

Finally, does anyone have Janine's phone number? I want to ask her out.

Thanks.

sqvg pfiwmkoe qiujbpg ywiqme hxiqy yebrlt rckzshjl [URL]http://www.jinusl.jzicnhq.com[/URL] oypivas pqkvdmcie

sqvg pfiwmkoe qiujbpg ywiqme hxiqy yebrlt rckzshjl [URL]http://www.jinusl.jzicnhq.com[/URL] oypivas pqkvdmcie

avri ldgrsfx cnmafhkxg bmqegvcaj bovkxlu wykpsbjlf cwlxkp [URL=http://www.xlighyw.qoutphyz.com]smjb gobj[/URL]

linqmsrod oybigxvte sauhteb gqsa hickm lpfbh zujamx http://www.itchabzpx.fmdjvuik.com

linqmsrod oybigxvte sauhteb gqsa hickm lpfbh zujamx http://www.itchabzpx.fmdjvuik.com

kzfxhdaiu sxhqztvf dfyqn xidw qrivtadyk gmjlyn qisob

platitudes

soft answers

safe ideas

status quo

more of the past

nervous, fearful

wait!

Dennis has the specific, courageous ideas
(we ARE the land of he free and home of the brave right?)

Time to save the ship, not just rearrange the deck chairs.

platitudes

soft answers

safe ideas

status quo

more of the past

nervous, fearful

wait!

Dennis has the specific, courageous ideas
(we ARE the land of he free and home of the brave right?)

Time to save the ship, not just rearrange the deck chairs.

Mark in Austin
Here is the amendment
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:4:./temp/~r110didsa7:e0:

Robotech, "majority rules" is only workable when the majority has access to and takes seriously all of the information available... otherwise "majority rules" runs the risk of becoming "lowest common denominator." Now, I don't live in a part of the country where I am required to deal with non-English speakers as a part of my daily routine. In my last job, however, I worked closely with people from all over the world, many of whom did not speak English fluently or even that well at all. I found that with attention and concentration, the language barriers which admittedly are there, are not nearly so impossible to overcome as you might think. It does require effort on both sides to imagine where the other person might be coming from, and patience to keep asking until you ask the right questions. In many parts of America, however, we are so closed to/fearful/resentful of other cultures that we are unwilling to make this minimal effort, and this translates into hostile behavior which is returned from the other side. Don't get me wrong - I think English should be the default in the US, but I also think education in foreign languages and cultures should be a main subject in our schools, mandatory every year. We are now a multicultural society whether you and Sen. Inhofe like it or not. It is impossible to turn back the clock to a time when the nation was (more) liguistically and culturally on the same page.

hi, Robotech -

When you describe EaOL, do you mean:

A] Employers cannot be liable under Title 7 for English only rules in the workplace, and literacy/fluency in English are required for citizenship and public school progression;

or

B} As in Austria and France, a subcommittee of Congress or an executive department determines on a periodic basis what words are to be permitted to come into the language or what new words are to be coined, and no fed government generated document can be printed in another language except with specific congressional or executive authorization?

We should do A], I think, but not B], which I have seen work laughably in Austria. Many people call A] "national language", partly because it does not require a Constitutional Amendment.
B] probably could not be implemented without an Amendment; that would add one more bureaucracy to the federal government.

Can you post the website where I can read Imhofe's idea?

Aussie view
First off, maybe to you English Official is not important. There are many here in America that think it is. Apparently, 91%. A lot of us feel it is an issue that shows a much deeper problem and is a key point to get accomplished to help get some other changes made.

It has nothing to do with Polls. Do you think that a Poll is the only way a politician gets their constituents views?
Don't you think that if it's 91% in a Poll, that the politician would also be getting letters on the subject? How about during campaigning. 91% in the poll would clearly indicate that it would be an issue that would come up.
Also, why NOT have a National vote on an issue that is causing a major division in the Congress. It's been done before and we certainly have the technology for it.

By the way, I am for English as Official Language. I have personally written 100's of letters on this in the last two years. Almost every time a new bill gets debated, Sen Inhofe offers the amendment. It usually gets voted in, but then someone like Sen Salazar or Sen Kennedy will also submit a "Fig Leaf" amendment that puts it back to the way it is. Then in Conference they will use the simplest amendment in the final bill. Essentially negating Sen Inhofe's amendment. I have seen this happen four times in a year and a half.

However, again, my main point is not English only. It's majority rules, which Democracy is based on.
I am not a sheeple. I want a politician that will at least make an effort at knowing what the people that elects them are wanting.
And maybe you are an optimistic person and trust your politicians.
I do not. I want to know that if my opinion did not drive the making of a law, that at least the majority's did and not the politicians personal agenda..
I am not egotistical enough to think I always have it right. But I do stand up for what I believe in.
Again, my question is, why would a person vote for a politician that makes it clear they would not support the majority of their constituents?

It's interesting how different people can watch the same event, and walk away with totally different takes on.

Biden is my choice however, being realistic I don't hold out hope.

What really surprised me, was Dennis' performance and acceptance by the predominantly black audience. I, like many, have written Dennis off as just a fringe candidate out to pull the front runners more towards his anti-war stance. I've wondered what keeps him going through all of the campaigning and debates. If the response last night was anywhere near to what he receives on the stump, I can see why he doesn't get dispirited.

I know everyone will be talking about Hillary and Obama, but I think if one goes back and reviews the debate objectively, not watching how well the front runners are doing, you may walk away as I did, amazed. I think Dennis, being the second tier candidate, made his presence known and felt.

