October 30, 2007

Democratic Debate Open Thread

It’s on MSNBC right now. Fire away.

by @ 8:06 pm. Filed under Presidential Debates
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2007/10/30/democratic-debate-open-thread-2/trackback/

40 Responses to “Democratic Debate Open Thread”

  1. Paul8148 Says:

    Man if Biden had Obama’s warchest Hillary would be in Deep..He gutted her on Iran.

  2. Paul8148 Says:

    The looks she is giving Edwards…….

  3. Paul8148 Says:

    For A Dems standpoint Edwards destory her at the end over Iran.

  4. Fredo Says:

    Is it just me, or does all this first name stuff, “Joe is right on this”, “I’ll agree with Chris and Joe,” a little inappropriate? Especially when coming out of Obama’s 26 year old mouth. A little respect for your respective offices, gentlemen, please.

  5. Scott Says:

    Hillary is positioning just hawkish enough on Iran as not to scare most republicans and just as strongly using diplomacy language laced with carrots and sticks to keep most democrats on board.

  6. Paul8148 Says:

    From a Dem standpoint Edwards is Sherding her…

  7. Scott Says:

    Does Obama’s cadence of speech bother anyone else? His rhythm often stops just when you’re waiting for the next…and then picks up again.

    It’s not prolonged by any means but it’s constant.

  8. DaveG Says:

    Hillary is running as a political animal that we haven’t seen in awhile: a liberal hawk.

  9. Scott Says:

    This would be a perfect time to ask about Sandy Berger’s heist of docs from the National Security Archives…no? And why he is an official advisor to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign? C’mon Tim.

  10. Scott Says:

    Edwards’ smugness! He’ll be fine if he loses but we will not.

  11. John Galt Says:

    Obama was kicking hillary’s behind. Nice. he is doing what everybody said he had to do.

  12. Scott Says:

    Well, so far Obama has not come out with what the MSM and wealthy supporters have said he needs to do to really give Hillary a jolt.

  13. Paul8148 Says:

    Edwards is through, I think the Moveover crowd is going to back him.

  14. Scott Says:

    Hillary…”Weatherization”. Is that a new word?

  15. Ajay Says:

    I love how Hillary gets so mad when Russert presses her to actually answer the question he originally posed. I wish more reporters would do that in general, but it’s especially pertinent with Hillary since she’s so evasive with her answers.

  16. Scott Says:

    Hillary…”I am a great admirer of Charlie Rangell.” That would make a nice commercial.

  17. Scott Says:

    * – an l

  18. Scott Says:

    I guess that there are not too many people watching this debate. It is kind of boring.

  19. Deborah White Says:

    Hillary’s dishonest double-speak was unmasked for all to see.

    If she survives this and future pummelings, she will have earned the nomination. And Democratic
    voters can’t complain… because they were told, loudly and clearly.

  20. Michael Lawrence Says:

    worst…debate…ever.

  21. MWS Says:

    Did anyone else notice that when speaking, Edwards blink rate goes up to about 237 times a minute?

    Isn’t that an indication that someone is lying?

  22. Nusrat Says:

    Why on earth is Hillary the choice of anti-war folks? Or is it just that the dems are anti this war?

  23. Jeff Fuller Says:

    They asked the Democrats what they’d do to help attract more and better people to become doctors???? HAAAAA! HAAAAA!

    The best answer would have been “elect the Republican candidate”!

    One thing’s for sure. If Hillary or Edwards becomes POTUS then Medical school will be A LOT easier to get into.

  24. Jeff Fuller Says:

    MWS,

    Wow, Edwards IS “blink-a-holic” big time.

    Good observation!

    Isn’t there a correlation between bling rate and lying?

  25. Jeff Fuller Says:

    UFOs, Life on other planets . . .

    Sounds like their right on topic for the Dems!

    I’m watching it via TiVo

  26. Merkis Says:

    Wow, my room mate is watching this right now (just clips on you-tube) and I just can’t stand it! It’s amazing to see what these socialists are promoting.

  27. DaveG Says:

    Darn it. I missed the UFO question! I just couldn’t listen to them drone on past 10:45. And look where it got me.

    For what it’s worth, I think Chris Matthews was being too hard on Dennis Kucinich regarding his UFO sighting. I for one think that it’s far more likely than not that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Given the age of the universe (about 13 billion years), given the number of stars that exist, given the number of stars that likely sport solar systems, and given the likely number of planets within those solar systems, it seems very improbable that life is limited to our cold, desolate corner of the universe. To the contrary, life has probably developed in many crevices of the universe, and some of that life probably evolved into intelligent species, and some is probably more intelligent and advanced than us. As such, it is well within the realm of possibility that non-human intelligences have interacted with our planet in the past, and perhaps do so regularly.

