SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

Kucinich and Gravel, on either wing of the other candidates, constantly are raising their hands to get more time. Back to Iraq.

Dodd-- he will cut off the funding. Richardson-- Clinton says 50,000 troops left in place; there is a civil war. "No troops left". Biden cuts ahead of Clinton and challenges it by calling Richardson a liar, basically... and says the problem is that we don't have mine resistent vehicles-- whatever. Candidate's should get some sort of penalty for whenever they begin by saying, "I've put forward a comphrensive three point plan." 6 months isn't enought time to get out of Iraq? Kucinich then takes on Obama's credibility on being anti-war for voting to fund the war.

Obama had a great answer about Romney misrepresenting his position on sex ed, saying that he was basically talking about Mitt's plan, and that Mitt must have forgotten about it. Obama likes to use the knife carefully. He might have hit back harder.

Update [2007-7-23 20:52:45 by Jerome Armstrong]: They just aired a Republican question about "Democrats raise taxes" so I hope we get to see the "Republicans bust budgets" YouTube question for the Republicans next month. Or, at least, maybe we'll get some truth in advertising as to what the base of the conservative movement really looks like.

Overall, I like the YouTube format a lot; it's a big success. I have chronic anti-debate syndrome, and usually find the scriptedness of them overwhelming after about 10 minutes, and so have only partaken of them in YouTube snippits. It also seems to keep the candidates on their toes a bit more, or off balance, which is good too. I think the formats of debate that are done by reporter questions are weak in comparison. I'm off to the spin room and then am going to drop by the Marriott to see Clinton speak to her fans, before heading over to downtown for the Google after-party.

Tags: 2008 candidates (all tags)



Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

Obama is showing leadership and distinguishing himself from the others tonight.

No " I agrees " this time.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 04:33PM | 0 recs
Obama is getting special treatment

So far, he has 12 minutes v. 8 for John Edwards, 10 for Hillary and even less for the others.

I don't see why it is necessary to give him extra time.

by ashlarah 2007-07-23 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is getting special treatment

He has a condition.

"Think before I Speak-olitis"

It's not his fault he's intelligent and so full of wisdom. Actually, it is.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is getting special treatment

intelligence? Sorry. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is getting special treatment

Yes, It's a condition that causes one to make the right JUDGEMENT.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:00PM | 0 recs
Don't be obtuse

He is given the opportunity to respond more than the others AND they don't call him on going over time.

by ashlarah 2007-07-23 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be obtuse


CNN has it's nose firmly planted in Billarys bottom.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:57PM | 0 recs
Uuuhhmm, aaaah

He needs to be more polished.  He need to think faster on his feet.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:07PM | 0 recs

from politico:

Meeting the dictators

Obama promises to meet Castro, Chavez, Kim and other dictators in his first year in office.

Clinton refuses to promise, and takes the opportunity to school him:

"It is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level until you know what the intentions are...I do not want to be used for propaganda purposes," she says. "We're not just going to have our president meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez....until we know what the way forward would be."

by areyouready 2007-07-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Duck -N- Dodge

Even George Bush came up with excuses not to meet with Foreign Leaders.

COWARDS of a feather , flock together!

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 04:47PM | 0 recs
She housed him on this

He looked inexperienced and naive.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: She housed him on this

No he didn't.  Look at the MSNBC debate, the first one, and look at tonight.  360 turn.  He was on point, did not flub, and you can tell he is getting in his stride.

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 06:09PM | 0 recs
uuuhhhm, aaahhh

He looked good in his suit.  But he was indecisive and said he'd meet meet with Castro and Chavez.


by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: uuuhhhm, aaahhh

He a President who actually would try and DO SOMETHING... yeah that's a bad thing.  She gave the WRONG answer on that question and it showed.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: She housed him on this

Maybe you don't understand North Korea's, or Iran's standing in the world.  If they tried to turn a meeting into anti-American propoganda, it would
A.  Hurt the ruling party of Iran.  Iran is fairly westernized.  
B. If North Korea turned it into government propoganda it would only further isolate themselves from the rest of the world.  
C. Venezuela - He's more anti-Bush than Anti-American if I recall.  I think relations COULD smooth over fast when Bush is gone.
D. Siberia - How much power do they wage on the international scale?  Could they look very legitamite in their attempts on an international scale?  

