Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Dustin Davis, Austin, Texas — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:13:23 GMT

The first questions posed to the candidates, about Reid's speech: none of them gave the most honest answer: The difference between saying "the war is lost" and "And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost" is incredibly, unignorably, substantially important. Any commentary on the Reid speech, or indeed, any question about it, that excludes not only the point of his speech, but takes from it only four words, excluding a pivotal part of the *very same sentence* is shamefully dishonest.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:34:35 GMT

I agree, Gravel is the only one who's distinguished himself so far

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

E Stanger, Fort Wayne < IN — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:37:12 GMT

Let's not forget as Edwards just reminded me those men sitting on the Supreme Court are very responsible for G W Bush sitting where he is today. So they should get some of the credit for this mess we are in. Great debate finally the discussion that has been needed for 6 years....

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

sgoldbarg — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:47:33 GMT

The polls say that 55% of Americans agree with Ried that the war has been lost. Making that statementt will not cause political damage to him as long as there is a scapegoat to hang. bush, cheney, rumdum, ashcroft, ridge, bremer, chertoff, gonzalez, bolton, frist, hastert, mcconnell, cornyn, feith, rice, mccain, wolfowitz, lamebag, coulter, orally, savage, (he's ashamed of his real name) - hey, Ried has scapegoats enough to hang until every lampost is decorated with a retardlican chicken-hawk.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:50:44 GMT

Can no one conceive of taking the money we pay to insurance and pay it to a Univ H.C. instead? B. Richardson seems to drift closest to this.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lee Holmes — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:51:09 GMT

DUSTIN:So is highlighting the one[''follow the Presidents path'']to the exclusion of the original Reid statement that did not mention ''following the presidents path''.This neat bit of revisionism was performed to distance Reid from the words he actually said which are here,courtesy of not the ''vile''[COUNTDOWN] MediaMatters,but the Associated Press.''I believe myself,that the Secretary of State,the Secretary of Defense and....you..have to make your own decision as to what the president know[knows]...this war is lost''.There is no and I mean zero mention of ''following '', ''the presidents path''or any other such word present in Reids original remarks.We will observe here that one of Reids early supports for his position come from al Qaeda[''The Base''] in a letter released yesterday through AL-FAJR MEDIA[Riyadh,Mecca,Kuwait City et al.Apr.25,2007]The question begs.Instead of the usually liberal question ''Why do they hate America?'' when referring to conservtaives,these might ask,''Why do terrorists like Democrats''?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

maq, Sedona Arizona — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:51:47 GMT

What a shoddy line of questions this pathetic Williams asks! He attacks the candidates not on issues that distinguish each from the other but on what they think of Republican hot issues like guns, abortion and taxes. So as a Dem I see nothing but a unified front in their answers, and as a Rep my husband ses also a unified front of opposition. How insulting to the viewers and how boring! Where is the DEBATE!?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Carol P. Syracuse, NY — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:52:05 GMT

Brian specificaly stated that the majority of americans agree with the supreme court decision, yet those who answered don't agree. Why is the opposite true when it comes to the majority feeling about the war? It's only "what the american people want" when they agree with it.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Dustin Davis, Austin, Texas — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:54:46 GMT

Heh, the "show of hands" gun owners was everyone but the three running over 10%. Interesting. I suppose technically Hillary should have raised her hand too since the question was about "having a gun in her home during her adult life", what with living in the White House and all.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:09:54 GMT

I've long thought that Obama was too young, Clinton was to maliable and Edwards was too 'western'. I'm going to look seriously at Gravel from now on.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:12:00 GMT

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Kucinich nailed it. GWoT is a BOGUS cover story!!!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Robert Sharp, Minneapolis, Minn — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:12:40 GMT

Why hasn't the question of restoring the the Writ of Habeas Corpus been asked yet? The Military Commison Act of 2006, has given the President a blank check to remove this fundamental civil liberty from citizens. Do they agree that a single branch of our government should have the right remove a fundmental civil liberty? Do they not believe that this is a constitutional problem facing our nation?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

D.Hunter — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:14:28 GMT

It's no wonder these candidates choose MSNBC for this so called debate. Nothing but softballs, i just want one of these people to answer the question asked of the. I wish this country could come up with a viable third party.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:17:41 GMT

Is the "pocket copy of the Constitution" a 'radio flow chart' moment?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:19:56 GMT

Hillary would "QUICKLY" respond to being "ATTACKED" Impulsive, shoot first ask questions later. Sounds like spilled milk could result in NUCLEAR WINTER under Pres. Clinton II. Why ask why? Where's the football and the launch codes?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Rob — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:23:12 GMT

Kucinich scores! Auditioning for pres and making the right choice comment.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Dustin Davis — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:30:00 GMT

