Really need to just follow the spin and prep for tonights blogtalk radio show so I'll just state the conclusion:

No winner, but one loser: Richardson. He had the most to gain. Did not gain. May have lost ground.

Clinton, Obama and Biden did well.

Edwards did not do as well only because he was relatively ignored by the moderator. Got lost in the shuffle a bit. But not a loser.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 04/26/2007 09:49:08 PM EST

With so many in the fray and with such a format, no one could be said to have distinguished himself from the other candidates. Not much will be remembered from this debate besides Biden's one syllable answer.

That being said, the top tier candidates, Clinton and Obama, did fine and didn't lose ground. You could say the same for Edwards.

Biden may have distinguished himself from the field of third tier candidates.

And I agree with a friend's comment that Gravel came off as "an angry uncle."

by Dan Pasker on 04/26/2007 10:40:52 PM EST

I have questions for your show. Is there a way to listen to it after it's over?

Here goes: Why are these events called debates?

How does someone like Edwards cope with being somewhat ignored by the moderator? By the last half hour, should he have taken risks to get more attention or mentioned it? I don't think Gravel's complaints played well, but Edwards could have done something, don't you think?

Why are so many people saying Obama didn't do well? I didn't see that. He didn't knock my socks off. Neither did Hillary. Yet I keep hearing that Hillary did well and Barack didn't.

Great website!

by Drama Queen on 04/26/2007 11:27:19 PM EST

Clinton came off as a little less edgy than usual--this improved my otherwise unflattering image of her. This was the first time I have ever seen her debate (like many Americans, I'm sure) and she made an overall good showing--displaying awareness and control of her image problems.

In response to the American sentiment that Republicans can protect the nation better than Democrats, Clinton took an unfounded jab at the administration. She claimed that the borders have not been secured and neither has mass transit, which is very hard to do, but her argument is weakened by the fact that there have not been any terrorist attacks here since 9/11. She did attempted to capitalize on our lack of border patrol, but terrorists have not taken advantage of this up to this point. This argument made her seem nit picky.

Compensating for the assumption on most viewers' parts that a woman could not be as tough as a man (militarily in this case), Clinton said she'd react very quickly in retaliating for a terrorist strike in the U.S. This was an effective strategy for someone that leans liberal emphasizing dedication to fighting terror.

The Wal-Mart question was fielded pretty well by Clinton. It was a cream puff prompt for her to incorporate the foundations of her values into one argument. Citing the working class as invisible probably won over some viewers as she made herself out to be a patron for them. She then said that Wal-Mart needs to provide healthcare for its employees--another key point in Clinton's platform. She had a chance to hit on a couple of her major political issues, but I don't feel that she really nailed Wal-Mart like she could have. That corporation oppresses its employees, encouraging them to go on Welfare. This was a missed opportunity for Clinton

Richardson performed sporadically in this contest. He advocated a lot of lost causes when speaking about how he would deal with a host of global issues. He condoned dealing with North Korea and intervening in Darfur--he alluded vaguely to a number of problems that face America but did not expand on them, which rendered his argument an ambiguous front against the current administration. His lack of solution-oriented criticism's of Bush more of less made him look like the person he was speaking of.

When Richardson was asked about relations with Cuba, which is a very interesting topic for many viewers, he shirked the question to return to the discussion on terrorism. If he had had something to say about it that was not already stated, this would have made him seem like a very dedicated supporter of the War on Terror, but instead it just made his arguments sound repetitive. After he expressed his unsolicited opinions on Terrorism, he stated that the U.S. should work to ensure the democratization of Cuba up to and after the death of Castro. I am in favor of this strategy, as a free trade relationship with Cuba would benefit both parties. This was a very appealing solution to the issue.  

Gravel was extremely outspoken in this debate. His wild antics made the other candidates appear calm and rational by comparison. Though his delivery was passionate, it may have detracted from his arguments about our misadventures in the Middle East. He said that Bin Laden was probably "rolling in his blankets" with happiness when the U.S. invaded Iraq, and that our war in Iraq has bred, not decreased terror--which is a frightening thought that probably has some truth to it. He made a strong impression on me; his enthusiasm was refreshing and his energies genuine.

When asked if America is behind on the nuclear energy curve, Gravel sternly insisted we are not. This revealed his agenda for pumping oil out of Alaska--an important point for the viewers who might have assumed that a former Alaska Senator would most certainly not champion running pipelines through his own state. This argument for continuing the use of oil despite promising new alternatives made him look like the unbalanced, yet well-meaning old man that he is.

Kucinich lost this debate. His blind idealism cloaked him in an air of naivety and denial. After he denied the existence of global terrorism, Kucinich began firing off a myriad of impossibly futile concerns and issues. His main argument boiled down to, for me, that all the world's problems could be resolved by making Palestine and Israel hold hands diplomatically. Ridiculous, unrealistic, delusional, self-righteous ranting is all it was.