Mark in Austin - I get what you're saying about Richardson, but his answer to the AIDS question was extremely unclear. He just mumbled something about 'needing more needles' without any apparent context. I will be honest with you - i did not have a clue what he meant. I do now you've explained it, but IMO (and I have no reason to dislike the guy, in fact I really hope he gets his act together) his AIDS answer was the worst answer of any question asked at any of the debates I've seen so far. It was almost embarrassing.

Robotech - surely America has more important things to worry about than whether English should be made the official language?

Whilst I sort of understand your point about public opinion, do you really want politicians who just read the polls and act on what is flavour of the month and whatever direction the wind is blowing? I guess we won't need to elect leaders then, we could just do phone surveys to make our decisions!

I think MY candidate won. All (leading opposing candidate) did was (spun version of the opponent's position.) MY candidate showed real leadership on (signature issue), which was addressed by no other candidate. While (other candidates) seemed (pejorative adjective), MY candidate was able to win support from the crowd by saying "(quote)."

MY candidate '08!

Senator Obama throughout all the debates has demonstrated that he is calm, collected, reasonable and thoughtful. He listens intently to what others are saying, not like others who are too busy formulating a response. This is why Senator Obama stand out above all the others. He listens, thinks and then responds, versus those who respond, then listen and then think about what was said. We want our President to listen, think and then react.

We don't want someone who reacts, then listens and then thinks - we've had 8 years of this type of leadership, we don't need another 4 years of deaf, thoughtless leadership.

Experience alone does not make a good president. The person has to have the ability to lead and influence people. That means looking at the candidate's non-verbal language, as well as how and what they say. Senator Obama is presenting his vision of America.

Arthur Schesslinger wrote that 125 years ago our most brilliant historian, Henry Adams proposed a test. The American president, he wrote, "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek." The Constitution offers every president a helm, but the course and the port constitute the first requirement for presidential greatness. Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America. Their passion is to make sure the ship of state sails on the right course. If that course is indeed right, it is because they have an instinct for the dynamics of history.

de Gaulle once said "A statesman may be determined and tenacious. . . but, if he does not understand the character of his time, he will fail."

Great Presidents have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of the people. "I do not believe," said Wilson, "that any man can lead who does not act . . . under the impulse of a profound sympathy with those whom he leads -- a sympathy which is insight -- an insight which is of the heart rather than of the intellect."

Senator Obama has the vision for a better America and understands the character of our times - that we need to change the way we do business in Washington. He is a born leader.

Senator Obama throughout all the debates has demonstrated that he is calm, collected, reasonable and thoughtful. He listens intently to what others are saying, not like others who are too busy formulating a response. This is why Senator Obama stand out above all the others. He listens, thinks and then responds, versus those who respond, then listen and then think about what was said. We want our President to listen, think and then react.

We don't want someone who reacts, then listens and then thinks - we've had 8 years of this type of leadership, we don't need another 4 years of deaf, thoughtless leadership.

Experience alone does not make a good president. The person has to have the ability to lead and influence people. That means looking at the candidate's non-verbal language, as well as how and what they say. Senator Obama is presenting his vision of America.

Arthur Schesslinger wrote that 125 years ago our most brilliant historian, Henry Adams proposed a test. The American president, he wrote, "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek." The Constitution offers every president a helm, but the course and the port constitute the first requirement for presidential greatness. Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America. Their passion is to make sure the ship of state sails on the right course. If that course is indeed right, it is because they have an instinct for the dynamics of history.

de Gaulle once said "A statesman may be determined and tenacious. . . but, if he does not understand the character of his time, he will fail."

Great Presidents have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of the people. "I do not believe," said Wilson, "that any man can lead who does not act . . . under the impulse of a profound sympathy with those whom he leads -- a sympathy which is insight -- an insight which is of the heart rather than of the intellect."

Senator Obama has the vision for a better America and understands the character of our times - that we need to change the way we do business in Washington. He is a born leader.

Senator Obama throughout all the debates has demonstrated that he is calm, collected, reasonable and thoughtful. He listens intently to what others are saying, not like others who are too busy formulating a response. This is why Senator Obama stand out above all the others. He listens, thinks and then responds, versus those who respond, then listen and then think about what was said. We want our President to listen, think and then react.

We don't want someone who reacts, then listens and then thinks - we've had 8 years of this type of leadership, we don't need another 4 years of deaf, thoughtless leadership.

Experience alone does not make a good president. The person has to have the ability to lead and influence people. That means looking at the candidate's non-verbal language, as well as how and what they say. Senator Obama is presenting his vision of America.

Arthur Schesslinger wrote that 125 years ago our most brilliant historian, Henry Adams proposed a test. The American president, he wrote, "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek." The Constitution offers every president a helm, but the course and the port constitute the first requirement for presidential greatness. Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America. Their passion is to make sure the ship of state sails on the right course. If that course is indeed right, it is because they have an instinct for the dynamics of history.

de Gaulle once said "A statesman may be determined and tenacious. . . but, if he does not understand the character of his time, he will fail."

Great Presidents have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of the people. "I do not believe," said Wilson, "that any man can lead who does not act . . . under the impulse of a profound sympathy with those whom he leads -- a sympathy which is insight -- an insight which is of the heart rather than of the intellect."

Senator Obama has the vision for a better America and understands the character of our times - that we need to change the way we do business in Washington. He is a born leader.

Hillary Clinton is by far the person who has the most experience,
clarity and courage.
Has it ever occured to her detractors that changing her mind on an important political issue that involves the security and lives of millions of people may be a sign of strength and thoughtfulness?

