To me, Edwards , Dodd and Kucinich kept it real

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Dodd made his presence known - to me , he has been a non-entity until tonight. He might be a sleeper.

Loved Edwards and admired he did not back off the bumper-sticker comment

Kucinich is the best on health care.

Biden made the stupidest comment I have heard so far by any candidate:

He thinks a wall will keep out drug smugglers but he also thinks a wall won't keep out illegal immigrants. (I would love to hear him elaborate.)

[venable]

1. agreed

[chookie]

2. Gravel too

Nobody here seems to like him -- but I agree with him in many repects.

tonight he said very clearly -- you guys are all talking about ending the war in Iraq as President when you actually have the power to do so RIGHT NOW but you fail to utilize it.

Bingo.

When the HELL are these people start acting like a true opposition party? I'm sick of the promises that some day, soon, they're going to solve the nation's most pressing problems, when they cave in or refuse to effectively fight His Chimperial Majesty.

He's a gadfly. He's confronting them with their own hypocrisy. Reminding them that Neoliberalism is not much of an improvement on Neoconservatism. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. He is just trying to goad them into being better Democrats, which the nation is crying out for!! But spin spin spin will prevail, and Gravel is unfairly dismissed as a crank. I find him refreshing -- a different flavor than safe and dull, which has been the Democratic strategy for losing elections for years. Al Sharpton performed this role in the last campaign, and many people found him refreshing, just because he forced people to talk about uncomfortable topics. But Gravel gets smirked at. Certainly because he is a gadfly, but I think Ageism plays into it as well -- he so easily can be pigeonholed into the "Old Coot" sterotype. Too bad.

Who noticed that he raised his hand when Wolf asked whether they would support open gays in the military, and insurance/benefits for partners ( I can't remember if Wolf got specific about gay marriage). (crickets chirping)

[StudentProgressive]

3. Gravel is good but they didn't let him speak enough

He has some completely different ideas than many of the rest.

[dogday]

14. I like Gravel, but I think he is just too honest

for these people.... And that's a shame... I am looking for the truth and he is telling it like it is....

[chknltl]

4. Biden made me go hmmmm there too

but I loved his rant on Darfur... Sounded like a good plan, what little I heard. No Fly Zones and backing the UN with our military to restore order...) He was quite emotional about getting that issue resolved NOW as opposed to sitting around and debating this or that plan. That balanced out his "anti-drug wall" and then some for me.

I also liked from other candidates:
Giving kids a bonus of college funding dependent on the years they spend serving in the military.

Giving vets access to any hospital. I would suggest a sliding scale here again dependent upon time served and service related health issues...once that was in place there would be an immediate impact on our overburdened underfunded VA Hospitals

Universal Health Care. (not to take anything away from those overburdened VA Hospitals here but that would help them in the same way I just mentioned)

and pretty much everything Dennis Kucinich had to say.

I was frankly quite disappointed that for the entire first half everyone BUT Senator Clinton was addressed by title...she was just "Hillary". That changed in the second half when one or another of the GUYS would use a first name on occaision...I am not sure if anyone other than Wolf Blitzer called Senator Clinton: Senator Clinton! This felt condescending to me and I wondered if it were deliberate because she is a front runner. I also had an issue with Senator Clinton but I believe it best for me to study the transcripts before I pass judgment here...it is likely I misheard something she said about us being safer.

[waiting for hope]

5. You didn't hear wrong:

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

That was a real dose of playing to the middle.

[chknltl]

7. Yes i have been seeing this in many links

It is not exactly as I thought I heard it. I want to see the transcripts first. I have not seen them yet. What I have seen so far leaves things out. It would be unfair of me to pass judgement without seeing the transcripts from this particular section in order to understand the context here.
I want to be fair about this. I'll give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt here until then. I confess that I was quite shocked by what I thought I heard... I was NOT expecting that particular statement out of ANY Democrat. I would have no issue hearing it out of a republican trying to sooth their base with unrealistic platitudes. When I hear something like this out of a Democratic front-runner I want to be VERY sure here what it was that got said, in what context and what was meant by it. For what it is worth, Senator Clinton Supporters here in the DU see this item quite differently...I am having difficulty following their logic as well here. I am NOT taking sides, I genuinely want to get to the bottom of this.

