Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democratic Debate On CNN

First of all, CNN did a good job reinforcing my decision to stop watching CNN. God, I hate that idiot, Wolf Blitzer. Despite his buffoonery, however, the Democratic candidates really shone. There were some really thoughtful and coherent responses in tonight’s debate.

Clinton demonstrated why she's ahead in the national polls. She's strong, smart, thoughtful, knowledgeable, interesting, Presidential and she had some fun moments. She was the clear winner. I liked the way she refused to get drawn into the wacky hypothetical scenarios Blitzer lamely copied from the FOX debate.

Obama looked good. Literally. Demonstrating their irrelevancy, CNN polled viewers on which candidate was the snappiest dresser. Please. That's even worse than the picnic question. For those dying to know: Obama won. As far as actual substance goes, Obama was also strong, thoughtful, knowledgeable, Presidential, etc. He's not as concise as Clinton, but either of them would make excellent Presidents.

I was disappointed in Edwards. There was a great vibe going between all the candidates until Edwards started attacking Obama and Clinton. Judging by the national polls, I guess he's getting desperate despite how early it is in the campaign. He certainly sounded desperate. I liked that he had the cajones to ask Blitzer for another ten seconds to bash Obama. I was otherwise unimpressed.

Biden was great. He'll make somebody a fantastic Secretary of State.

Richardson... I really want to like Richardson, but he's playing out of his league here. Having said that, I liked his commitment to economic growth.

Dodd sounded good. I'm ready to move him into the 2nd tier with Biden and Richardson.

As usual, Gravel was cranky and Kucinich was on another planet. Those two need to think about an exit strategy.

My favorite part was when Blitzer tried to get them all to commit to an immediate attack on Iran, and they all shut him down. Instead, they offered thoughtful responses for effectively disarming and undermining Ahmadinejad with no muss or fuss. Biden delivered the knockout blow by pointing out that Iran is at least a decade away from building a nuke. Wolf Blitzer, you're no Chris Wallace.

Excellent debate. It's must-see TV if you're going to make an informed vote ... two years from now. I'm looking forward to the Republican debate on Tuesday and I hope the GOP candidates display more substance than melodrama this time -- but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by American Pundit at June 4, 2007 12:46 AM
Comment #222201

“As usual, Gravel was cranky and Kucinich was on another planet. Those two need to think about an exit strategy.”

This is why Kucinich, especially Kucinich, but also Gravel should leave the Democratic Party. You, and all other Democrats should be ashamed of yourselves by how you treat your own.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 4, 2007 2:25 AM
Comment #222202

That’s the beautiful thing about being a Democrat, Richard. It’s a big tent. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at June 4, 2007 3:19 AM
Comment #222204

Richard Rhodes- Are you ashamed of Newt Gingrige

for his latest remarks about President Bush ??

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 4, 2007 3:57 AM
Comment #222205

-David-: Why should I be? I am a Green. But thanks for proving my point for me. The fact that when anyone questions a Democrat (like I did) and people assume they are a Republican (like -David- did) proves the fact that we exist under a duopoly where people live with blinders on their eyes.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 4, 2007 4:40 AM
Comment #222206

AP said: “That’s the beautiful thing about being a Democrat, Richard. It’s a big tent. :)”

Yeah f’ing right AP, go look through the comments of you and your Dems you all do nothing but dump on Kucinich it is truly sad that I a Green have stuck up for Kucinich probably more than all of the Dem writers on Watchblog combined. You Dems just dump and dump on Kucinich! Can you produce a single link where one of you has wrote a positive article about Kucinich? I know for a fact that you cannot! You make fun of him, again and again. Yet you still use him to make people think your party is a progressive party. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 4, 2007 4:43 AM
Comment #222207

I want to see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich running an “I” ticket for Pres and Vice. I don’t care which one is the others’ running mate. They are the only two known candidates running against the the status quo and against globalism. All the rest are just politicians.