Hillary Clinton is by far the person who has the most experience,
clarity and courage.
Has it ever occured to her detractors that changing her mind on an important political issue that involves the security and lives of millions of people may be a sign of strength and thoughtfulness?

Sorry for the double posts above. It's thundering and lightening outside so I was in a hurry to finish the posts and turn off my PC.

Sam
Do you have a link to information on comprehensive campaign finance reform?

Truth Hunter
"The rub is regardless of what they say, what will they do?"
Agreed.
However what they are saying is a start and is all we have to go by until they mess up and show true colors.
For Presidential candidates to come out on a National TV Debate and say they won't support the opinion of 91% of the American People has me flabbergasted.
Also, just to voice my opinions, Hillary's support for the DREAM Act is another one of the reasons that I absolutely will not vote for her.
And I believe we need an American for President, not a Black American, not a White American, Hispanic American, etc. Obama has shown me in all the debates so far that his agenda is going to be mostly a Black agenda. We are in desperate need of a President, RIGHT NOW, that has AMERICA first in their agenda.
I really think that America has matured enough to have a woman and a black president.
Give Me a Margaret Thatcher clone and I'll vote for her. I am not going to bash Hillary, but she just isn't for me.

Sam
Do you have a link to information on comprehensive campaign finance reform?

Truth Hunter
"The rub is regardless of what they say, what will they do?"
Agreed.
However what they are saying is a start and is all we have to go by until they mess up and show true colors.
For Presidential candidates to come out on a National TV Debate and say they won't support the opinion of 91% of the American People has me flabbergasted.
Also, just to voice my opinions, Hillary's support for the DREAM Act is another one of the reasons that I absolutely will not vote for her.
And I believe we need an American for President, not a Black American, not a White American, Hispanic American, etc. Obama has shown me in all the debates so far that his agenda is going to be mostly a Black agenda. We are in desperate need of a President, RIGHT NOW, that has AMERICA first in their agenda.
I really think that America has matured enough to have a woman and a black president.
Give Me a Margaret Thatcher clone and I'll vote for her. I am not going to bash Hillary, but she just isn't for me.

Barack Obama has an almost stunned look on his face when he has to answer a question. He seems unable to be specific so he goes into rant mode that is merely a confirmation that yes ... what we have here is a problem.

I thought he would have improved by now. He hasn't. And he won't.

Hillary has pretty well won me over. She's got all her ducks in a row. She is extremely Presidential.

veritas, that's ridiculous. If you don't like Hillary, then the notion of her becoming president is a danger. It is perfectly fine to articulate the things you don't like about her. This has nothing to do with any TV or radio show, it is perfectly possible for anyone to find Hillary seriously annoying on their own and desperately hope to not have a seriously annoying president.

I think Richardson is the best candidate. His ideas have a chance to win over the middle ground during the General.

Sarah, what about Kucinich's views do you favor? I ask, because you are a political science major, who knows that national defense is a constitutional imperative and that "education" is a word not to be found in the Constitution.

Do you favor a national one-payer medical system, without having first tried it on some smaller scale, before destroying the admittedly flawed system we have?

Do you buy his notion that Canada, with fewer gunshot victims in a year than any major American city has in three months, somehow has comparable medical imperatives to the USA?

I know that there are serious adults who will try to defend Kucunich's "all-peace-all-the-time" federal nannie approach to American government, but I doubt if many of them were political science majors.

Forgive my rant; when the question was what should be done for the African-American community to prevent AIDS, he and all the others except Biden and Richardson said "find the cure" or some such. When Biden said males need to understand that wearing protection is not an issue of manliness and women need to learn to say no to unprotected sex, Biden got a very still audience. And when Richardson talked about "condoms and needles" even a poster here, claiming to be a HowardAlum, did not understand him.

But they loved Kucinich.

I'm a 22 year old Democrat (I guess because Jeez they suck these days) and a poli sci student to boot. I was just as entranced by Obama's 2004 convention speech as anyone else. However, I'm tired of waiting to be "wowed" by him. Last night left me seriously unimpressed. He should be knocking this stuff out of the park and he still comes off so mousy. If there is anyone to shake this race up, it's him and he still does nothing but speak to us like children. And with the Howard crowd? If not there, then where can he find his base of strength? Almost every response he countered after Edwards was a dressed up version of "but I'm BLACK." Also, why won't anyone admit that the crowd LOVED Kucinich last night, because they absolutely did. Too bad the numbers of white voters are stacked against the little guy.

All those who are following Obama blindly ...pinch yourself, wakeup... its just a "crush".
Obama did good yesterday, but honestly is good enough?He is articulate ... but where is the substance... He better start releasing some solid plans. All his answers are so "high level". He is selling dream ware. In all the three debates, he seems to focus more on this dreamy vision and less on actual plans...
Hope is Good...hope without actions is merely "vaporware".

Robotech.... Well said. The rub is regardless of what they say, what will they do?

Bush decried foreign adventures and wrapped himself in the flag... the only problem for the U.S. voters was they didn't realize it was the Iraq and Mexicans flags.... the U.S. flag is just for spending life and treasure.

Richard III cried... "My kingdom for a horse" when he was unseated on the field of battle. He didn't get the horse, and he lost his kingdom.

I, like so many others, cry... "My vote for an honest, U.S.-first presidential candidate." Will we also find ourselves without one in November 2008, and continue losing our country?

A poster here recently exhorted people not to be negative, and instead to support their candidate. Which candidate? I'm still waiting.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

If you are tired of elitist politicians, then you ought to support comprehensive campaign finance reform. Because until that happens, no one but 'elitists' will be able to afford to run.