Lee, I was quoting in full Reid's statement on the Senate floor, on the senate.gov website from the 19th. The AP quote was cited from the same day, in his news confrence about his comments, and it's terribly important to quote the full sentence from either (and indeed both, in this case, since one is an explanation/ elaboration on the other), which you notably failed to do as well: "I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." Giving the full context of each statement, and certainly at the very least the full content of each *sentence*, is important for any commentator, including of course a debate moderator. As for your question "why do terrorists like Democrats?" I'll let that question stand on its own unassailable dignity and merit. Heh.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:32:37 GMT

Goodness gracious, great balls of fire. Edwards moral leader is his "Lord". Doesn't he own his own property? In a feudal system if you disobey the Lord you end up homeless. Sounds like he's targeting his base of serfs.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Eric Moreau, Las Vegas, NV — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:33:11 GMT

Why do otherwise educated, intelligent men such as John Edwards (and for that matter all of the candidates) feel the need to cite God as some sort of moral guide. Do they mean that they could not learn right from wrong without the use of an acient work of fiction?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

TECHIE — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:35:28 GMT

The floor mike is drowining out Olbermann and Matthews ...

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Indianapolis — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:35:38 GMT

I'm afraid Obama's numbers will go down after tonight. Seems like he's being handled. Did gore's people find new jobs with Obama's campaign?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

sgoldbarg — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:43:04 GMT

Ried's comments came more than a year after a similar comment by donald rumdum. lee holmes should be as nit-picky when parsing out Defeat Secretary rumdum's comment at a 2005 press conference: "We cannot win in Iraq; only the Iraqi people can do that." The independent clause is, "We cannot win in Iraq." Unfortunately, retardlicans never get nit-picky when fellow retardlicans are defeatists. holmes would have us all believe al Qaida propaganda. Just like retardlicans demanded that we believe chalabi (until they finally discovered that he was really working for the Ayatollah). Good advice: never believe a retardlican. Not ever.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Indiana — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:44:48 GMT

Biden gets included in Gravel's top tier slam... LMAO Funny too his one word response to the verbosity question. LOL

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:45:21 GMT

Why are the post game interviews going to the weakest performers?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Eric Moreau, Las Vegas, NV — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:46:33 GMT

Will anyone running for office side with Keith Olberman and work toward removing the political talking heads such as Rush, Beck, Carlson and their ilk from consistantly misreporting or in some cases outright lying to cover their political agenda, perhaps some sort of government oversight that requires "news" to actually be informed, unbiased or have some sort of scroll across the screen (or a warning for radio) that announces the speaker is issuing pure opinion rather than facts? (Keith, for his part never tries to disquise his commentary as news). I would also like to add that if we must endure Fox News as a network without any real balance, why do more news-oriented stations (CNN, MSNBC, Headline News) insist on hiring conservative blowhards? Ratings should be important, but so should actual reporting.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Gail — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:51:14 GMT

DHESS GAME... The question; "Is the war lost?" can't be answered. If two men are playing chess, I can walk up and wipe off the board, destroying the game, I can advise one or the other and assist them in winning, I can give one bad advice in hopes destroying his game. But, all that said, I can not win, I can only interfere.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Eric Moreau, Las Vegas, NV — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:52:22 GMT

On Iraq: It would be nice if EITHER side would have the guts to admit that any chance of "success" in Iraq that has to do with military force would require MUCH more that a baby surge and either go all in or reinstate a draft that includes NO EXCEPTIONS based on gender, economic status and then see how the American public feels about sending their children off to fight for any reason other than in self-defense.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

sgoldbarg — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:59:56 GMT

Hey Gail! Tell it to the former Secretary of Defeat. He was the first person to say that WE cannot win in Iraq. If you don't like his opinion, I suggest that you work to get the guy that hired him out of office.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:00:06 GMT

Grunwald, cool name. Is she from Monsey in Rockland? Is that were they do it the OLD FASHIONED WAY? Is she traveling by TRAIN?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

julie millard, greenland, nh — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:41 GMT

It's comments like the one Scarbrough just made "You're not really concerned about Kucinich are you" that unfairly influence opinion polls. It is a blatant misuse of the media.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

thomas B Kansas City MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:43 GMT

And he STARTS with a bodyblow to Chris Matthews. Go For It MIKE!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Bonnie, Madison — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:08:08 GMT

The press has to stop badgering the democrats about why they voted for the war and when and why they turned against the war. At least they've gotten that far. Most of the republican candidates still support the war, despite all the evidence proving it to be an unmitigated disaster. Any village idiot would have gotten the point by now, but apparently not McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or the other republican candidates. It's time the press made them face up to that.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lee Holmes — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:12:04 GMT