Posted by: wtc7 at June 4, 2007 6:08 AM
Comment #222209

I don’t think it’s a policy of the democratic party to praise all other democrats as a matter of duty.

Is that the Green Party way of thinking cause you sure seem to think it shoud be?

Posted by: Schwamp at June 4, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #222213

wtc7 I agree with you, throw Richardson in the mix somewhere and 4 years of their leadership could help to undo the past 8 years of damage to this country and slow the more toxic parts of the globalization process.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 4, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #222222

Yes AP, we all know you love Hillary. And you’re so obviously stumping for her in this article it’s hilarious!
I think every single one of the candidates managed to make a few good points yesterday, and I don’t consider Hillary to have been the winner. I like Edwards, but he wasn’t the winner either.
Instead, the clear winner of the debate was Wolf Blitzer — who was very sucessful in his obvious plan to cut off every candidate just when we were about to get something a little more meaty and satisfying from their comments than the mere crumbs of a sound bite.
I just read an article by John Nichols in the Nation and it seems he agreed with this impression of mine.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 4, 2007 10:39 AM
Comment #222226
Instead, the clear winner of the debate was Wolf Blitzer

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I mentioned somewhere in my article that Blitzer is an idiot. :)

You make fun of him, again and again.

Kucinich reminds me of my kooky uncle who thinks he’s a CIA agent. That doesn’t mean I don’t love him. And have you seen his wife? What a hottie!

Richard, the Democratic Party is a big, big tent. I don’t often agree with the left wingers like Kucinich or the right wingers like Lieberman — but they all have a voice and a part to play. We love ‘em all!

In fact, without Kucinich, people might think Hillary is a liberal. :)

Yo, Adrienne. I thought all the candidates sounded good on foreign policy and the broader global war on terrorism. What’d you like?

Posted by: American Pundit at June 4, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment #222229

I found it interesting that, unlike the last presidential compaign, there was no mention by any Demo candidate of employment or the ecomomy. Silence on these two hot issues of four years ago can be interpreted to mean that the current administration has done well in these two areas. I also find it interesting that these folks propose spending billions on new programs and it won’t cost us anything. The most hilarious moment for me was C. Dodd’s comment, “I will cause the nations to come together”, when addressing his way of handling Iran and N. Korea. I guess Dodd doesn’t know there is such an effort already and it’s known as the U.N. What a pompus ass, he sounded like Moses parting the Red Sea.

Posted by: Jim at June 4, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #222236

Yo AP, I’ve got a busy day ahead of me here. I’ll sit down tonight and tell you what I liked from the candidates.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 4, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #222238

Heavens,a Green. Thanks again for the egotistical and arrogant disregard of political reality that gave us GWB.

The problem with Kuchinich is he has staked out positions so far from the mainstream that he has given up what should be the vital role of keeping the leading candidates from moving right.Altogether ,though, we have a bench we can be proud of.You could throw a rock at the stage and hit a better president than what we have now. That is unless you hit Blitzer which might be fun anyway.

Posted by: BillS at June 4, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #222240

A good part of the debate was focused on the Iraq War. I liked Joe Biden’s idea about separating Iraq into into three parts. This is the only way we can prevent an all out civil war when we pull out

Posted by: Mike Y at June 4, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #222246

There was a lot of spending talk (college for everyone?), but it was a Democrat debate. Also you didn’t mention Hillary’s “we are safer today” quote, that couldn’t have sounded good to any wing much less to the Shehaan wing of the dems.
Anyway, as a conservative, if I had to pick I thought Biden was the best, at least he knows what the most important issues are.

Posted by: andy at June 4, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #222248

Did any of you notice that when Blitzer asked, by a show of hands, who thought the Official language should be English, Gravel was the only one that raised his hand?!!! And, the synopsis of the debate was (basically) Bush is creating terrorists and our reputation in the world is damaged b/c of the war in Iraq. Nice leaders (some of) you have there. Real nice…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 4, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #222249

Richard Rhodes-

Since you were attacking Democrats an were not

defending your Green or any any other party could

only imply that you are troll baiting, other wise

you would have enough character, to defend your

Green Party, which by the way, I do have

respect for but little hope!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 4, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #222253

Just who is running from the Green Party?