Bokonon
Your reply about how we should be treating the 12-20 Million Illegals is your opinion and not the final word on the subject.
Neither is mine, but it should be noted that mine seems to be shared by a majority that includes a surprisingly amount of liberals.
However, this disagreement is ongoing and is to be expected.
My real concern is that I never get a response, from Repubs or Demos, about my apprehension of being stuck with Democratic Candidates that have no problem showing up front that they are not going to support the will of the Majority of the American People.
Doesn't this bother anyone else but me?
In the Repub debate, the same "91% English Official" question, as I indicated in my previous post, was asked. All of the Candidates raised their hands, although McCain was reticent. Now, I am not so naive as to think that meant they (Repubs) would support the 91% opinion as it could have been indicative of how they really felt instead of 91% public opinion.
I would hope that in the next debate, there would be a question to the Repubs that would give an indication of how they would support the majority opinion.
Of course, it is probably too late to ask after seeing the result of the outcry over the Shamnesty bill.
or as Sen Sessions has named it, "The No Illegal Alien Left Behind Act".
Seriously, I will not vote for a candidate that has not adequately shown that the will of the people is foremost in his agenda. I am tired of Elitist Politicians.

Could the Hillary haters stop and just concentrate on the virtues of their favored candidate? Unless their guy is good enough to win on merit-without having to trash Hillary to get there- they don't deserve it- Especially the Obama crowd- Ideology is great- in fact, all the Democrats on the stage have basically the same convictions- some are better at expressing it, some are better at facilitating and carrying through- Let's judge by the whole -not just by the superficial Remembering how important this election is-for goodness sake -don't hurt our own- We're all on the same team-By being rude and angry you are doing exactly what the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters are hoping you will do-don't let them be your spiritual leaders-our country deserves and needs more from you.

Well, the media reviews are in and it's just about unanimous that Hillary Clinton clearly WON the debate last night. And I agree. So now she is 3 for 3 in the debates. Three debates, eight candidates and one clear winner - Hillary Rodham Clinton!

'I am a whiny Democrat (or should that be I am a whiny Democratic?) but I don't have a blog yet so I will post a link to it when I have one because everyone should read my Democrat blog.'

I am a whiny Democrat (or should that be I am a whiny Democratic?) but I don't have a blog yet so I will post a link to it when I have one because everyone should read my Democrat blog.

I'm with Janine on the tone of the debate. The sooner we give up the childish attraction of focusing on our minute differences and realize we are all just screwed up Homo sapiens in the same boat, the better. Where do you begin and end with race? Are you 100% black or white or only 72.6%? Are you Jewish and African and Chinese mixed? What percentage of each? If you are black, are you sure you're from Africa? If you're black and from Borneo than what the hell do you do?

Anyway the debate which really wasn't a debate wasted a heck of a lot of time posturing and partying before they ever got to the candidates. No wonder there was little time to speak. The moderator should have had a bell or better yet a buzzer to cut the windbags off. It was interesting that the ones who went over their time allotment the most were the same ones blabbing and not saying anything.

As I read the comments it becomes distressingly clear that this is more like American Idol than American presidential debates. Who looks good and who seems calm and who comes off attractively may all be of interest, but have nothing to do with governing America. Predictably, Kucinich and Mike Gravel were the only ones to vary from the speedy babble script. It least this debate forum was less absurdly lopsided in previous debates in that it permitted, Kucinich and Gravel almost equal time. Joe Biden did make an interesting comment about the Supreme Court and deserves points for opening his mouth on that subject.

It's easy to understand how Mike Gravel can be discounted as senile. You're not going to get that youthful American Idol twinkle from a 77-year-old statesman who more than any single individual is responsible for ending the Vietnam War. Respect for our elders and respect for past service to the American public pale in comparison to a good haircut. Just mentioning the war on drugs deserves high marks but even this audience didn't want to go there. Likewise mentioning the IRS took real guts but didn't seem to soak in. Apparently those subjects just didn't fit with the partying mood of this debate. If I recall correctly, Mike Gravel even got some boos when he brought up the fact that each election cycle candidates talk about these same subjects, and after each election cycle, nothing has been done about them.

Hillary is hollow in my opinion. She is so groomed herself to be acceptable to everyone that the only outstanding aspect of her personality is her complete lack of human uniqueness. But for all those who support her, please do something with her voice box. Get her sinuses reamed or something.

Kucinich is obviously smart and quick witted and has the balls to stand up to the military-industrial complex, but it doesn't "look good" on camera.

So screw it. Who cares anyway. Paris Hilton for president.

Bokonon... I guess you didn't get to see Harry Reid, Kennedy and, the other select few "The Masters of the Universe" (so called by Sen. Jeff Sessions) utilitzing arcane senate rules to try to steamroll Bush's immigration scheme. It was a jaw-dropping bit of skulduggery worthy of The Decider.

Would Hillary be better than Bush?.... regardless of how she is trying to rewrite her history, she was 100% for the invasion of Iraq.

There was no bigger Bill Clinton fan than myself.... but we're now living with the NAFTA and mega-media bills he signed, no more than signed, signed on to.

Escuse me if I'm wary.... sign me Independent!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Bokonon,

you said, "To protect American jobs, we need to make it harder for companies to take them away from Americans."