Most countries won't be in a place to create legitamite anti-American propoganda after a Democratic president is elected and changes the course of this nation.  What's the real problem?  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
You miss point

You say, "B. If North Korea turned it into government propoganda it would only further isolate themselves from the rest of the world. "

He would use it as  means of propoganda within his own country where he controls everything incl. the media.  As would Castro.  If played right by a dictator a meeting with a President could strengthen their hand not weaken it.  

You and Obama have a lot to learn.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: You miss point

North Korea is going to have anti-American propoganda whether we go there or not.  How does going there with a little faith hurt?  Other than the fact that they have more propoganda?  They'll make more propoganda anyways.  

Castro offered us a hurricane/flood rescue team for Katrina (Turned away by the Bush Admin.)  But if he's willing to do that do you really think all hope is lost there?  So if Cuba isolated themselves also, more, does it make a difference as long as the dictator is still alive and refuses to let any good news come through?  Trying to be reasonable doesn't hurt us.  Again, if they want propoganda, they'd make it themselves.  They don't need our help for that.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: You miss point

North Korea is going to have anti-American propoganda whether we go there or not.  How does going there with a little faith hurt?  Other than the fact that they have more propoganda?  They'll make more propoganda anyways.

Read a few history/political science books on the Presidency and diplomacy. There are thousands to choose from.

Presidential-level meetings with foreign leaders in those kinds of situations should never occur until there is an agenda and something to announce. Nixon did not meet with the Chinese leaders until Kissinger already had a deal in place.

There are many reasons for this. The most important reason is that you want your negotiators to be able to say they aren't authorized to make those concessions or that "my President will never agree to that". It's all about leverage.

Clinton gave exactly the right answer. Anyone with even a shred of experience in the highest levels of diplomacy would agree.

by hwc 2007-07-23 07:39PM | 0 recs
Ignoring the moment

As the framing from Politico shows - glad we are lifting them up! - Clinton's answer on meeting with leaders of the so-called rogue states is strong in terms of the way the exchange will play out in the media cycle.  This is why I indicated that she scored well on the question even though I do not much appreciate or agree with her answer.  She took a question ripe for big elements that must debated and reduced it to a small-bore question about meeting process while taking potshots at tin-pot dictators.

Tragically, in American political culture it is almost always a cost-free exercise politically to downplay diplomacy, or assert all "options are on the table" and we could go on.  There is no price for displaying as a political matter that your "first instinct" is to bomb or say no or distrust, etc.  Now, every politician ritualistically says at some point toward the end of their macho rant that, "of course force is only a last resort", and other meaningless ritualistic phrases.  In no arena is the political discourse as stulted, propagandistic, and ritualistic as it is about foreign policy and defense.

It is a dangerous dynamic that sets a political expectation that pushes otherwise sensible, cautious leaders, to rush to demonstrate 'toughness', makes achieving support for diplomacy and international governance much harder, sustains a core narrative that, on balance, helps the GOPers (they are "tough" we are always have to demonstrate we are "tough"), and is an element in the social and political processes that sustain a bloated military and aggressive overseas posture.  I have no doubt that Clinton will consider a range of options in any actual crisis situation.  But I do see her willingness to take this line as indicative of her comfort level with the foreign policy consensus, both at the level of its substance and in the various tropes and ideologies that keep it going.  I do not pretend to know whether this is by conviction or calculation.

My opinion is that - substantively - her answer was wrong.  The point of the question was about how the candidate's viewed the role of the US in the world.

It was not a technical question about constructing a timeline to a meeting.  How much preparatory work? How high should officials in first contact be? Which points should be on the agenda? Six months, one year?  How do we avoid their "propagandizing" the meeting?


The question as I took it, and obviously this is me looking for information I care about in questions, was: "given the 'my way or the highway catastrophe' that has been the Bush administration, are you willing to meet with and engage diplomatically with...."?

Translated: "Are you willing to commit, promise, to work with our enemies in a way the Bush administration has refused to do?"

It is a given that planning is required for such meetings and the question called for more than 'Let me prove to you I understand these meetings require planning'.

So the answer I would have liked and that would have a) demonstrated an understanding of the larger context of the question and b) an understanding of the need to reorient American foreign policy would have been:

"No, Anderson I can't promise anything other than that I do think America needs to make a change in how we engage with the world.  The Bush doctrine of refusing to talk and explore diplomacy while pushing, always pushing, with military force as the first option must be abandoned for our own good and for the good of the world.  So, no Anderson, I don't know when I would meet them but I am willing to meet anytime anyplace with any leader to make this world safer".