DUSTIN:Where did the AP say anything regarding ''following the presidents path''in Reid original remarks?It is because they were not there.My stance is indeed one of at least minimal merit.al Qaeda actually did remark positively on the Reid comments,as did AL AQSAS,ISLAMIC JIHAD,HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH whose leaders and spokespersons all praised the Pelosi visit to the Middle East in March.I do not find this a laughing matter.To what end would murdering terrorists seek in praising the two highest legislative branch leaders in America?Reid comments were cowardly,so much so that even as the debate drags on,none of those questioned by Brian Williams on the Reid comments would even give a straight answer.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Brett, Columbia, MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:14:30 GMT

If I had to vote for someone based on their performance tonight I would have to vote for Biden with a close second to Richardson and a even closer third to Clinton. And going into tonight I would have voted for Obama. I think we need about ten more of these debates

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Bonnie, Madison — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:15:42 GMT

Andrea Mitchell just called Mike Gravel a "radical, a bombthrower." I'm tired of hearing the press summarily dismiss candidates like Kucinich and Gravel in those kinds of disparaging terms. Four years ago the radical bombthrowers were those folks who were against the Iraq war. What do you suppose Andrea Mitchell would call those folks now? Visionaries?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Brett, Columbia, MO — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:17:31 GMT

Is Kucinich's wife 30 years younger then him

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Ellen, Cudahy, Wisconsin — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:19:19 GMT

I agree Obama looked uncomfortable, Hillary looked uptight, Richardson was good,except for the 1-2-3, but I agree it would be very refreshing for any one to just answer the question. I thought Richarson and Edwards were very good.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

purple heart — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:20:29 GMT

Hey, sgoldbarg! What about publican majority leader, senator bill frist. When he was coming back from his 'fact-finding' junket in Afghanistan in August of last year he gave an interview to al Jazeera in which he said we should let the Taliban back into the Afghan government! Now there is a traitor who ought to be given the Lindh treatment - maybe even renditioned, waterboarded, and made to have sex with publican representative mark "page-boy pervert" Hey, sgoldbarg! What about publican majority leader, senator bill frist. When he was coming back from his 'fact-finding' junket in Afghanistan in AQugust of last year he gave an interview to al Jazeera in which he said we should let the Taliban back into the Afghan government! Now there is a traitor who ought to be given the Lindh treatment - maybe even renditioned, waterboarded, and made to have sex with publican representative mark "page-boy pervert" foley.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Dustin Davis, Austin, Texas — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:24:48 GMT

And, just to bring down the level of discussion: Mrs. Kucinich is.. distracting. I'm sure there's a good Bill/Hillary analogy in there somewhere.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Richard MacCormack, Bridgewater NJ — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:32:18 GMT

Why do we always have to have democratic candidates and opinions vetted by the analysis of the likes of Chris Mathews, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough. Any the dabate mederated by Brian Williams??? I doubt that any Republican candidates would submit to ANY debate moderated of analysed by Keith Oberman.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:33:35 GMT

Dennis Kucinich was absolutely awesome! As an anti-war democrat I cant say enough about his profound take on the situation. He is one of VERY few that DID NOT vote for the war! Those are the people who should be running! The rest had political aspirations and were literally bullied to stand in line or be seen as unpatriotic. Dodd did very well and Edwards to me was the worst. Barak fell flat and Hillary was as scripted as coul be. Hillary especially scares me when it comes to a future war against Iran just to show how tough she is.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Amy C., NC — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:48:10 GMT

Gravel wins!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:51:59 GMT

The point about the lack of support for impeachment, and laying down the LAW by demanding Murtha-Feingold-Kucinich-Richardson redeployment ASAP to beat the inevitable John Kerry line "LAST MAN TO DIE IN IRAQ" for the FAILED attempt at 80% EXXON owned Iraqi OIL, was driven home by GRAVEL. He noted that the candidates are more concerned with their own hide, being left with the farce that DEMS CAUSED THE MESS-IN-POTAMIA DEFEAT, than they are with saving lives or the liquidity of the US DOLLAR. The fact nobody mentioned the link between the deficit and domestic strife, including crime and the suicide rate is another dot that they refuse to connect, like the myriad of unanswered questions that Kean Commission lists as "LOOSE ENDS". Accountability must be off the table when it comes to campaign rhetoric. What a country, as Yakov Smirnoff would say.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lee Holmes — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:07:39 GMT

Richard:At least the Republicans would show up,which is more than I can say for the Dem cowards who backed out of the FOX-moderated debates.Whether or not you guys believe it,a conservative voice has every damned much right of being heard in this nation as one from a liberal,or even a Kusinich-leftist.Dismiss it if one will,that is their right.So is that of the O'Reillys,Hannitys,Carlsons and others to say what is on their minds.They do represent privately-owned concerns,after all.It is not for the government[see:Erics post],to impose thought control on what is read,heard or is seen.This is anathema to all that the Founders stood for.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:08:42 GMT