American workers demand higher wages b/c of inflation and the loose monetary policies or OUR Fed. the Fed is the cause, we need a Leader who will stop treating the symptoms and root out the inflation.

you also said wrt illegal immigration, "As citizens, they would be easier to keep track of and easier to collect taxes from."

this would be true if they earned enough money to put them over the poverty line, but guess what? they won't. why? inflation. we'll be paying higher taxes and supporting them w/ welfare whether they're legal or not. it's OUR welfare system for OUR single-mothers and the disabled, NOT Mexico's poor.

research Ron Paul's positions on the issues. i gave Hillary and Obama a chance, of course they blew it when they started spewing their socialist big FedGov policies and nation-building hypocrisy (out of Iraq, into Darfur!), but i did give them a chance.

Liked the format, more respectful. All had some good comments. Obama's response on at risk poor children, that we "need someone in the White House that will recognize these children as our own"... was touching, especially in comparison to the current occupant.

Hey Robotech:

Immigration will happen in one way or another no matter what we do, because the jobs and quality of living are better here than in Mexico and elsewhere. As long as that is true, the immigrants will keep coming. Do you think a fence will stop them when they're already willing to risk a 60-70% chance of death crossing the desert to get to Arizona/California/Texas?

And if we really are the kind of people we say we are, we must treat everyone in this country humanely. Border enforcement will not work to prevent jobs being taken away from Americans - low-cost labor is a big (if not the only) reason that so many jobs that used to be in this country are now in Asia, remember. To protect American jobs, we need to make it harder for companies to take them away from Americans. That's the only thing that will work - get tough on boardrooms, not borders. That will mean removing tax incentives for companies who leave the states - maybe even establishing penalties. Let them whine.
And in re: "pathway to citizenship," the illegals who are here are using our health care (emergency, indigent), social services, etc. ANYWAY. As citizens, they would be easier to keep track of and easier to collect taxes from.

And Truth Hunter, do you really not see a difference between the "rotating tyrants"? I am no fan of Hillary, but even she - my third or fourth choice out of the group - would represent a positive change in the direction policy and conversation has taken in DC over the past two terms.

does anyone else think its funny that we go to a newspaper website to be told who won a debate?

In the end the Clinton people will say she won, the Obama people will say she won, to which the Clinton people will say they are stupid or misguided and so on and so forth.

I say make up your mind and go vote and lets stop listening to guys like Chris who try to tell us how to think and vote.

Two opinions.
1. Last Demo Debate, there was the question
"91% of the American People want English as official language. With a raise of hands, who would support that."
Only Gravel raised his hand.
Forget English, the point is 91%! All the front runners admitted that even if 91% of the American people supported an issue, the candidate would not support the American people!
How Arrogant! This is what Bush does now. Why would we elect a President that we know up front won't listen to the will of the people!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I won't be a sheeple anymore. WE elect them to be our voice in our government. If the majority wants something done, then it should be done. The majority of the "People" are not stupid. The details may be blurry, but they usually have the core of the issue nailed.
2. Notice how there were no questions about illegal immigration.
This is because the issue is so hot, they don't want to alert the voters of their stance on it.
Clinton and Obama supported that horrible Reform bill until the last. Brownback was the only one to vote it down. And he only did it because he knew it was dead and didn't want to commit anymore Political Capital to it.
All of the Democratic candidates are for a Pathway to Citizenship (Amnesty). If you are against that, then you need to reevaluate who you are looking at voting for. If any Democrat is elected, we will be fighting this crap again. And the next time, it won't be bi partisan and the Democrats won't be listening to the grass roots. They think we can't govern ourselves.
It's time to vote Independent until we get a government that listens to US. That means ALL of our Elected Officials need to be hand picked by the American People, not by Party loyalty, but by common sense.
Yeah, count me in on the "Common Sense" Party.

With the opening Howard/Black/moderataors self-promotion I felt sucker-punched.

And, it turned the event into an unabashed pander-fest.

A few good points made by the finally appearing candidates... but no real homeruns.

The candidates of both parties have polished their presentations, so are we getting their ideas, or those of their pollsters and handlers?

The line keeps running through my mind, "We rotate our tyrants and call it self-government."

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

The winner last night: Al Gore, of course.

What we all have to remember is that debates are an excellent tool for presidential candidates to express there ideas and opinions about issues, however being a talented public speaker does not prove you have what it takes to be a SUCCESSFUL president. With that being said my vote is for Obama. Even in all is vagueness he addressed the audience with sincerity and integrity (a taboo in politics) and that is what it takes.

"What a boring, NON-debate."

Ya'll may have missed the real fireworks last evening, when Anne C. blogged on the Wag the Blog section a little after 5:00 p.m.

Looking forward to the recap of that, CC.

By the way, the Biden HIV-test thing, that Obama caught Joe's unintentional double entendre in, was cute. The two of them really are complementary. Hopefully Joe's harmlessly silly foot in mouth episodes, those sure to come in future as well as those in past, will not deter Obama from tapping Biden as VP.

With Clinton you know what you are getting because she only ever says things that come from the past. You may not LIKE what you are getting, but you have the security of KNOWING what you are getting.

With Obama you have to trust your instincts a little more, because his whole thrust is toward the future. For the future, character and judgment and the ability to think on your feet matter a lot. Old lists don't predict the future. That's why Obama doesn't waste time reciting old lists.

So part of the difference between who likes Clinton and who likes Obama is whether you want the security of a mediocre but known quantity, or the chance of greatness but in a less familiar sphere.

I can see reasonable people going either way, so it will just depend how voters feel at primary time.

What a boring, NON-debate.

Gravel and Kucinich were the only ones speaking the truth, everyone else just promised watered down Socialism and policy amounting to throwing money at all of the world's problems which EQUALS rampant inflation and more problems for the lower and middle classes.