Except for beginning with "yes" that is, at its core, the answer Obama gave and it is at least on the right track.

Instead, the answer we got in essence was:

"No, Anderson I won't promise to meet with them because [implicitly insert litany of alleged abuses against all those bad guys] and by making promises we would show ourselves as weak and give those thugs a propaganda coup.  Besides, Anderson, without seeing in front of me the blueprint for the meeting and a working draft agreement, I think it would be premature to even talk about considering meeting with those thugs".

Obviously I am presenting a caricature for argumentative purposes, but one that I think is defensible and captures the essence of her response, whatever it is she might "really" believe or do as President.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Edwards has done the best

Full, complete answers to the point.

He has done great.

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has done the best

I disagree, but we are both biased.  I do think he did well though... and I think he had the best candidate video.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has done the best

I think Dodd had the best video.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

"6 months isn't enought time to get out of Iraq?"

I think we do need to look at this honestly. 1 day is all it takes to get the wheels in motion, and that's the important thing...but at the same time, it's true that it would take close to a year to actually, physically pull all of our divisions out of Iraq. I think this is what Clinton and Biden were talking about.

by Hoyapaul 2007-07-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2


by BDM 2007-07-23 05:38PM | 0 recs
Would you close the US Embassy in Iraq?

Biden was dead on.

1) You don't bring 150,000 men, women and equipment home overnight.

2) If you leave the Embassy you need to leave more that 100 or 150 Marines to protect it.  More like 30,000.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:10PM | 0 recs
Would any of you?

Close the US Embassy?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Would any of you?

Richardson would have to I guess.  

Personally I don't mind residual forces as long as they have a mission and aren't in direct harms way.  Just so long as we aren't overextending the troops.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 06:48PM | 0 recs
Ground breaking

An Obama supporter admitting reality.

Welcome to the reality based community my friend.

Glad to have you!!!

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Ground breaking

50,000 is a little much though, assuming that's where Hillary's plan is pegging it.  We should use our soldiers for much border control.  That's my only complaint with the mainstream residual forces.  

Also you say that like my opinion has changed.  It hasn't, it's been the same.  I just don't announce it in every unrelated post so I guess it isn't waved around like a flamboyant flag for everyone to see.  Your remarks came off as condescending and it bothered me more than anything.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Would you close the US Embassy in Iraq?

Technically any troops guarding the embassy would NOT be on Iraq soil.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:12PM | 0 recs
Biden is DEAD WRONG on Iraq

Biden castigates other Dems for wanting a rapid withdrawal of forces, but then Biden wants the anti-war vote.  So what does he say?  

Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

   * Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
    * Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

That is from Biden's website.  Going from 160,000 troops to 20,000 in less than six months is a rapid withdrawal.  

The difference between Biden's and Richardson's plans is Richardson doesn't compromise and try to have it both ways.  Richardson will get all of our troops out.  Richardson understands that our troops are just targets of all sides in a civil war.  

Baghdad is Iraq's largest city with 7 million residents.  Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people in a nation the size of California.

We don't have nearly enough troops now in Iraq to bring peace and stability to the country - and never will absent re-instating the draft and sending over 600,000+ soldiers, which of course should not and will not occur.  

Keeping 20,000 troops in Iraq as Biden advocates just means that the tens of thousands of insurgents and militia forces in Iraq will have a much easier time killing our troops.  They can concentrate all of their forces on a much smaller number of U.S. troops.

Biden, Edwards and Clinton were wrong to vote for the war. And Biden, Obama and Clinton are wrong today to advocate for an extended (even if reduced) deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq.  The scars of this war of choice by President Bush and the members of Congress that supported it will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

Only Richardson has a solid, crystal clear plan for Iraq is Richardson, for two reasons:

1.  He'll get the U.S. out completely and promptly - a total withdrawal.  

2.  Richardson has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary to see the region not descend into further conflict.  

This is what Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.) has said about Richardson's plan:

Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it.

Richardson is listening to the right former general on Iraq.  If you want to learn more about Gard's views read /11/00_gard-johns_there-are-risks-if-the -us-withdraws.htm

Whom with military expertise are Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Biden listening to? Probably many of the same generals that thought invading Iraq was a sound decision and are too cautious now to do what must be done, a full and complete withdrawal of our troops.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-23 09:05PM | 0 recs
That is so not true - we went in

in less time - about 2 months build up, we got out of viet nam faster and yes less troops.

We are far more mobile now and have faster equipment and carriers and even helicopter carry more load then in V. N.

