Can someone summarize the debate?

[BamaGrad03 0]

I read the comments in the other thread, but can someone give me their honest opinion of how it went? And maybe some high points where you thought the candidates really stood out?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I read the comments in the other thread, but can someone give me their honest opinion of how it went? And maybe some high points where you thought the candidates really stood out?

HRC whined about getting the first question, yet jumped in to answer questions directed generally at both. Hillary demonstrated that she didn't realize SNL was a comedy show. Obama stayed calm and cool throughout. Obama denounced Farakahn. HRC said denouncing wasn't as strong as rejecting. Obama said he thought there was no difference, but if it made her happy he would denounce AND reject. Farakahn. That's the story in nutshell. HRC looked whiny and shrill, Obama looked presidential. If you've followed their positions in the past, more of the same.

[AUJarhead 70]

HRC looked whiny and shrill, Obama looked presidential.

That sums up my feelings as well.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Knowing how Clinton Inc has acted in the past, I cant imagine her/THEM going away peacefully. They are kind of like another bunch we know. They think they are OWED the White House.

On a side note, has anyone seen poor old Paul Begala lately? Truly pathetic cretin that still thinks he has the media wrapped around his finger. Saw him on CNN Inside Sources Sunday morn. Stayed home with a fever. I was imediately repelled from him not having seen him in 8 years. But he picked up just like it was 2000 again and...I actually pitied the man. He needs help.

[AU alum 2]

HRC looked whiny and shrill, Obama looked presidential.

That sums up my feelings as well.

I'm not so sure about the presidential part, but Hillary bitched and moaned, Obama looked cool and calm. For a good part of it, she looked nervous, too.

[Tiger Al 0]

I read the comments in the other thread, but can someone give me their honest opinion of how it went? And maybe some high points where you thought the candidates really stood out?

From memory:

There was a long discussion about their healthcare plans and the perceived misrepresentations. I think it was a wash.

There was discussion on their stance on NAFTA and what they would do about it. Both would renegotiate it with Mexico and Canada or scrap it if renegotiations failed.

Russert and Williams played 'gotcha' with both on subjects ranging from Louis Farrakhan to HRC's 180 degree change after the last debate to Obama's statements about Pakistan. Obama shined and Clinton treaded water.

Obama clearly has the upper hand pertaining to the Iraq war with either Clinton or McCain. Both of them were wrong and Obama hasn't had to backtrack or change his position at all.

I think Obama finished the night with a slight advantage over Clinton. He seemed at ease with the tough questions and Clinton seemed to be more defensive.

I'd really like to see a bit of a change in the debate format. The way they've been doing them is OK when there are 4, 5 or 6 candidates, but, with only 2 left on each side, I'd like to see an entire debate based on one issue like healthcare, national security, economics, etc. where we can get a lot of back and forth like we did on healthcare in this debate.

[jw 4 au 526]

Obama clearly has the upper hand pertaining to the Iraq war with either Clinton or McCain. Both of them were wrong and Obama hasn't had to backtrack or change his position at all.

So say you. He did not have to vote! It was easy for him at the time to simply give a speech. If he was in the senate then, he probably would have voted PRESENT. Not everyone thinks sticking it out with the UN was the way to go. You cannot say what would have happened since then if both of them would have been "right" in your opinion.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Obama clearly has the upper hand pertaining to the Iraq war with either Clinton or McCain. Both of them were wrong and Obama hasn't had to backtrack or change his position at all.

So say you. He did not have to vote! It was easy for him at the time to simply give a speech. If he was in the senate then, he probably would have voted PRESENT. Not everyone thinks sticking it out with the UN was the way to go. You cannot say what would have happened since then if both of them would have been "right" in your opinion.

Two things:

1. He was running for Senate when the issue was on the front burner and had to publicly state his position to even win the Senate seat and he's never wavered from it. That's more than you can say for Clinton who was afraid to stand up for what she believed and now tries to spin it.