Bonnie's right about the unintended consequences of pundits glib use of words like "RADICAL", however they are what gets them rated on par with FOXnoise personalities. That's really were they belong. They're just waiting for an offer they cant refuse. Unfortunately there is no penalty for slander, or treason when geriatrics like Mitchell and Novak do it as long as it favors the GOP. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Carlson and Scarborough are still incubating, stand by for them to fully morph into Tony Snow "TAR BABY" baby types.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Dustin Davis, Austin, Texas — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:20:48 GMT

<< DUSTIN:Where did the AP say anything regarding ''following the presidents path''in Reid original remarks?It is because they were not there.My stance is indeed one of at least minimal merit.>> The AP didn't write an article on his original remarks in the Senate (at least that I read) just his press conference *about* his remarks thereafter. It was a matter of parts of the media not paying attention to the point he was making, nor the full context of his statements. Basically, you're not alone in the narrow framing of this attack on Reid, and I certainly wouldn't blame you for tentatively holding your position before becoming aware of the complete statements. <> Oh, I'm sorry - I'll explain. You're implying an illogical argument: "bad" guy says he likes something, therefore something is "bad". I'm sure Hitler may've liked chocolate chip cookies. How dare you eat them? The point *is* laughable when using such a logical fallacy to posit extremely unfair and untrue positions - "Democrats don't get terrorism, Democrats are cowardly" etc. I would never make such a specious argument about Republicans, personally. I prefer to argue the merit of their actions and words with full understanding, and, yes, context. <> I wasn't happy with their answers, myself, as I originally noted, but I assume not for the same reason as yours. I would argue that Reid's position is quite opposite of cowardly, for example. It's becoming more and more rare to hear a politician speak openly, strongly, and honestly while knowing that people are anxious to take incomplete excerpts of your statements out of context and use them as a weapon against you. And, back on topic, all of what I just said should make not so surprising that I'd vote Gore/Feingold if given the chance, over the orators tonight. Stinks to be me. :)

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

glenn e brandon — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:35:21 GMT

my last words on imus as well.i am new to the world of bloging.please excuse my capps on some messages i dont type well and i just forget.back to imus lets cut to the facts,imus did say things he should not have said but this is not about race.he felt bad for what he said and non of us imus folks agree the words he said and he should have gone to the girls and said he was sorry as he did.they forgave him,this could have changed shock radio by moving the bar and change the standards of whats ok,,,,,i am sorry this has gotten so out of control,,,,,,i miss the imus show and the man. thank you glenn brandon

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lee Holmes — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:46:55 GMT

You ignore the fact that his Senate remarks were 'clarifications''[i.e.''following the presidents path''] after he made the verbatim remarks to reporters immediately before taking to the Senate floor which did not include his later remarks.Why would Reid seek ''clarification''for remarks made ''honestly''?Be this as it may,Reid is tanking in Nevada.Who knows,perhaps you can talk algore into installing him as a Postmaster General or some such.Actions like those of Reid and others in tonights debate,prove that Democrats really do not ''get terrorism''or Pelosi would have already commented on the fact that Assad was shipping arms to the terrorist HEZBOLLAH in violation of UN Resolution 1701 at the very moment she was carving her ''road to peace''in Damsacus.Ye gods,they do not ''get''the terrorists, themselves....

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:26:19 GMT

"Ending war for all time is NAIVE"? AJC.com's Cynthia Tucker is either ignorant of the NEW WORLD ORDER single global government where nation states mutually assured destruction is the ultimate deterrent, or she's talking about wars like the WAR ON DRUGS, which is a government project to assure full employment for mercenaries and black male negotiators that is deliberately open-ended. My respect for the Pulitzer has now on par with the Freedom Medal since Wolfowitz's appointment to the World Bank.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Schroeder — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:04:49 GMT

Shrum and Buchanan were in top form Matthews at 11:25. The skill of their political inside the Beltway manipulation tactics was stellar. Shrum using the GWoT GOP party line terms and Buchanan complementing Hillary's hawkishness toward Iran on Israel's behalf perfect illustrates Naders point that there is only ONE party. The DEMS and the GOP are two sides of the same coin. That coin doesn't fit the populous core values slot machine, but the public really doesn't matter. IT'S ABOUT OLIGARCHY AND THE IRON TRIANGLE. Thanks for playing. There's not a dimes worth of difference ... BINGO!!!!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

brian batie Singapore — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:42:35 GMT

None of the above, America's core problem is corruption. Iraq, crime, drugs, racism, is all facilitated when government is too busy lining their private pockets at the cost of the needs of its' citizenry. None of the candidates from either side has addressed the real issue, so it doesn't matter what they say, they all intend to continue the game. Anyone else hear the fat lady?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Tru M., Cleveland, Ohio — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:14:29 GMT