Biden was way out of line on that.

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

I would certainly trust Binden on this issue than an armchair general sitting behind computer screen.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 04:48PM | 0 recs
Did you live during viet nam

Did you know about 50 helicopter pilots in View Nam many of which died there?

IF your premise is correct than Biden should have been able to vote yes to get the troops out or propose a bill that would have addressed it.

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

"we got out of viet nam faster"

Given that withdrawal was gradually accomplished over several years, and it even took 2 years to pull all the troops out after the N.Vietnam non-offensive aggrement, how can you come on here and claim that the withdrawal was accomplished in less than 2 months?

I don't disagree that we should start the withdrawal tomorrow. But claiming that we can get all of the troops out within 6 months without any residual forces for at least a few months after that simply betrays a lack of understanding of basic military operations.

by Hoyapaul 2007-07-23 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

End of Jan 73 to the end of Mar 73 = two months for pull out of combat troops.

January 8, 1973

North Vietnam and the United States resume peace talks in Paris.

January 27, 1973  

All warring parties in the Vietnam War sign a cease fire.
     Henry Kissenger's initials on the Cease Fire

March 1973

The last American combat soldiers leave South Vietnam, though military advisors and Marines, who are protecting U.S. installations, remain. For the United States, the war is officially over. Of the more than 3 million Americans who have served in the war, almost 58,000 are dead, and over 1,000 are missing in action. Some 150,000 Americans were seriously wounded. meline/index4.html

by dk2 2007-07-23 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

Well, if you look at it from the end of 1973, it looks that way. But we had over 300K troops in 1970 before gradually falling to the limited number you note in 1973, before finally (2 years later) getting everyone out. So it took a lot of time. Obviously we were not at full troop strength in 1973, so it's not the correct analogy to Iraq now. 1970 is a better analogy.

The point is, it's not so easy as just snapping one's fingers and getting the troops home. It requires an orderly withdrawal which takes a bit of time, probably close to a year at this point, given how deep we've committed ourselves there.

by Hoyapaul 2007-07-23 07:25PM | 0 recs
What I am comparing is final and

immediate withdrawal - not a 5year plan to withdraw.

Once the go ahead is given our militay should be able to pull as fast as they went in originally.

by dk2 2007-07-23 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

All warring parties in the Vietnam War sign a cease fire.
     Henry Kissenger's initials on the Cease Fire

This is exactly WHY we cannot withdraw in the 2 months or 6 months or whatever other pandering lame withdraw time line candidates propose.

Notice the words: Cease Fire

They are the crux to all of this talk of withdraw.

Right now we are in the middle of a CIVIL WAR

And a CIVIL WAR is not equal to a Cease Fire

by DoIT 2007-07-24 05:07AM | 0 recs
All the more reason to pull faster.

Do you really believe there was an on the ground cease fire - what is signed on paper really made Mao stop in his tracks.

Good grief!!!!!

by dk2 2007-07-24 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: That is so not true - we went in

You apparently have no military planning experience. This debate took place at the Citadel, a military college. Biden is VERY familiar with this subject, much more than any other candidate. And he is right. Just because you happen to believe that all we need to do is wave a magic wand and all of the troops will just come right out of Iraq safely in two months doesn't make it so.

by DoIT 2007-07-23 05:39PM | 0 recs
I don't live in a fairytale world

and I don't believe in magic wands. I do belive in the fact that we have/had(thanks to bush) the best military and most mobile military in the world.

They can move faster then you give credit for.

Just how fast did we get into Bagdad? We should be able to come out just as fast - once a true order is given..If you don't believe that, then you don't know much about logistics of the military, if they want it to be so - it will happen.

It has nothing to do with magic - it has to do with planning and the right admin.

by dk2 2007-07-23 08:38PM | 0 recs
When was Biden in the Military?

by dk2 2007-07-23 08:39PM | 0 recs
Well now UHC

Let see what happens with this

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:48PM | 0 recs
Say what - Obama

Does it give full UHC - Edwards No!

Smack it down!

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

My name is Mike GRRRRAvel and I'm crazy...and maybe a little bit evil.

by JDF 2007-07-23 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

He reminds me of Dick Cheney in his demeanor.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:13PM | 0 recs
Gravel is really getting on my nerves

He needs to be committed.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 04:58PM | 0 recs
That we can agree on

by dk2 2007-07-23 04:59PM | 0 recs

Liked Edwards response for nuclear. Obama- fair, still worried about his coal-to-liquid flip-flopping. Hillary- worried that her answer is going to be a whole new campaign strategy.