2. We asked you in the other thread to produce the quotes that show all Obama wants to do is outsource to the UN on the War on Terror. Produce or drop the argument. And be sure to provide context and don't cherry pick.

[jw 4 au 526]

Two things:

1. He was running for Senate when the issue was on the front burner and had to publicly state his position to even win the Senate seat and he's never wavered from it. That's more than you can say for Clinton who was afraid to stand up for what she believed and now tries to spin it.

2. We asked you in the other thread to produce the quotes that show all Obama wants to do is outsource to the UN on the War on Terror. Produce or drop the argument. And be sure to provide context and don't cherry pick.

To respond to your comments:

1. Sure, I think Clintons waffling is a disgrace. I personally lean more towards Sen. Biden’s views on Iraq. Simply put, we ALL got us to where we are today, NOT just Bush and the Republicans. Although I think Bush has not made perfect decisions on his handling of the war (i.e. Rumsfeld was allowed to run things for too long), I commend the President for standing behind what WE started and not leaving the country in shambles. People quickly forget what happened in Iraq after Desert Storm.

2.a. Look, I don't have time to go searching for quotes on Obama's and his support for the U.N. I am not sure I actually stated that he would "outsource to the U.N on the War on Terror", but I am sure I said something similar about Iraq in jest. However, I do know in his famous Iraq speech that he wanted the U.S. to give the U.N. more time or flexibility or whatever to continue what they were doing as opposed to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. I personally find it ridiculous to support the view that if we said don't do this 12 times and get completely ignored, to continue down that same path. If that is not what he actually said, that is what he suggested or at least my personal interpretation. I also have viewed his web page to read about his stance on the issues, and thought (I admit I may be factually wrong if you are going to split hairs on wordage) that he supports the U.S. rebuilding our relationship with the U.N., and relying on the U.N. to take control of Iraq after he pulls the troops out, as well as for other global safety issues. Even Sen. Biden, who sites on the Foreign Affairs Committee disagrees with this position. If I am wrong on the semantics, I need to go back and re-read his stance on the Iraq issues. Now Obama wants to give billions of U.S. tax dollars to the U.N to do with what they want for the goal of saving the world from hunger? I don't think so. I see the need to help the world with poverty, I just think we should control our own tax dollars. I personally think he is trying to buy favor with the U.N., for alternative reasons.

2.b. "We". Ha ha, that's funny. It's Us vs. Them. That's the problem with politics today. I think it was just your post actually (probably with shared sentiment), I did not realize we were on teams here. I for one believe that I vote for my candidate, but support whoever is elected. I may disagree and voice my opinion, but I will always support OUR President. This is why the three branch system works for democracy.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1. Sure, I think Clintons waffling is a disgrace. I personally lean more towards Sen. Biden’s views on Iraq. Simply put, we ALL got us to where we are today, NOT just Bush and the Republicans. Although I think Bush has not made perfect decisions on his handling of the war (i.e. Rumsfeld was allowed to run things for too long), I commend the President for standing behind what WE started and not leaving the country in shambles. People quickly forget what happened in Iraq after Desert Storm.

I also subscribe to the "you broke it, you fix it" view. But the stubborn idea that we did the right thing going in, even knowing what we know now, wears me out.

2.a. Look, I don't have time to go searching for quotes on Obama's and his support for the U.N. I am not sure I actually stated that he would "outsource to the U.N on the War on Terror", but I am sure I said something similar about Iraq in jest. However, I do know in his famous Iraq speech that he wanted the U.S. to give the U.N. more time or flexibility or whatever to continue what they were doing as opposed to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. I personally find it ridiculous to support the view that if we said don't do this 12 times and get completely ignored, to continue down that same path. If that is not what he actually said, that is what he suggested or at least my personal interpretation. I also have viewed his web page to read about his stance on the issues, and thought (I admit I may be factually wrong if you are going to split hairs on wordage) that he supports the U.S. rebuilding our relationship with the U.N., and relying on the U.N. to take control of Iraq after he pulls the troops out, as well as for other global safety issues. Even Sen. Biden, who sites on the Foreign Affairs Committee disagrees with this position. If I am wrong on the semantics, I need to go back and re-read his stance on the Iraq issues. Now Obama wants to give billions of U.S. tax dollars to the U.N to do with what they want for the goal of saving the world from hunger? I don't think so. I see the need to help the world with poverty, I just think we should control our own tax dollars. I personally think he is trying to buy favor with the U.N., for alternative reasons.