Bush is a complete idiot, no argument there. BUT until the Democrats can put someone on the ballot who's not for the status-quo then we'll get more of the same: amnesty for illegal immigrants, welfare/warfare state (hello, Darfur), higher taxes, rampant inflation, bigger government (fraud/waste/abuse!), corporatism offshoring American jobs, and globalization (buh-bye sovereignty).

There's only one candidate w/ the discipline to fix our messes and compel the American people to stand up and limit the FedGov and promote good stewardship by managing programs at the State level... yes, he's running as a Republican but we all know he's an indy... Ron Paul for POTUS.

Last night's debate's format was much fairer to all the candidates than MNBC's and CNN's formats were. Hillary Clinton was not placed center stage with Obama and Edwards on each side of her, and these three candidates did not get the majority of the questions. Perhaps the format enabled the other candidates to hold equal footing with Queen Hillary and not have the media declare her the "winner". She looked tense and her answers seemed to be scripted. I thought the other candidates appeared much more relaxed and thoughtful with their respective replys to the questions. Also, the format respected the rights of Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Mr. Richardson to answer the same questions posed to the alleged "big three" candidates. Mr. Smiley and PBS clearly showed that they are far superior to CNN's Wolf Blitzer and MSNBC's Brian Williams. At least last night there was not any silly questions asking the candidates to respond by raising their hands.

Re BR's bringing up needle exchange, I had hoped Dodd would mention that New Haven CT was one of the first American cities to provide a clean needle exchange program. He missed an opportunity there.

Thank you, Aleta, for defining what bothered me about Hillary's performance last night: it was, as you said, a "Bill-Hill laundry list." Imagining four years of listening to lists was what brought me up short. What a contrast to the possibility of hearing Obama talk about America and "our" children.

Mark in Austin: You are a mere baby compared to us old foogies. Richardson had to do better, for in the first two he was awful. The needle exchange program was effective, but could not be measured as to how effective with any degree of accuracy.

As expected, the left wing crowd gave most of the applause to the extrewmist fringe candidates (Kucinich and Gravel). But Hillary was the winner on a night when the Big Three didn't particularly distinguish themselves.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

I will have to watch this debate tonight on the web, looking forward to it.

According to this guardian article a poll taken about the Democratic Primary shows the impact Al Gore could make:

'Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2114538,00.html

I also understood the needle reference but I think the confusion is largely Richardson's fault, since to me it seemed like he immediately regretted mentioning needles and so did not go on and explain what he meant.

I think that is Richardson's problem in these debates/forums in a nutshell: he is trying too hard to say the right things and isn't just speaking his mind. Of course, if he is running for VP maybe that is a good idea.

One more point - without clean needle exchanges from the public health service, addicts share needles and HIV is spread by blood contact. I do not mean to be patronizing, but it is obvious that several posters had no idea what BR was talking about. He did not have time to explain from scratch, but I now think if he had said "clean needle exchange" the same posters still would not have understood.

Howard Alum -
BR was talking about clean needle exchanges - the religious right opposes this simple preventive measure for the spread of HIV among needle users because they think government should not encourage addiction. Thus the Bush Admin pulled the rug out from under Fed support for clean needle exchanges.

Apparently I am the only viewer of this forum old enough to remember that clean needle exchanges were a cornerstone of prevention of the spread of HIV before we got the flood of social conservatism.

I actually thought the worst thing about the debate was the format. It didn't flow for me.

But the worst moment of the night was Bill Richardson's response to the AIDS question. I hit replay a couple of times to figure out what he was talking about. I didn't know if he thinks a lot of students who gets HIV get it from needles or what. I was just a little disturbed.

I think Obama and Clinton did well. Clinton stressed experience; Obama stressed vision. The debate was a tie between Obama and Clinton. In third was Biden - he stressed passion.

I was so glad that this forum was conducted at Howard University and gave all candidates -- even including the marginal -- equal time. The candidates had to talk to real people in the audience and not simply to the TV camera, and Obama passed that test. No one can doubt Biden's passion about Darfur and Edwards was thoughtful. I wish that Richardson would listen to the questions and think about his answers. If that means turning up his hearing aid, so be it. As for Clinton, where does she get all the time to rehearse her "spontaneous" responses? The line that drew the most applause was hers, about "if the leading cause of death for white women aged 25-34 were HIV/AIDS, there would be an uproar," but for the most part she reminded everyone at every opportunity that she's married to Bill, is a hawk and loves children. Obama, by contrast, was both thoughtful and responsive to the questions. Instead of presenting a Bill-Hill laundry list, he looked at underlying problems that need to be addressed. I'd been concerned that there wasn't enough substance in his candidacy, but now I see it as more substance and less laundry lists. All in all, a very valuable evening.

I agree the initial stages looked to be setting up a pander-fest, but it did in fact get a lot better as the forum progressed. And to the candidate's credit, I think they consistently tried to connect issues of concern to African Americans to broader issues affecting all Americans.

I also think that is part of why Obama did so well in this forum (as Chris notes, putting specific issues into a broader context is one of his strengths). He also just seemed much more comfortable and had some truly stirring moments, quite an achievement in 60 or 30 second spots. If he can keep that up I think he will start doing quite well in future debates.

Did anyone else think that, in tonight's forum, the candidates seemed to be talking to the audience in the room more than to the TV audience? It seemed that way to me, and I thought that gave the whole thing a bit more life than the previous "debates" have had.

You gave up too early, Janine. Although the rest of the forum (I agree that that's a better word.) focused on issues of particular concern to black Americans, there was less obvious pandering.