I am having problems finding the transcripts of this debate though...one would think they would have been made available immediately afterwords...I suppose I do not know where to look.

[waiting for hope]

11. Here you go:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html


Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D) NEW YORK: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.

And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough. And I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should following.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[chknltl]

13. Thank You waiting for hope

No bubbles burst here. This is pretty much how I remembered it and I am as shocked now as I was when I heard this. I am NOT out to detract from or support Senator Clinton for this. My next goal is to understand what she meant here. In what way does she believe that we are safer? Is she referring to an increase in security nationwide making it more difficult for 9-11 style attacks? (This has potential within the given context of her response to Wolf Blitzer) If so this IS debatable both ways. If so I am not agreeing with her here. I feel it is fair to delve deeper here.

I would have NO problems with a republican saying this in this context...it is a republican and especially a bushco talking point. They have been using it ever since invading Iraq: "We are safer with saddam gone." "We are safer by fighting them over there as opposed to fighting them here." Both statements insinuate that the bush doctrine is what made us safer. We here in the DU are quite sensitive to what we rightly feel are misleading talking points such as this...comming from a Democrat is alarming! Senator Clinton is our front-runner right now. I feel it important to at the very least give her the respect to find out what she meant by this and I would prefer to hear this directly from her. As I stated earlier, I am neither a detractor nor a supporter. I'll not throw someone this important under the bus without further exploration here. I believe it is up to Senator Clinton to clear this up. As it stands...I and many are shocked at best hearing this out of a person who has a good chance to be our next President depending on our support.

I suggest that this matter be magnified. I suggest that Senator Clinton's supporters may be able to shed light here OR get word to her staff so SHE can shed some light here. I for one feel that this is important. I for one will not support ANYONE using bushco propaganda. It is fair for me to say that until proven otherwise, I will not forget what she said and be alarmed. Thank you VERY much for the link.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. A Republican friend at work today told me he watched the debate

and was impressed. He thought they actually talked about issues and were civil at the same time. To him, Biden was the clear winner!

edit spelling and punctuation.

[bvar22]

6. Kucinich is the best on health care, AND

*Kucinich is the BEST on dealing with Global Corporate Predation disquised as "Free Trade".

*He is also the BEST on dealing with Election Fraud....Paper Ballots publicly counted at the precinct.

*Kucinich ia also the BEST at dealing with the runaway Pentagon/MIC....bring the troops home, cut the Defense Budget 20%!(lets see ANY of the "top tier" candidates touch that one!)

[w4rma]

9. Kucinich helps keep important issues talked about.

But, Kucinich has no chance of winning. Edwards, however, can win this thing and in the general is the best Democratic candidate to beat any Republican. Edwards also has the best ability to form coalitions and pass important legislation. His legislative tactics are the best of all the candidates. Edwards is also able (and very willing) to talk about and push progressive legislative proposals with more success than Kucinich (Hillary and Obama don't even try).

[MH1]

10. Biden about the wall

I didn't see much of the debate - I turned it off after I realized it was intended to be the "Hillary-Edwards-Obama show" with the other candidates being cut off much more quickly. But I did see Biden's answer there, and though I am not sure I agree, I think his meaning was obvious. He was talking about stopping transport of significant quantities of drugs, like you might have in a truck that you drive across the border in an unguarded spot. You can't stop someone from climbing over a wall, but a wall can stop people from driving across the border.

Like I said, I'm not sure I agree, but I thought Biden's meaning was obvious.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Dodd has a good chance with white men.

Seriously, I am not joking. Clinton and Obama have important constituencies already heavily in the favor.
From what I am reading, Dodd does well with more moderate and conservative types- union guys, cops, firemen, etc... and if they don't like Edwards, he is a natural 2nd choice for these guys. Unfortunately, he is being badly eclipsed by the Edwards/Clinton/Obama media mill.