I'm not going to make a definitive statement on who "won" this debate because I think it was more about staking out turf and establishing yourself as a contender than anything else. But I just need to comment here on the astounding sexism some of the guys showed last night (even you danced close to this, Keith, which surprised me). I would not call Hillary my favorite of this bunch, but she does deserve to be treated like the men and no differently. ENOUGH ALREADY with the comments from Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews about how she has to avoid raising her voice so it doesn't have "that feminine shrillness" to it! (Yeah, I agree it can come off poorly, but so can some MEN's voices when they go off on a tirade!) And ENOUGH ALREADY about what Hillary wears, and how she can get away with wearing things the men can't wear, enough about her pearls that make her look "like Grace Kelly," etc.! Honestly, what is this--1952?? Andrea Mitchell was right, and Keith, all of you guys should listen to her as the election season goes on, because as a woman, she'll give that much to you straight. Women are tired of competing with men for a serious job (in this case the Presidency) and having to defend their looks, their clothes, their hair, the tone of their voices, whatever. Yes, it's true Edwards has gotten the flak over his haircut, and many a male candidate has been hashed over about how "old" he looks, and there was the whole "how Kennedy and Nixon looked vs. how they sounded" thing. But when Chris Matthews starts getting into how Hillary's pearls make her look like Grace Kelly, that's just insulting. Unless you're going to say Edwards' haircut makes him look like a young Harrison Ford or something. And let's not lose sight of the big picture here. We should be voting for President based on who we think can do the best job--not what they look like!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Charity, Princeton, NJ — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:14:05 GMT

Impeachment is a nice idea, but it will never happen. All it will do is take up months of time, and they'll never get the votes anyway. Dems' time would be better served undoing the damage the Repubs did: getting us out of the war, reestablishing habeas corpus, etc.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Bonnie, Madison — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:23:07 GMT

Schroeder -- Thanks for your comments. I wasn't much impressed with the new Pulitzer winner, either, and I wouldn't have guessed it (at least, not based on what she said) until Mr. Mathews pointed it out. I wonder why Mr. Olbermann didn't mention it.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:35:25 GMT

This was not a debate. This was an introduction to the democratic candidates to say hello, how are you, next. There is no way you can call a 90 minute discussion between a moderator and 9 individuals a debate. They are forced to speak in generlaizations just to get a few words in (which they tend to do anyway). Chris E: saw your response to me on another thread, blog, whatever it is we call these things. You apologized for ranting because in reading one of my post you saw I was on your side (I am assuming what you meant by "side" is the side of most folks who blog here and who the majority are either indpendent, democrat or lean to the left). Hate to burst your bubble Chris E, but I am on nobodies side. Well, I take that back, I am on my side, what I feel is good for my family's side and on the side of what I think makes good common sense. I am an independent who most likely leans a little left, but I also have had a great deal of respect for some folks who in the past and in the present are more to the right of the middle. I try to judge each individually if they will stand out as individuals. If they don't, I have no choice but to lump them in with whatever group they are hiding behind. Give you an example of my thinking; I was not impressed by any of the candidates tonight. Not enough substance, too worried about offending one another, too rehearsed, not enough time to dig deep into what they believe and have planned for this country. Their answers (those that did answer) on what would they do if the US were to be attacked by terrorists were all pretty lame (even Hilliarys although she did use the term - retailiate which really tells me nothing). What I did want to hear was: First, I would not attack a country I could not be assured was responsible, and second, I would use every resource available to find out who was responsible and where they were hiding, and then lock and load to kick some serious ass no matter where they may be hiding. I would give any country where the leaders of these attacks were hiding one week to hand them over or we would be coming in to get them. Whether Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, Venezuela, even Russia or China. That's what I want to hear. And Chris: I'll be checking out some decent south seas island prices. Now to the Republican candidate introductions incorrectly entitled as a debate. Don't expect anything different, hello, how are you, next.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Barb G., Albany NY — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:47:10 GMT

obama has bought the right wing -- "IRAN is building its nukes, and we have to stop them" -- so, he would cave under any pressure. he dropped in my view. But not Dennis. and Not Richardson, although i cant say as I agree with him on the 'retaliation' points [both he and Hill] if there were an attack. that was a stupid question. Gravel is a wild card who made some of the others look sensible. he seems like an irascible old dude. In order - Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Obama, Hillary, Biden, Gravel. but just MHO.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

scott henderson nv — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:46:14 GMT

I wish the democrats would give a more detailed idea of what they want – my guess is they can’t because they are not unified on the subject. For example if they supported the idea of exiting Bagdad, but keeping a force there to secure the Kurds and Saudi border, while to the best of their ability keeping our guys out of harms way - that is a position I can support. If however the position is to just completely exit, i.e. surrender I cannot support that – they need to be specific in what they want. Of the Dem candidates the only one that doesn’t scare the hell out of me is Richardson – I kind of like that guy for some reason.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Stephanie Jordan, Oklahoma City, OK — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:58:15 GMT

What's that quote? Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. The reason you don't hear the Dems speak in a unified voice is that we tend to think independently and we speak without the party's talking poins in front of us.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Bonnie, Madison — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:12:21 GMT

Scott--You like Richardson because he is the candidate with the broadest range of the right experiences -- governor, congressman, cabinet officer (and the energy department, to boot), ambassador, and negotiator. He's also a minority and he takes a generally popular (if not with me) position on gun control. To be sure, he's not as pretty or as glamorous as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, so he will not draw the media groupies. But, after all, since when have qualifications had much to do with this? Four of the last five presidents have had no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and no experience at the national level on any domestic issue. But we keep voting for them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me about a hundred times, shame on me.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Jamie, Chula Vista, CA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:18:23 GMT

Democratic convention starts here in San Diego today!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Pat, Boston, MA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:22:07 GMT

I agree with so many of you, especially CA & Tru. What was striking for me was Senator Obama, he's not ready for prime time, Senator Clinton is. I always thought Barack had the best shot at winning in the general election against the Republican candidate; Hillary appears to be quite unpopular across the nation. Barack on the other hand is quite popular. I hope he didn't hurt himself last night. If he did, this could pose a problem for the Democrats in Nov. '09 if Clinton ends us securing the nomination. I don't think she'd win in the general election, but that's just a guess and it's still early.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

KT, TN — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:43:26 GMT

After yesterday's wall to wall debate coverage I reached the following conclusions: A) there was no breakout candidate; B) having said that I'm pretty sure neither Mike Gravel or Bill Richardson is going to be moving into that very exclusive address; and C) I am just about politicked out. I'm going back to blogging about my beloved classic country music to recuperate. Just one thing: KO, the silver tie looked really good with your hair. Could you PLEASE fit it into your schedule to teach Tucker to pick out ties?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Indianapolis — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:03:52 GMT

Kucinich and Gravel (also Dodd to a degree) were pretty much ignored last night. So much for a fair debate. Can't they make a more even handed format the allows the less monied candidates to get some mic time? League of Women Voters needs to start running these things again.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

DCohn, Cleveland, OH — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:12:24 GMT

I loved it last night, all men were heroes, especially Chris, nice verbage with 'dicking around", so glad you guys werent manhandled by censors or bleeped out.I felt all three top contendors did well and spoke eloquently, as far as Gravel goes, I felt he was a bit of a whiner and his comments about not getting enough air time wa pathetic. Who needs another whiner, I dont.Obama is good one to one but keep in mind, he is new to this so cut him some slack. Hillary redeemed herself and spoke beautifully and I never knew Chris loved pearls so much. I was happy to see Dodd with his family and felt that was a nice touch, but Gravel, come one, it looks to me that he just wants to really be remembered for something, now it will be for "more real time for me please." with a side of whinning, yikes! I know KO was going nuts when the mic went, I hope that wasnt done on purpose, he did great, as did the other fellas. I truly enjoyed the event and look for more great reporting live with the upcoming REp....how do you spell REpublican? It is so nice to see a group of professionals behave so well, no fires needed to be put out and no one got into a shouting match or needed security to show them out. AS you guys said nor fireworks! Denise

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

B.R. Indiana — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:12:26 GMT

So has everyone submitted a question for the republican debate? You can do so at Matthews site.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Jodee, Cortland, NY — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:13:00 GMT

Gravel ROCKS!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

scott henderson nv — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:29:52 GMT

Stephanie Jordan, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 11:58 AM) So Stephanie, how can one support a position if that position is so fuzzy no one can figure out what it is? The Dems need a position other that Bush is an idiot, and we can do better. I want specifics on what the “do better” is. If their proposal is something idiotic like I suspect Kucinich and Gravel want – pull everything out of Iraq now – then that is something I cannot support. If on the other hand they propose something reasonable then perhaps I could get behind it.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:09:05 GMT

Scott is right. The Dems need to give specific details as to what they would do, and the republican candidates need to to the same. If one of these knuckleheads had taken 2 minutes last night (provided they had gotten the question or had the guts just to blurt it out) they might have suggested that they would bring Patreus to Washington and plan for the redeployment of our troops over a reasonable amount of time that would ensure their safety and well-being and that would give approriate notice to the Iraq government (and I don't mean a year's notice, perhaps 3 months or less). Begin the redeployment of our troops to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the northern Kurdish area (but be careful because this would make the Turks nervous), so redeploy some to Turkey as well to aide them in watching their borders and to make them feel better. Use the troops to protect these borders while getting them out of harms way in Baghdad and central Iraq. Remain in these areas for the time being, maintain air bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey, provide relief aide and medical care to any Iraqi who wants to relocate to a secure border area to avoid the slaughter, keep an eye on Iran and watch the melee in Baghdad and central Iraq. Provide arms to both sides of the melee, sunni and shiite and any other radical jihadists group with just enough to encourage them to destroy one another. That's it.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:24:05 GMT

Some items I forgot after redeployment. The assistance to Iraq refugees would be offered because we created this mess. But no Iraqi seeking refuge in a secure border area will be allowed to drive in. ALL VEHCILES shall remain in Iraq (5 miles from the nearest border crossing check point). Any vehicle breaking this line would be taken out. Only on foot would refugees be allowed to seek refuge. Women and children under 15 only or older men over the age of 70. All would be required to undergo a thorough personal belongings and body check. No current Iraqi government official would be allowed to leave or cross a border but would be required to remain in Iraq to work their shit out. US jets to fly over central Iraq now and then to blow the crap out of any suspected terrorists enclave.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:26:04 GMT

I think that is enough specifics for now. What do you say Scott. Want to add to it?

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lynne Berman , Ventura, CA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:39:07 GMT

instead of a pre-presidential or primary debate what we had here was a game show format with the time keeper deciding how long was long enough. I guess when you bypass debate formats you get to decide how many seconds there are in a minute. this was clearly not fair or unbiased. Gravel was right about the potted plant remark as there was little time for anything else but a light watering. When will the first real debate take place? or like everything else these days, maybe I'm useing the 'old' definition.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

scott henderson nv — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:21:03 GMT

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 2:09 PM) Wow! We might actually agree on at least the basic points. I would like to see also an intense covert war using various proxies to inflict as much damage as possible on the jihadists and Iranians. We need to thwart their ambitions. Like you said air patrols to prohibit the movement of heavy weapons from Iran as well as to destroy jihadist enclaves. I don’t know if I’m coming closer to your position or your’s to mine.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:32:00 GMT

Covert. Covert is a good choice of words Scott. Now you are speaking an area of my expertise from experience in Nam. Instead of sending young military foot soldiers en masse into another country (unless absolutley necessary to defend ourselves) all activities against terrorists should be done covertly. That would include training those who want to volunteer from the USA and other countries (knowing fully their role and the potential consequences) to covertly enter into a country like Iraq and take out the leader, yes, assassinate. It would include the development of small anti-terrorists strike teams (again knowing their role fully and the possible consequences) to go wherever and whenever needed when terrorists are located, the infiltration of the jihadists groups where possible, use of car bombs and IEDs to take out their people. Air power wherever there is a need including taking out any Iranian military equipment entering Iraq, and sooner or later, to take out their nuclear facilities. You have to fight like a terrorist in order to beat the terrorists. You cannot ask our young men and women to play policemen in another part of the world and expect to have success against terrorism. You have to be very lean and mean and underhanded and be able to strike as fast as a snake then be able to disappear into the night until you are needed to strike again. And if you lose some people who have agreed to play this role so be it. They knew their duty and role and the potential consequences. But you would not lose thousands in a country like Iraq who are trying to play policemen. That is how you fight terrorism. And while you do all this you play the perfect diplomatic game with any nation, friend or foe, willing to sit down and talk and listen to your rhetoric as to how you are their good friend while you remove those in their country or under their care who are your enemy. You help other nations that are friendly and that do not harbour terrorists. We decrease our reputation as being a big bully that sends its military anywhere we wish at any time, and increase our reputation as a world power that will leave all other countries alone, but screw with us, house terrorists, and we will be in and out of your country faster than you can say Bin Laden leaving behind the death and destruction of our enemies they never believed would have been possible.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Indpendent, Texas — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:38:31 GMT

CA - now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!! Yes, Yes, Yes to the last post, especially. We are the ones who taught the British that conventional warfare wouldn't work againse guerillas. You'd think that we would demonstrate that conventional warfare (horrid term) wouldn't work against non-national (although seemingly very well organized) militaristas! (I am just flabergasted at how well we are all getting along today.)