Hillary just had a good one liner about Bush being elected

by DQuartner 2007-07-23 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Energy

Thought it interesting that Obama supports nuclear power, given the amount he has received from Exelon--from their executives, employees, and PAC.

by edgery 2007-07-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
from dailykos

I can't believe I'm liking her so much.

"Universal healthcare is an american value. we have to quit being told that we can't do what most other developed countries do... provide decency and respect to every single person"

she also thanked the people that sent personal videos, saying she understood how difficult it is to go public about Alzheimers/breast cancer/diabetes etc.

by KimD on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:44:52 PM PDT

Hillary - "It's a national disgrace" by KimD, Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:44:52 PM PDT (10+ / 0-)

I think she's closed the sale with me. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: masslib

I have a Gore '08 sticker on my car, but I've about given up on my hopes that he'll run. And now I'm starting to get excited by Hillary. She will pummel whoever the Republicans nominate in the debates.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: from dailykos

posting from a board, oh brother, indeed

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 05:49PM | 0 recs
Cute soundbites and platitudes

do not make up a policy

by okamichan13 2007-07-23 07:00PM | 0 recs
Obamas Commercial Rocked !

Join Us


by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:03PM | 0 recs
Dodd and Richards showed humor

in their ads -- and Edwards's ad was a class above the rest, showing both the range of issues and a sense of humor plus the right amount of combativeness.

Obama's was just a lot of people looking up in adoration and reminded me of his comment "to know me is to love me".  This isn't a personality/beauty contest, this is the race to lead the free world.

by edgery 2007-07-23 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

I liked the ad, it had music that made you move...

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

I liked his ad but I think Edwards was the best.  Obama #2, Dodd 3, Richardson 4.  Hillary I'd have tied with Gravel for last... I felt insulted as a you tube user.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

It was too small for me to read, the music wasn't as catchy.  Bothered me for the most part.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

Hillary's that is*

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

Music video ad. Perfect for the rockstar campaign.

by hwc 2007-07-23 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd and Richards showed humor

aw, you're just disappointed because she didn't use the Celine Dion song.  ;-)

by edgery 2007-07-24 08:48AM | 0 recs
Likes and Dislikes

This ought to be good.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2


Kucinich- "they didn't put anyone to the left of me."

Glad he has a sense of humor about it at least.

by JDF 2007-07-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
Ha Ha Ha

The results are in on who won the debate.

Pundits for Hillary

We the People for Obama

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

Edwards trashes Hillary's outfit.  Don't you know that whatever a woman is wearing looks great!  Bad move.

by stuckinsf 2007-07-23 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

That was dangerous of him. Not because of Hillary, but there are so many things people can take from that given that Edwards is a MAN , who is giving FASHION critique on a WOMANS CLOTHING. Think about it.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-23 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

HAHAHAHA....good one bro

by world dictator 2007-07-23 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2
Obama won the NH CNN focus group... 1 vote behind Hillary and Richardson in NV - both showed large trends toward Obama.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2
FOX focus group has also come in for Obama?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:17PM | 0 recs

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???
yeah in the first segment they said he had picked up the most - and overtook her in NH. Did you notice a change in Obama's words tonight. He framed a lot of issues in ethics terms - and went with "change the world?" thoughts ice?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???

I thought he was good.  I thought he is coming around.  He was not nervous, he looked directly at folk, whoever he has been working with, IT IS WORKING.  And when he called Clinton out, on the pentagon issue/Iraq, she was PISSED.

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???
yeah, unfortunetly Cooper didn't let her respond - then we would of has a story.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???

YEAH.  This was my favorite debate.

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???

I think Obama had a certain style you could feel when he was speaking tonight.  It was noticable, and I think helped him through the night.  

We need a blog listing all the straw polls, focus groups, and what not, one by one with votes/percentages.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: WHAT???

Yeah I was pissed about that... I saw her face and she was steaming... I wanted to hear WHAT she was thinking.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:17PM | 0 recs
Richardson and Clinton tied in Nevada

overall, still undecided

by icebergslim 2007-07-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

Somebody said that all Gravel needs is the money to keep on flying to the debates since he's running an unconventional campaign.  He came out of 2Q with a net debt of what, over 30,000 and he still managed to come!  So much for that dying hope of him being done...

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-23 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: SC Debate, YouTube CNN, 2

He took the train ;-)

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-23 07:17PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads