But when I listened to the debate, Nader had an immediate solid answer for every issue thrown at him. Unlike dems and reps, he wouldn't use qualifiers or quantify issues -- he said it like he thought, viciously attacking corporate interests, the military industrial complex, Bush's absolute failure, and called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops. There were no pauses or hesitancy in his answers. Maybe that's because he never had a realistic chance and no big financiers he had to worry about offending, but even if I didn't agree on everything I had to respect his answers.

Dean's best lines came when he pointed out that Nader was partially funded by republican interest groups which was true and Nader was unapologetic for. He also had great views on reforming the election system, but in agreement with Nader. The problem was that he did use qualifiers and a little waffling in answering questions regarding his past quotes on Kerry, though understandable. He also came off as almost begging or groveling for Nader to drop out of the race.

Most consensus on both sides, lib and con in the media was that Nader beat Dean. Of course Dean supporters will never see that to be so. I was rooting for Dean but even I thought he was beat.