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Independent, Texas — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:40:28 GMT

I vote for CA as the next Secretary of Defense.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

scott henderson nv — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:52:27 GMT

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:32 PM) Right on C A, I think we are begining to see eye to eye. Although I like the idea of using Shiite militias to go after the Jihadists, and using the Sunni's to attack Iranians. Simply arm them, provide them with information or mis-information and use them as proxies. Have a good weekend.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Lee Holmes — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:58:18 GMT

CA-All excellent points.The spurs of the CIA were won on the spectactular covert operations carried out by the OSS during WWII.Everyone got in on the act that had the flair for the covert.''Gone With The Winds''Leslie Howard was killed impersonating Churchill during a visit to North Africa.One former catcher for the St.Louis Cardinals was one of Americas top spies,French Cpt.Cousteau,taught OSS frogmen in the use of the new ''scuba''technology while OSS leader Gen.William ''Wild Bill''Donovan kept the greatest secret of all,that of the Manhattan Project safe from not only enemies,but allies as well.It carried out a huge series of successful operations from the fjords of Norway to the jungles of Vietnam[where it assisted a little known guerilla leader named Ho Chi Minh].The post-war CIA was as efficient as it was ruthless,able to go up against asymetrical as well as conventional enemies.Its hands in international coups d'etat were profound,particularly in Iran,Africa and South America going up against Soviet clients.It was present at the death of Guevara in Bolivia,and planned assassinations with such expertise that it was not known who had carried out the actual hit.[One brilliant example in East Germany,was the taking out of a Soviet double-agent whose cover was that of a dentist.Keenly collecting a full dossier on the agents habits,it was found that he was meticulous to the point of mania.Inserting a CIA team outfitted as painters and wallboard workers,these inserted a small explosive in a wall tied to a painting which they left at a crooked angle.When the agent/dentist returned to his office the following morning to adjust the offending picture,Boom].The Bay of Pigs debacle spelled the beginnings of decline.It's PHOENIX program in Vietnam and other operations tied to South American adventures and the Watergate scandal spelled further problems.It would [without engaging in partisanship,but the mere historical merit of the thing],be the Democrat-led Church Committee Hearings in 1975 led by Frank Church and Edward Kennedy which would destroy the CIA,and render it nearly useless unto the extant hour.Political assassination was forbidden in Adm.Turners[Carter]CIA,where it reached its nadir.Agents fled or retired in droves.Iran-Contra[Casey-Reagan] was a botched job throughout,and its entrance into the 1990s left it nearly completely impotent.Even Israels MOSSAD,patterned after the OSS,and an efficient service in its own right,mourned the loss of CIA greatness and worried,with total justification as it later turned out,that it would be unable to deal with new asymetrical threats in the world.It is long past time to revisit that which allowed the CIA to conduct its greatest successes.Make no mistake.Dulles CIA would have eaten bin Laden for lunch.Also see:''Rise And Decline Of The CIA''Ranelaugh,John. Touchstone Books,Reprnt.1994.

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

C A, Tuscaloosa, Al — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:43:41 GMT

Woah Independent Texas: Secretary of State. No thanks. I couldn't handle Pam and Don being mad at me if I did something to displease the left, nor Scott and Larry pissed off at me if I did something to displease the right, nor you upset with me if I did something to displease those in the middle. I would have said Lee too but I'm still not quite sure where Lee sits. Flabbergasted at how well we are getting along today hey Independent. Well, there is still much disagreement, and it has taken a few days, perhaps a week or two, but diplomacy on both ends does work. When wrong say so. When possible compromise and give a little. Even when disagreeing let the other person know you are reading and considering their viewpoint (comments) That,s all it takes. Never completely shut your mind off to other opinions and ideas even when and if you think you have ALL the facts and are 100% right. Because facts are only half the battle when appealing to another's understanding and agreement. Passion in what you believe and sincereity for your beliefs and opinions are also required if you want to gain the cooperation of others. Even if you cuss someone out one day, respond to their comments with an open mind the next. All of us have feelings and egos. Continuous bruising of those feelings and egos only makes matters worse. And finally, never give up, because you might just become flabbergasted - smile..

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Independent, Texas — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:22:35 GMT

Well CA - I don't know. I had recommended you as Secretary of Defense but I think you just sold yourself as the Secretary of State position you rejected :-)!! This has been fun, all you guys, but I suspect I'll be leaving the blogs for a while. Keep the work going!

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Roddenberry — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:50:16 GMT

I deeply think traditional political parties , with multisecular DNA are genetically inadapted to XXI century . At the age of information and singularity,New parties and philosophies have to be invented with evolutionary structures

Live Debate Video / Discussion Thread

Raphael Abujaa, Nigeria — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:43:38 GMT

What else do you want the Clinton's to do? Their plan for this campaign did not exceed 5th (Supper Tuesday) When that failed they had nothing left, including message and money. They started with the message of experience, then moved to Obama's change and hope, then moved to substance, then moved to solution and attack AD. The only thing left for her at this moment is to twist the hands of supper delegates behind and take the nomination at all cost, irrespective of what it may cost the democratic party and the voters. She should declare her income tax if she has nothing to hide as usual. The fear of the Clinton's is the beginning of greatness in America