Posted by: Linda H. at June 4, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #222254


Yes, Hillary was the clear winner.

I have seen several reviews. Everyone seems to pan Richardson. Indeed, he did keep saying “I..I…I.” However, he came up with an idea for saving Darfur: Boycott the Chinese Olympics.

Nobody is picking up on this. I think it is a great idea. The Chinese are preventing any action for peace in Darfur because they get a great deal of oil from Sudan. By threatening to boycott the biggest PR job China has - the Olympics, next year - we can get them to bend.

I’ll bet if we threaten this the Chinese will cave and there will be no need for the boycott.

Richardson is the Great Negotiator, We should listen to him.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 4, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #222266
you didn’t mention Hillary’s “we are safer today” quote

I think Hillary’s right. It’s hard to argue that homeland security isn’t better now than it was on 9/11. Maybe she could have phrased it differently to appease the Bush haters…

Boycott the Chinese Olympics. Nobody is picking up on this. I think it is a great idea.

Yeah, that answer surprised me. It brought back memories of Carter boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Knowing how the Chinese are about “face”, I think you’d have to be very careful how that threat is made. It could backfire all out of proportion to Darfur.

And by that, I mean Darfur might not be worth pissing off China. It’s far from clear that the genocide in Sudan is eliciting a passionate response from the majority of Americans.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 4, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #222278

AP, you sure. I thought we are of help recruiting terrorist… per Sheehan and your likes. It’s really hard to belive you can have it both ways on all.
On Darfur, as a conservative, I’m plenty passionate. Let’s boycott, you sound scared, we have bigger issues but to quote Remer we can “multi-task”.

Posted by: andy at June 4, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #222282

Yeah.Great idea. I swear I will not attend the Olympics in China until they change their policy about Darfur, and even afterwards.

Posted by: BillS at June 4, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #222288

The key to getting China to cooperate is giveing them access to more Iraqi oil. We allowed some access to them and got help with N.Korea. They simply will not and cannot allow us to bottle up the third largest oil reserve which was our goal from the beginning of the conflict.

Posted by: BillS at June 4, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #222308

“I liked the way she refused to get drawn into the wacky hypothetical scenarios Blitzer lamely copied from the FOX debate.”

Thats one of the things I hated the most about Hilary. I will give you the fact that it is strategically intelligent in the political sense. But I want to see the candidates answer questions, not avoid them.

“I was disappointed in Edwards. There was a great vibe going between all the candidates until Edwards started attacking Obama and Clinton.”

Oh come on. Edwards showed guts. Edwards showed the flaws in the other candidates (Obama and Hilary) health care plans. Edwards called out Hilary and Obama for waiting till the last minute to vote on war funding. I like Kucinich personally, but I think Edwards won the debate.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 4, 2007 11:54 PM
Comment #222311
Oh come on. Edwards showed guts.

It looked more like dsperation to me. In any case, he started and is now leading the race to the bottom. I only hope he won’t drag the other candidates down with him.

But I want to see the candidates answer questions, not avoid them.

They answered every valid question. Plot lines for FOX TV shows and “do you still beat your wife” questions are rightly ignored.

I was actually pleased with the amount of time spent getting into details on the issues. This debate went much more in depth than the last one.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 5, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #222314

Okay AP,
I told you I’d tell you what I thought about the debate, so here goes:

Hillary Clinton said this was George Bush’s war entirely. That was true. But then she said:
“The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don’t want anybody in America to be confused.”
That isn’t true. She has been supporting the war, so the differences ARE more major between her and the other candidates than she would like us to believe. Also, in a general sense, since she is Republican Lite, I fail to see a major difference between her and the GOP.
She also said: “we are safer than we were.” That’s a complete and total lie, and she should know better than to have said that. This president has not made us safer than we were, he has not dealt well with security or emergency response measures, and he has further endangered all our lives with his non-existant diplomacy and reckless foreign policy.