When he claimed that we attacked Iraq for oil, and that we will do the same to Iran, Kucinich sounded unhinged. There is no real proof for these assertions, although the administration's motives are not all as clear as we'd like them to be. His accusations became easy to ignore by this point in the debate, as his warrants, like these, were consistently unfounded and not convincing.

I was insulted when he pulled the Constitution from his pocket. I suppose he actually believed that it would justify the excesses of energy being squandered on Cheney's impeachment. Instead of looking like a noble man of morals and principles, Kucinich made himself look like he was already elected president of his own private dream world.

Edwards made a forgettable showing in this debate. He spoke in broad terms in regards to the "myth" that Democrats could not be as hard on terrorism as the Republicans, saying that in response to an attack "America must deal with the terrorists strongly." The problem with this argument is that you cannot express it without agreeing with the Republicans, who have made terrorism a top priority. His views were not only indistinguishable from the other candidates, but from the current administration as well.

When asked who his "moral leader" was, Edward's hesitance foiled his opportunity to exploit a very easy question that could only improve his image. After a long silence, Edwards made a clubfooted recovery by speaking of his God, wife, and father as his moral leaders. This response was predictable, but he didn't have many other options, only a timely response could have improved this response. All this question told me about Edwards was that he has knack for rattling out answers that people want to hear--a cynical trait that most politicians possess.

Biden's proposition for addressing global warming was replete with nebulous technological rhetoric that dually impressed and confused me. I would like to believe that all the technical terminology that he employed has some scientific meaning to someone (if not him); but he didn't leave me with a sense of total befuddlement, citing "hard goals" for this issue--like having 10% of all gas pumps supplying ethanol energy by 2009.

Obama performed well in this outing. Having not voted to send U.S. troops to Iraq, he has credibility when he argues for an international approach to U.S. military action like the War on Terror. He rightly stated that we cannot defeat the terrorists on our own--we need help from other nations. This is an encouraging perspective on foreign relations.

When Obama was asked about he has done personally to help the environment, he wisely changed the subject back to the War on Terror. Though he made no new assertions about the war, by harping on this issue he could emphatically state once more that terrorist "networks must be dismantled" and that the U.S. must build alliances and trust around the world to do so. This international lean will appeal to many Americans who recognize that the United States' unilateral actions are not always appropriate.

Though one of the main criticisms of Obama is his vague phraseology, he did not appear to be any less unequivocal in his speech than any of the other candidates. This debate helped to assuage concerns about the obviously problematic nature of such speech.

Dodd's view on homosexuality probably appealed to a lot of viewers, which helped him in that respect. He stated that he was in favor of civil unions, but not gay marriage. His argument was oft-spewed ones that touched upon the theme of threatening traditional marriage and the societal foundations of our country. These arguments are not convincing, but they reassure a lot of people who fear radical changes like the institution of gay marriage. Dodd's arguments were not strong, but for many they will be very comforting which is what he is depending upon.

by GrumpyGary32 on 04/27/2007 01:49:20 AM EST

Barack Obama seemed to impress me the most during this debate. He appeared to be the most sophisticated candidate and had a presence when he spoke that, in my opinion, the others did not have. Some people criticized him saying that he was exposed for his lack of knowledge on certain issues, but I didn't see that at all.

Christopher Dodd, from my home state of Connecticut, appeared to have very little confidence when he spoke and did not seem to say anything that distinguished himself from other candidates. I feel that candidates like Dodd, who are not as publicized coming into the debate as others, need to make a lasting impression of some sort when given a forum of this magnitude. One thing that hurt Dodd in my mind was the fact that he was not given as much time as the other candidates to voice his opinion. Along those lines, how do they determine the amount of time each candidate has to speak?

Joe Biden was also someone I did not know much about before this debate. I thought he did well because he gave answers that were understandable to the viewers. He really came after Hillary Clinton, and I thought that was entertaining as a viewer.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand seemed very confident in her answers. I think that being a woman candidate; she needed to sound strong and forceful in what she was saying so that the American public would be confident in her ability to effectively run a country. She was also very critical of the Bush administrations decisions on the war in Iraq, and stated point blank that as soon as she was elected president that our troops would be immediately pulled out.

Some people seemed to be impressed with John Edwards but I was not. I forget the exact question he was asked, something about who was his moral role model. The question was not important in any way but it seemed to catch him completely off guard and he paused for what seemed like minutes before answering it.

The post-debate coverage was comical at times. I saw one interview with the person who prepped Hillary Clinton for the debate. She was asked how she thought Hillary did and obviously said she thought she did great and handled herself well. What do you expect her to say?

Vince

by Vince on 04/28/2007 07:45:43 PM EST