And while it's true that we are all Americans, it's nonetheless true that different groups of Americans have different needs, interests, goals, and ideals. That's what politics is about! That is, the whole enterprise is concerned with determining whose interests, needs, goals, and ideals will set the agenda for the government we elect. However much we might want to be a unified nation, we are not all starting from the same place. That means that, even if we all had the same goals and ideals, some people would have different needs and interests.

If you'd stuck around, you would at least have gotten a laugh when Obama pointed out--for the record--that his wife was with him when he was tested for AIDS.

I just watched it again and was left with little if anything that would or could be considered news worthy. There was not enough time to give an answer to any of the questions asked. I also got the impression Tavis Smiley was promoting himself more than anything else

I will say that based on tonight's debate, I would be comfortable with the leadership of Obama, Biden, or Hillary, but in that order. Of those three, Obama strikes me as the most thoughtful, Biden the most experienced, and Hillary as the least masculine.

I think Richardson is also plenty smart enough to do the job, but he seemed distracted. And I have heard good things about Dodd, but he doesn't seem to have a coherent message. The others? Eh.

Nancy, you should hear what Obama says about you, and with just as much basis for saying it as you have for what you said. If you have a minute, you might want to actually think about what was said and how. I know, it's tiring.

But in a similarly unserious vein, I would add that Hillary for some unknown reason likes Celine Dion, one of the worst things to come out of popular music in the '90s. yuck.

Face it, Obama is a crook

While Clinton gave her laundry list and became somewhat shrill, you were really struck by some things. her dependence on Bill's career to use as her own to build up the experience thing and how much it has worked on the press and the mainstream voter. And how old fashioned it is to lean on her husband's career to define her identity. How robotic she is and lacking in personal appeal.
On the other hand, contrast that with Obama who's own record is actually longer than Clintons. I loved the shout out to Obama in the beginning. he was in command tonight and it was clearly his night.
Right before the debate he got word he hit his goal of 250,000.

The whole thing was a big joke - just like Republican Party. All these people do is pander to the crowd. What a complete waste of time.

I'm not sure why some of y'all are so down on Hillary's performance tonight, unless you're paid Obama staffers. I thought Hillary's answers were compelling and well-informed. I would much rather have a candidate who proposes a list of tangible solutions to a given problem than one who offers only vague platitudes.

God almighty, did you read my parenthetical comment? The Republican debate was no better. Blatant pandering tends to turn me off no matter where it's coming from or who it is towards. Given the fact that these candidates are running for president of the United States not just "black America" whatever the hell that is, I think they could have taken the opportunity to rise above pandering.

Before you go salivating at the mouth saying I'm some white Christian Republican let me say that I am white, but I am not a Christian and I'm certainly no Republican. I'm supporting Hillary Clinton in this race, but I have to say I had to turn the TV off when she brought up Katrina in her response. I'm done with that argument.

If there is going to be race equality then people need to stop acting like their race deserves special treatment, whether they are white or black. There aren't two Americas and there is no "black America." There is America. And until we realize that and work together as Americans, not just factions, then nothing is going to get done.

There is no way other than trickery that Obama can win this election. Hilary and Edwards are better than Obama. But if Al Gore comes in he will whip all of the current candidates in the Democrat side. Thompson can beat the Republicans so it should be Gore v. Thompson and they are both good men.

this was Obama's night. I expect much spinning from the msm in propping up Hillary but, anyone who watched it and took in the answers it was a strong performance from Obama.

Well, Janine, funny... I didn't see it that way. Given the moderator and the setting, a little attention to African-American issues was natural, I think. How did you feel about the GOP debate getting all "praise the lord" and "i don't believe in evolution" when it was held at University of S. Carolina? The audience is going to dictate some of the tone of the debate, no doubt about it... and I assume you have no problem allowing that audience not to be white Southern Christians every once in a while?
In any case, I thought the only drawback was the short time allotted to each response, due to the format and the large number of candidates who all expected and received equal time. Gravel and Kucinich added nothing, and Dodd not much. I also would have liked to see it open up a little more for some give and take, but overall I thought it was informative and successful. I would urge you to give the candidates another look when the next debate comes around. I can promise you that the GOP will have nothing to offer you.

Chris, I don't understand why you labeled the event tonight as a debate. As advertised on PBS and elsewhere, this was a FORUM, not a debate. This wasn't like typical forums where you have only one candidate responding to questions, but in this FORUM all the candidates were on stage to answer the question. Forums are meant to educate the audience about the candidate's stance on specific issues. Thus, this FORUM was successful b/c it allowed members of the AA community to get an idea of where these candidates stood on issues like achieving educational opportunities for all, the inequities in the criminal justice system and Darfur. I'm sure that Tom Joyner who was at the FORUM tonight will report back to his audience on his radio show what occurred last night and his audience will talk about it tomorrow. That was the point of this debate--to give African Americans the opportunity to size these candidates up and see which candidate they liked best...

I think Hillary failed tonight. Obama's answers were to the point and sensible vs. Hillary's 99 point litany of facts in her 30- and 15-second answers, during which she sounded more like she was pleading for the audience to approve of her rather than her usual let-me-show-the-guys-how-smart-and-experienced-I-am.

When Obama spoke about how the next President would have to think of American children as "our" children, it was a very moving moment. I liked the interraction between Edwards and Obama too. While Hillary would sweep her arm out, as if to include all the other candidates as of course following her lead, and in a manner that assumed they'd all be behind her nomination, Edwards and Obama were obviously on to her. The other surprise loser was Richardson. He sounded as if he was paying half attention to the questions.