Obama looked and sounded intelligent and knowledgable, but didn’t challenge Clinton the way a front runner should have done. He seems to want to be so diplomatic and above it all that he didn’t make himself stand out or highlight the differences between himself and the other candidates — especially Hillary. Wrong move, there.

Edwards went on the offense. Good for him. He sounded like a leader. Like a president. His line about there being “a difference between leadership and legislators” was spot on. He reminded us that: “The importance of this is, they’re asking to be president of the United States. And there is a difference between making clear, speaking to your followers, speaking to the American people about what you believe needs to be done, and I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues.”
He also said he wants to: “re-establish America’s moral authority.” We need that desperately.

Biden made some good points, but he came off rather angry and arrogant.

Dodd also sounded good, but he barely got a chance to speak. I’d be pissed if I were him for being so short changed. However, he gained a bunch of points with me right at the end by saying that the first thing he would do as president is zero in on restoring our Constitution. If I was running for president that’s exactly where I’d start, too.

Richardson made a point or two, but didn’t do so well overall. He lost points with me by saying the first thing he would do as president was focus on education and teachers. While that is an important issue, I thought, Hello? We’ve got a mountain of other issues that need immediate attention before that one.

Kucinich was intelligent, honest, straightforward, and thoroughly, authentically himself, as usual. It’s a damn shame he isn’t taken more seriously than he is. In my view, the reason he’s always been written off is all for superficial reasons — he simply doesn’t look like a president, and his voice doesn’t sound commanding and take-charge like we expect from our presidents.
BTW, You think his wife is a “hottie”, but she’s actually a problem for him. The American people will look at him, then look at her, then look at each other and say:”Gold-digger” or “Trophy Wife.” Sure it’s unfair, overly speculative and judgemental, but that’s how the public is. They won’t trust a first lady who looks like a Barbie Doll — unless her husband looks a lot like “Ken”. Kucinich doesn’t.

Gravel didn’t come off as well yesterday as he did in the previous debate, though he too, was just being himself. He said: “We have killed more Americans than was done on the 11th of September. More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for president.”
I think maybe he’s right. Still, that sounded rather grumpy old mannish in the delivery. That quality doesn’t win supporters, or elections.

So, that’s my take. And yes, I agree with you that foreign policy and the war on terrorism was well covered — but Blitzer made it all less informative and in-depth than it could have been.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 5, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #222318

Why be rude to Kucinich for being idealistic? Instead of looking at their records mainstream corporate media plays to the audience. Like the superbowl, politics 2007/08 has become a drummed up competition, a ‘live spectacular’, a circus…The questions were pretty vapid and more time was given to the mainstream Dems who are just as bad in their voting records (uh, isn’t face time more important than voting records? Yes, in 2007/08) Obama voted for the war 24 times, and Hillary was on the board of WalMart.

We need a revolution. Sticking to the Constitution is our only hope, short of a military state and/or Communism. As Kennedy said, and keeps saying, Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

We need a revolution against corporate ownership of everything, especially the media. How can people elect capable leaders if we can’t even hear a decent debate?

Posted by: Sharon T. at June 5, 2007 2:53 AM
Comment #222319

American Pundit- Excellent Post

I believe Wolf Blitzer was very unprofessional

an rude with these Democratic Senators. First by

asking them to raise their hands, just as you

would do with a group of children in a class room.

He would interrupt them when they began some

important points of view or seemed to cut them off

before they had finished .

I would like to suggest the Democratic Party go

back to the Woman’s League Of Voters, for all

their remaining debates there by giving the debate

a more professional an meaningful gathering for

the possible, contender for the next President Of

The United States. In the event you look an act

like an unprofessional, so you will be thought of

in kind!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 5, 2007 5:34 AM
Comment #222320

I would like to see if Wolffy treats the Republicans the same way.


Posted by: -DAVID- at June 5, 2007 5:39 AM
Post a comment