That's fine. If you end up finding the quotes, put them up here and we can go from there. Otherwise, a more clarified argument like this above would be better.

2.b. "We". Ha ha, that's funny. It's Us vs. Them. That's the problem with politics today. I think it was just your post actually (probably with shared sentiment), I did not realize we were on teams here. I for one believe that I vote for my candidate, but support whoever is elected. I may disagree and voice my opinion, but I will always support OUR President. This is why the three branch system works for democracy.

I said "we" because at least one or two others reiterated my original request for the actual quotes. It's not a team thing, just a "more than one person asked you for this" thing. Technically, I'm not even on runinred's team since I'm not voting for his candidate.

[jw 4 au 526]

Technically, I'm not even on runinred's team since I'm not voting for his candidate.

You are not voting for Obama in November?!? Then who, Nader?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Either McCain, third party with better social conservative credentials, or no one.

[jw 4 au 526]

That surprises me. I guess I am not remembering any of your older posts very well. It sure seems like you like Obama very much. I will admit, at first he seemed like a nice candidate to me: clean, good looking, articulate (no I am not a racist), but the more I found out about his views on almost every issue, I saw where he is soo one sided. Not to mentin I HATE Ted Kennedy! I have always been a moderate in my views, and try to see both sides of the issues, but his vagueness on every issue and the blind support for him by his "followers" is starting to grate on my nerves. I really don't know exactly what it is because I can see the value in his speaking ability. I guess I just think that is where is leaves it and doesn't have anything else inside.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

That surprises me. I guess I am not remembering any of your older posts very well.

Ask TexasTiger and Tiger Al. We've gone a few rounds.

It sure seems like you like Obama very much.

I do like him. I enjoyed his book and enjoy hearing him speak and I think he has some good ideas. I also happen to agree with him regarding the War in Iraq in this sense: I think we never should have gone in there and that it has been a money-eating black hole and has distracted us from the job we had in Afghanistan. But his unwavering support for the sacrament of abortion in all its forms (including sticking scissors in babies' brains) makes it impossible for me to support him. I disagree with him on some economic issues and probably gay marriage too, but those considerations might have been overcome if he showed any respect for the unborn and their right to live.

You know, I have problems with the death penalty because of how its administered and would rather put every murderer away for life than to execute one innocent person. And Obama did some really good things on that issue as a state senator in Illinois. It was admirable work, especially the way he got people from both parties to work together on it. I just wish he'd show as much zeal and compassion for truly innocent and helpless victims like the unborn as he does for convicted criminals.

I will admit, at first he seemed like a nice candidate to me: clean, good looking, articulate (no I am not a racist), but the more I found out about his views on almost every issue, I saw where he is soo one sided. Not to mentin I HATE Ted Kennedy! I have always been a moderate in my views, and try to see both sides of the issues, but his vagueness on every issue and the blind support for him by his "followers" is starting to grate on my nerves. I really don't know exactly what it is because I can see the value in his speaking ability. I guess I just think that is where is leaves it and doesn't have anything else inside.

Eh, he's not vague. You go to his site and click on the Issues tab and he has quite a detailed exposition on the various issues. Puts most of the other candidates to shame. But I can recognize the good points about him and be willing to say when I think he's been criticized in an unfair way (such as the Muslim smear campaign) without agreeing with him on key points that make me unable to cast a vote for him.