Obama won tonight, hands down, and credit must go to Tavis Smiley and his questioners for giving the candidates an opportunity to answer fantastic questions that did credit to the entire evening. Definitely the best debate so far. Mr. Smiley should moderate all future debates. He's a genius.

I have religiously watched both the Republican and Democratic debates up until this one. I shut it off at 9:15 when it became clear to me that it was a pandering fest to African Americans. It was nauseating and I will never watch anything hosted by Howard University ever again (the only thing more annoying than this debate was the first Republican debate at the Reagan library where the name Reagan came up more than Iraq).

Seriosly, Kuchinich for President! Now, if the rest of you would vote for him too..

"Debate"? Haaahaaaaaaaaa. No debate, just a boring evening listening to politicians spout off.

Illegal immigration wasn't mentioned in this debate and it should have been. The black community has had a major impact on it by illegal aliens. Blacks are now the stepchildren of the Democratic Party. We have been very loyal to them, but now they are pandering to illegal alien Hispanics to give them citizenship vote their votes. As a black Democrat, I am switching to become an Independent.

Anyone, how do you think most of the candidates' proposed unilateral military action in Darfur is going to play in the general election? Given that the progressive mantra is that military action is not a solution to what is essentially a political problem in Iraq. The same could be said for Darfur and many other hot spots on the continent. I can't help but wonder if they all wish they could take their answers back, especially Clinton who has been careful not to take the far liberal bait. And I'm speaking as a far left liberal.

To that end, I thought Senator Obama gave the most thoughtful (albeit not the most well received) answer on Darfur. He stressed that unless we make strategic long-term investment in the continent, no amount of short-term force is going to end the long-term carnage born from wide-spread poverty and despair throughout Africa.

I thought Richardson was passably good and therefore much improved over his previous debate appearances, which were painful. To me, the "6" looked moderate compared with the "2", again.

Biden was to the point on hiv in calling for personal responsibility as an element of prevention. Sometimes I think Ds do not like to hear that part of the message.

I thought Both Edwards and Obama knew this audience well and were pretty much at ease.

Sen. Clinton did nothing to embarrass herself, but took no risks, either.

Dodd had a moment or two.

So I thought Richardson's improvement was far more noticeable than any other change from prior debates.

I've tried to like Obama but his vauge platitudes do nothing for me. I just don't buy what he's selling. I'm sure he means well but I'm a realist and don't think he has demonstrated that he could deliver even a fraction of what he promises. Just another politican saying whatever it takes to get elected.

Obama seemed the most natural and genuine. Clinton is certainly good, but there's a certain robotic quality to her. She knows the answer to every question, but there's something canned about her answers. My money is on Obama.

Of the other candidates, Richardson gave a weird answer to the AIDS question -- he mentioned we need to give needles (without any context) and condoms (without any qualifications).

I agree with Bokonon. Biden sometimes has a bit of a distancing Hillary-esque bite in his voice, but he has proved he can control his words and is actually a smart guy in the end. He would do wonders for Amtrak if he's in the White House, by the way.

anonymous2006x, you thought Clinton looked comfortable? I thought she looked like she was out for blood, although she obviously was well-rehearsed. I also disagree about Obama - I thought HE looked comfortable, and at times really hit the groove. And Kucinich really did nothing for me... he can't win, and if he's running to advocate for his policies, that was not clear. Biden was also good - his answers on Iraq, Darfur etc. seemed to have more authority than the others' did.

Obama looked the most comfortable, least scripted, and best able to think on his feet. I think he has learned how to do this, and his answers were consistently among the most interesting.
Clinton came across as very competent, but her face seemed tight and nervous the whole way through, and she was a little too aggressive.
Biden seemed especially good on foreign policy, and solid overall. He just might take over the #3 spot from Edwards, who seemed to be playing the role of John
Richardson, I'm sorry to say, looked out of his element. I know he's competent and has more experience than most of the rest of them (maybe all but Biden), and I really want to get more excited about his candidacy, but he looked scared.
Edwards a little too obviously... came across as fake, at least to me.
Kucinich looks like a Muppet. I can respect his positions, but find it hard to take him seriously, and it's not just the way he looks.
Gravel is going to have a hard time staying with it - it seemed to be going too quickly for him, and he had one line criticizing all the other candidates that seemed to come out of nowhere and was not in context, which ended up making him seem a little confused.
No big surprises, except I had hoped for more from Richardson. When the second quarter fundraising totals come in, I think this field might get a person or two smaller...

"Democrat Candidates"

I'm sorry, did I accidently bring up the washington times site?

Yeah, the front page headline is really in poor taste.

Clinton showed why she's the candidate to beat. Although not my choice, she articulated her message and was extremely comfortable with the audience. Obama didn't keep pace, and underperformed with this audience. He had to hit a home run and he barely got to first base.

Kucinich got a chance to show why he's still around. Unfortunately, Gravel got a chance to show why he shouldn't be around.

The debate pointed out again how much stronger the Democratic field is than the Republican one. Any of the Democratic candidates would be a much better president than any of the Repblicans and, of course, millions of times better than Bush -- 2008 can't come soon enough!!!

The debate pointed out again how much strong the Democratic field is than the Republican one. Any of the Democratic candidates would be a much better president than any of the Repblicans and, of course, millions of times better than Bush. 2008 can't come soon enough!!!

you point out gravel stood out but dont mention dodd? do the second tier candidates have to act angry and senile to get some analysis from the washingtonpost??

"Democrat Candidates"? Who managed that front page headline?

Hey, what's with the headline:

"Democrat Candidates Face Each Other in D.C."

Shouldn't that be "Democratic"? Or are y'all using the GOP Stylebook now?