I didn’t get a chance to see of any of it, but I am reading up.
The basic idea seems to be that no one either really stood out nor did they do anything to hurt themselves. From what I have read:
Hillary continued to show policy command on a variety of subjects, and did not try and gain “warmth” points (i.e., focusing on policy details instead of trying to be charming)
Obama continued to be vague, uncertain, and at times, unprepared
None of the middle tier guys did anything to break out
No one attacked another, save for a couple of anti-war jibes from fringe candidates
The format sucked, especially given that there were eight people on stage. Apparently it was difficult for anyone to get any traction to display themselves in the format used.
Didn’t even bother watching it. Seems more like a pro-Dem PR stunt. What’s the point of a debate if there aren’t major differences between the candidates? It will boil down to a popularity contest in the end, right?
I heard an interview on a college campus with a student who said he would vote for “either Hillary or Obama because either of them would make history.” Being on NPR, nobody bothered to ask why he wouldn’t vote according to a candidate’s stand on actual issues. Pathetic.
I heard an interview on a college campus with a student who said he would vote for “either Hillary or Obama because either of them would make history.” Being on NPR, nobody bothered to ask why he wouldn’t vote according to a candidate’s stand on actual issues. Pathetic.[/quote]
Yes, very - and I fear that many, many people may have that same unserious approach.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts or impressions?[/quote]
It was absolutely hysterical. The only person who stood out to me was Fmr. Sen. Gravel, of AK, who has no chance in the world. Its too bad because he was the only person to call anyone out by name and the only candidate (beside Kucinich) who differed in policy stance. He was quite dramatic. I love when old people don’t care about decorum and just let loose.
Did anyone notice in the democratic debate last night how the old guy, I forgot his name, said jokingly, that he would not hold his opponents youth and inexpierience againist them. Did this sound familiar to anyone else.
Where did he come up with something so funny? Lord knows he wouldn’t have stolen it from Ronald Reagan’s debate with Mondale. Imagine that, a democrat stealing something from a repubican and not even giving them credit.
Maybe John McCain should spout out “ask not what your country can do for you…”, or Guiliani should spout out, “I have a dream…” at the Republican debate and not even cite the leaders they got the quotes from.
[quote]jumper wrote:
Did anyone notice in the democratic debate last night how the old guy, I forgot his name, said jokingly, that he would not hold his opponents youth and inexpierience againist them. Did this sound familiar to anyone else.
[/quote]
It was Mike Gravel of AK. It’s too bad he probably won’t be taken seriously.
The link I posted from YouTube was 7 minute long and consisted of every question he answered. The entire debate was 90 minutes long and had 8 total candidates–he got 7 minutes of it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jumper wrote:
Did anyone notice in the democratic debate last night how the old guy, I forgot his name, said jokingly, that he would not hold his opponents youth and inexpierience againist them. Did this sound familiar to anyone else.
It was Mike Gravel of AK. It’s too bad he probably won’t be taken seriously.
The link I posted from YouTube was 7 minute long and consisted of every question he answered. The entire debate was 90 minutes long and had 8 total candidates–he got 7 minutes of it.
Dodd of CT, also didn’t get too much attention.[/quote]
Too bad he can’t come up with his own jokes and has to steal them from Reagan.
msnbc had a two hour “recap/fluffing session” after.
It was great. I watched for quite a while and was smiling the whole way.
It was terrific.
The silence from the anti- “Faux” news folks this morning is very telling.
If, as they claim, they care about bias, they would be decrying this silliness.
But, there is nothing but glorious, expected silence.
JeffR
[/quote]
…You know the Daily Show and The Colbert Report both blast Hillary all the time? They just don’t do EVERYTHING.
I watched some of it. Not that funny. Just like it’s not always that funny to see Bush flounder a bit.
Politicians do some silly things, it’s the absolutely retarded ones that the comedy shows pick up on. Like Alberto Gonzalez claiming he can’t remember anything.
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Didn’t even bother watching it. Seems more like a pro-Dem PR stunt. What’s the point of a debate if there aren’t major differences between the candidates? It will boil down to a popularity contest in the end, right?
I heard an interview on a college campus with a student who said he would vote for “either Hillary or Obama because either of them would make history.” Being on NPR, nobody bothered to ask why he wouldn’t vote according to a candidate’s stand on actual issues. Pathetic.[/quote]
What’s the big difference between the republicans and democrats?
[quote]jumper wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jumper wrote:
Did anyone notice in the democratic debate last night how the old guy, I forgot his name, said jokingly, that he would not hold his opponents youth and inexpierience againist them. Did this sound familiar to anyone else.
It was Mike Gravel of AK. It’s too bad he probably won’t be taken seriously.
The link I posted from YouTube was 7 minute long and consisted of every question he answered. The entire debate was 90 minutes long and had 8 total candidates–he got 7 minutes of it.
Dodd of CT, also didn’t get too much attention.
Too bad he can’t come up with his own jokes and has to steal them from Reagan. [/quote]
Yes, and too bad those jokes were written for Reagan!