It's an okay 'debate'.

Good diary. I read your Katrina diary just now, is your family from New Orleans?

Fair anaysis.

I liked both Edwards and Obama. I thought Edwards did better, but Obama was good.

I would like to see and Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008.  Together, they would remake America.

I'm an Obama supporter. A strong one at that. And I realized one thing tonight. He is very cerebral; and when he answers these debate questions, I wonder if most of the people watching understand what he's really getting at.....

His solutions are actual solutions (preventive policies etc) that are directed towards the underlying (root) cause of the question being asked: For instance when the question of Darfur (The area of Sudan currently experiencing a devastating genocide) came-up tonight, Hillary gave a point-for-point rapid-fire answer on what she would do to solve the problem - she would institute a "no fly" zone, send an occupational force (NATO) to force the peace and "shoot down" any planes that fly over Sudan (or something to that effect). Not a bad answer right? But Obama on the other hand discussed in terms of poverty and economics and explained how these in combination with US policy toward Africa, allow a situation such as Darfur to occur.  He then went on to explain (at least he tried to in 60 seconds - NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR HIS THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS) how reversing poverty and improving US - Africa relations could help prevent a Darfur from happening in the first place.  

A more succinct example was when a question was asked about HIV/AIDS in the Black community and what could be done to prevent it. Hillary (and Edwards) spoke in terms of finding a cure (I liked Hillary's quip about if white women had AIDS in the same numbers as some in the Black community, a cure would've been found already). But Obama, again connected poverty and despair with HIV/AIDS in the black community. He then spoke of how implementing educational programs and anti-poverty programs could help alleviate HIV/AIDS in the black community (long-term) - Pragmatic.

Same thing on Katrina. He didn't talk about how he would solve what's going with the aftermath of Katrina, but rather on how he would focus on solving the underlying issues that were exposed by the hurricane, so that if another Katrina hits (god forbid), it wouldn't have such a devastating impact on poor folks.

So I'm thinking to myself, is everyone getting this? Are y'all understanding what this man is saying or is everyone going to say Hillary won because of her rapid-fire point-for-point "this is what I would do" answers?  My mum who was watching with me said, "you know, it's not who's got the best (long-term) solutions, but rather who comes across as being the sharpest candidate ready to take on the job". So while Hillary impressed me with her rapid and sharp style, I was blown away with the depth of Obama's thinking and solutions.

I'd kill to see Obama, Hillary and Edwards (Richardson just seems plain dumb to me) in a free for all, no clocks, just give them a topic and let them go at it. I'd love to see the outcome.

It just seemed to me that all of Hillary's answers were crammed and prepared. I'd def vote for her in the general if she makes it there, but my heart and mind are with Obama. He's the most pragmatic, humane and naturally intelligent candidate of the bunch.

The line I liked best from Obama tonight was perhaps the simplest, but it's the one which really resonates - when he said, remember these are our children, all of our children.  First of all it's amazing to even hear a presidential candidate talk in such humanistic and direct terms.  But what impressed me by such a simple line, was that at first blush you may think he was talking to the general country or even the majority of whites, but I think the line was crafted and directed at the people in the room.  Often when Obama talks to large crowds he talks about how Government has a role to play, but it is also the Parents' responsibility and how Blacks have to stop thinking that to be educated is to "act white".  Undoubtedly he could have reached for that line and gotten a big applause.  But instead he directed some pointed criticism to the educated movers and shakers of the African-American community sitting in that room, the people who epitomize the success you can have when you are educated, and dignified, and proud of it, and said pointedly to them: the underclass of the community, the drug addicts, the criminals, the ones in trouble, the ones with AIDS, the teenage mothers, they ones who don't read to their children and the ones who don't get read to, remember, they are our children, all of our children.   I thought it was a rare moment of true leadership, passing up the cheap soundbite, for a call for social responsibility.  This is what sets him apart from the rest.

Obama is an intellectual.  This accounts for his slower-take, extended hand, and that slight pause
which is followed by a broader, more generalized approach to each issue. He wants you to see the bigger picture but, in these times, that can translate as not being able to make fast Presidential decisions.  He probably cringed inside when the response time was cut to 30 seconds.  He was better than last time, but he's never going to have prompt, concise answers ready the way Hillary does, or even Edwards, for that matter.    

Hillary sped up her answers when she was told they were going from one minute to 30 seconds.  I admired her for being able to do so - she knew what she had to cut from her answers and what she had to include, and she did it.  If she went over her time limit even once, I don't recall.  Hillary is the whiz-kid, the policy wonk, she is always prepared -- no doubt about it.  It has taken years for her to reach this level of confidence and it is really serving her well.  

John Edwards - I neither like him nor trust him. I think he wages a constant battle inside of himself.  There is good there for sure, but it seems to be doing battle with something else and it is negative, and I think it accounts for his mantel of self-righteousness.  He had a clearly-defined formula when he entered the race and it's not working for him; except in Iowa, and he's now got Hillary and Obama working all four corners of that state. If his campaign fizzles out, it's going to be hard on him because he wants so much to be Bobby Kennedy or someone that memorable - the President who changed the world. I find Edwards to be the most power-hungry of all the candidates.  And while I may be run off the blog for saying this ... I find many of his supporters to be entranced by him.  They do see him as a savior, and he takes full advantage of that.

Bill Richardson - I wanted to stuff a shoe in his mouth.  Less is more, Bill.  I saw his wife in the audience - what a lovely and elegant woman. She should teach him some manners.  

Joe Biden - he's smart, experienced and, in his own way, charming.  But there is an aggression there that doesn't serve him well.  Still, I don't know why he isn't polling better than he is. He's got the resume and he's very smart.  

Chris Dodd - You have to love the guy.  He'd probably be a great President, especially on education.  But he doesn't have whatever it takes to get elected.  Zero sex appeal?  Whoever wins the Presidency, I hope there is a fantastic appointment for Christopher Dodd.  He certainly deserves it.

DENNIS KUCINICH!!! - a helluva guy.  Everyone praises him and nobody wants to support him.  He speaks the truth on many issues.  I feel he could lead the country, but only during those rare moments when I think Utopia might actually be possible. And in those rare moments, I envision Palestinian children playing with Israeli children; former repentant terrorists dining at the WhiteHouse, on organic greens, with First Lady Elizabeth (probably barefoot) charming everyone as children, lambs and assorted birds gather around her.  She is certainly Dennis's madonna. Unfortunately, we live in a harsh world and I would worry that important unsavory things might not get tended to.  Dennis seems certain that everyone and everything can be persuaded through love and peace.  Reality check.    

Mike Gravel - What's with the chinos? Oh  yeah, can we get this guy off the stage?  How about a strip of duct-tape across his mouth? Mike should write books and trash his fellow Dems that way, instead of during televised debates. Or start his own political party and leave the Democrats alone.