Kucinich and Gravel stood out (hell, faith, conservative)

[GeneCosta]

They took the other Democrats by the horns. I loved it when Kucinich pulled out his pocket Constitution.

Obama and Edwards, in my opinion, were a giant mess. Richardson surprised me, especially when he followed up Kucinich's statement about a withdraw with an agreement. Clinton and Dodd are hawks.

[GeneCosta]

Gravel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm0v0Abm34o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlH...elated&search= [Full]

[des]

Well I didn't see the debate. I heard odds and ends on the news, esp the local news where they were showing all the Richardson bits. I think he is running to the left of himself, as he isn't all that liberal.

Yes, Clinton and Dodd are hawks. Always have been, imo. I think i heard some bit about Clinton saying I would immediately attack after an attack by El Qaeda. But isn't that the trouble now. Where do you attack? This is a group without borders. The most logical target is the mountainous area in Pakistan that is largely lawless. But should we attack Pakistan? I think it was a "get tough statement" that she is well-known for.
Unlike Edwards she has never said her vote for the war was a mistake. I won't wait for it either. I didn't hear enough of anybody else to comment. I do utube but it is a long download on DSL and won't be tonight.


--des

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

They took the other Democrats by the horns. I loved it when Kucinich pulled out his pocket Constitution.

Obama and Edwards, in my opinion, were a giant mess. Richardson surprised me, especially when he followed up Kucinich's statement about a withdraw with an agreement. Clinton and Dodd are hawks.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

They took the other Democrats by the horns. I loved it when Kucinich pulled out his pocket Constitution.

Obama and Edwards, in my opinion, were a giant mess. Richardson surprised me, especially when he followed up Kucinich's statement about a withdraw with an agreement. Clinton and Dodd are hawks.

the polls conducted immediately after the debate was over asking South Carolina viewers who watched the debate who won had Obama first and Clinton second. Kucinich and Gravel did terrible going by the polls...

[GeneCosta]

I wasn't talking about polls, but since we're on the subject Kucinich actually came out above Richardson among independents and Democrats. I think the reason Gravel came up so low is because he's hard on pressuring the others, while Kucinich thows softer balls. Gravel wasn't afraid to speak his mind. He knows he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, so he took it out on the Democrats in hopes of reminding them that the base won't tolerate Bush's war and conservative foreign policy. I still have faith in Obama and Edwards, if they're willing to differentiate themselves from Clinton on more subjects than the war.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...a45d96&q=39848

[des]

I saw some more video (not the Utube-- but this is such a long download) of the debates, still mostly sound clips. It worried me that Obama said he would not take the military option off the table in Iran. However, Kucinich addressed him directly discussing this, and I watched Obama. Instead of the usual drift off I see with candidates who have the issues firmly fixated in their brains (or our president), I saw him really listen. Maybe I read this wrong. But if I am right, I think this is perhaps a good sign of someone who will listen and pay attention, as opposed to someone who won't.

I am pretty well convinced it is going to be between Obama and Clinton. I am not necessarily happy about that. I am not sure about Edwards, as I don't know how much he will change with new info.

You know we take "flip-flopping" as weak and so on, but look what we have in the president right now, and we see the effect of someone who NEVER flip-flips, who seems about one of the only people in the world who still doesn't see Iraq as a mistake. There is someone who will NEVER learn from mistakes.


--des

[UnityNow101]

GeneCosta...Gravel was good and honest. I had never actually heard of him before, but will look him up now. Gravel did take it to the front-runners. Kucinich has lost my respect and the constitution thing looked very phony from him. The same man that holds the constitution and says that he fights for it wants to take away people's 2nd Ammendment rights. What a joke that Kucinich is...

[UnityNow101]

Dennis Kucinich had by support for quite awhile, but ANYONE that wishes to take away the rights of the American people will never hold my support. He stood up against the Patriot Act and defended that constitution that he held in his hands at that debate and had my full support. And then he proposed a law that would help rid the people of a right guaranteed by that very constitution that he carries with him everywhere. The man is a hypocrite and is just as bad as George Bush if you ask me. Atleast Bush is not claiming to carry a constitution with him as he rips it to shreds. We need to expose phonies such as Mr. Kucinich, especially when they are so blatantly hypocritical.

[GeneCosta]

I still think he's within the jurisdiction of the constitution and bill of rights.

[UnityNow101]

To deny people their right to buy or sell handguns is within the jurisdiction of the Constitution? Maybe if you are taking the George Bush "class on constitutiality." Like I said, I agree with Kucinich on MANY points, but cannot support him because he wants to disarm the common man, which is in defiance of the 2nd Ammendment. He carries his contitution and swears to fight for it, yet drafts legislation that would help take away the people's right to bear arms..That is a problem to me. I am not a particularly pro-gun kind of guy either, just someone that truly wants to see the constitution upheld in all things, which is why I am anti-PATRIOT Act and Anti-gun banning.