  28. Jeff Fuller Says:

    Thanks for sharing DaveG. That was almost like a “confessional” :)

    I actually liked Obama’s answer about if he thought there was life on other planets.

    “I don’t know . . . but I do know that there is life on THIS planet” and then he transitioned into that being his concern. Showed some maturity with that.

  29. ThatLibertarianGuy Says:

    Dave, the universe is 6,000 years old! Don’t you know!?

  30. Jeff Fuller Says:

    DaveG,

    I can’t argue with the plausibility of your argument. It is entirely possible if not probable. And I’m a religious social conservative (who doesn’t believe in the 6000 year old explanation)!!!! (I’m also a hard-core fiscal conservative too, just to be clear) :)

  31. DaveG Says:

    Number of years the universe has been around: 13 billion

    Number of stars in the visible universe: 70 sextillion

    Number of years it took for intelligent life to evolve on this planet: 4 billion

    Being married to a tall, hot redhead despite bearing a striking resemblance to a hobbit: Priceless.

    Some things science can’t answer. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.

  32. DaveG Says:

    Jeff:

    The only solid argument I’ve heard against human interaction with extraterrestrial life, other than the notion that we may be far too trivial for hyper-intelligent life worlds away to worry about, is that it would seemingly take so long for life from even a relatively close star system to visit that such an endeavor would be unfeasible absent the sort of shortcuts to space travel that we see in science fiction. And while a wormhole always seems to appear in just the right spot for the Starship Enterprise to escape the Borg, what are the chances that real extraterrestrial life would even venture close enough to find out about us? Still, presumably once a civilization becomes advanced enough, intergalactic travel would become much easier. But that begs the question as to what our primitive society could possibly offer such a species. Such are the things I ponder at 1 am here in the east.

  33. Jeff Fuller Says:

    Loved 29 DaveG!!

    I liked Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” and it got a bit into worm holes. And since we’re on the topic . . . Do you agree with Metro that Romney supporters are “the Borg?”

  34. DaveG Says:

    No, but I do often wonder if “Q” is messing with me whenever things seem a bit off :)

    Night-night.

  35. jim Says:

    Did anyone elese notice that not one question was asked about Iraq?

    The media spent hours over the prior debates on Iraq. The dems were falling over themselves to bash Bush, to say they’d end the war, etc…

    Tonight? Crickets

    With US casualties down dramtatically, Iraqi casualties down dramatically, AQ casualties up dramatically, violence down, Bin Laden crying out in defeat, AQ in retreat, etc… Williams and Russert were completely silent. Nothing.

    That’s the first real sign that things are turning around in Iraq. But the media won’t be able to keep the silence. One of the GOP candidates should start trumpeting the good news.

    It was amazing how the media refused to acknowledge any good news. Iraq is the top issue of the campaign, the number one news story of the past 5 years, and in a crucial debate they don’t ask one question. Amazing.

    A Willing Suspension of Disbelief indeed.

  36. MWS Says:

    Why is it that thoughts on the Democratic debate transition so easily into science fiction?

    ;-)

  37. Merkis Says:

    Jim – excellent observation. It really is amazing to see what lengths the dems and their media will go to.

  38. Sean Says:

    “But that begs the question as to what our primitive society could possibly offer such a species.”

    Dinner.

    Cheap labor in the Kargaxx mines.

    Duh.

  39. PabloZed Says:

    I didn’t watch, but from this mornings highlights on MSNBC I gather Obama did well, Clinton got knocked around, and Giuliani got ripped by Biden. I had to laugh at Biden’s quip that every Giuliani sentence “contains a noun, a verb, and 9-11.”

  40. Keven J Says:

    I didn’t watch, but have been reading the reviews. It was a terrible
    night for Clinton. I thought she would be the nominee, but now I have
    serious doubts. And they didn’t even get to the really bad part- about
    how one of her national security advisers used his position as her husband’s
    representative on the 9/11 commission to steal and destroy classified
    documents.

    I think this debate allowed people to see what a chameleon she is- trying
    to change positions in mid-sentence depending on how people will react. It
    would be better for the democrats to nominate someone like Obama or Edwards
    who at least are somewhat consistent on their positions, as bad as they are.

State of the Race


Obama Approval


Support R4'12

Meta

Recent Posts

Buy This Book

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main