So kill me for disagreeing with most of you. I think they both won.

[cbayer]

Tough debate. Tough questions. They both did extremely well at what they do best.

Obama has the vision. He excels and wins whenever vision is on the table. No more politics as usual. Let's rise above the trivial. We are better than what has gone before us. I won't pander or compromise when it matters. He makes it clear that we can rise above the status quo and be something better.

Clinton has the experience and facile command of the issues. She soars when it comes to any questions of substance. The war, the economy, our relationship with the rest of the world. She's got the information and the answers. She makes unequivocal commitments to goals. She's a policy expert who has been doing little else than hone her policies for many, many years.

I can see how those on both sides feel their candidate won or lost. I went back and forth. He is really good at some points, she is really good at others.

Bottom line, I agree with both of them. The question for me is, which can get us to the place where we can exercise our vision?

I continue to believe that our best chance is a ticket that includes both of our current candidates. The combination of these two would get us exactly where I would like to see us go.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Hooray for our side! n/t

[cbayer]

2. Yes, Fredda. Hooray for us.

We do indeed represent the right side.

p.s. I hope you were not being sarcastic.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. Oh dear ... I have never been more delighted to come across a DU post

But you expected to be attacked - I'm sorry.

[cbayer]

23. I am never quite sure what to expect.

It's hard being bi-candidate here. Both sides see you as the enemy at times.

I saw you attacked here recently and it was painful. I am sorry as well.

[anonymous171]

3. Didn't the same thing happen with JFK and Johnson?

They endured a long, bitter primary and were somehow able to compromise.

[cbayer]

6. Yes and they were worlds away in their platforms.

Our candidates are in the same place. If they could do it, why can't we?

[scheming daemons]

5. I don't disagree.... but I'm pissed (and worried) about having another election in which...

bullshit issues are the focus.


In 1988... we all talked about flag burning

In 2000... it was faux stories about Gore's "exaggerating"

In 2004... it was whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts


in 2008.... is it going to be lapel pins and ex-anarchists from 40 years ago? REALLY? With all the shit happening in the world and in this country, we're going to talk about fucking LAPEL PINS?

[cbayer]

9. The real issues were discussed tonight.

And they agree. They agree on ending the war. They agree on the economy. They agree on social justice. They agree on fairness. They are both democrats.

That other stuff was fluff. I don't think either of them really care about that garbage. They are both genuinely devoted to making us the best we can be. They both want to win because they think they can take this all they way.

[scheming daemons]

11. No questions on trade or the environment... and one freaking minute on gas prices....

They wasted half the debate on crap... and had no time for these more imporatant issues?

[cbayer]

15. The problem is that there is nothing to debate between them on these issues

because they agree. You can't have a debate on issues when you share the same view. Those are debates that we will have with McCain. He does not share our values or vision.

Obama and Clinton share the same values. That makes for a debate that might, by necessity, come down to style or personality.

How can you debate with someone who shares your view?

[scheming daemons]

16. I don't think they have the same view on trade.... especially NAFTA......

[Diane R]

7. Hillary took the low road every chance she got. Obama took the high road; he won..she lost.

[cbayer]

13. I think we won.

They both elevated what I consider the key elements of our democratic party, supported each other, challenged the real opponent and showed their individual strengths.

I am very, very impressed with both of our candidates.

[scheming daemons]

14. No.... McCain did... the questioning was all right-wing talking points... even the...

questioning on the "issues".


Charles Gibson parroting RW talking points on Capital Gains taxes increasing revenue when they were lowered.


Framing the Iraq war pull out promises as "irresponsible".


Charles Gibson asked every question from a freeper point of view.


That debate was a commercial for the GOP.

[cbayer]

17. I do not for a moment think that Gibson or Stephanopolous are RW shills.

I think they see what is coming. If they asked questions that will be asked during the GE, they did it to prepare the candidates.

[sandnsea]

19. That too,

The only way you could think she did well is if you don't give a crap about gutter politics and didn't actually THINK about what her policies would mean for the world.

[emilyg]

42. We won.

[mmonk]

8. The loser was ABC. They were way too obvious.

Being obvious will cut through their credibility with others

[cbayer]

22. Obvious about what? What do you think their agenda was? nt.

[TheDonkey]

10. Obama needs to get better at talking taxes and SS Hillary shouted "I don't know the facts!"

at one point during the debate (during the handgun question) not a smart play as that clip wold be ripe for RNC attack ads.

Obama did very good in the debate imo even with him under full assault with sensational attacks but needs to work on his tax answer and social security. It was not well laid out, he's been clearer before but it did not come across as coherent or palatable. Taxes are/will always be an issue.

[cbayer]

26. What really impressed me was that where one is weak, the other is strong.

She comes across very, very poorly in the first half when non-issues are on the table and he does extremely well. I think that's because he elevates the discussion and she takes the bait.

However, in the second half, she shined. He really struggles with a spontaneous discussion of the deeper issues while she just kills. She's got that part down.

They both acknowledged that there were subjects that they couldn't discuss because they did not have enough information. I respect that.

[democrattotheend]

12. I think that's a fair assessment

She is definitely a smoother debater, so it often seems like she is winning regardless of what they are saying. He did stumble a lot tonight, but he made some good points, and the first half was so biased and so useless that I am not sure what he could have done. He handled most of those questions well except for the one about Wright, IMO. I thought she was a little stronger in the second half, and he did seem a little rattled, but no knockout punch. And I think your assessment about him winning on vision and her winning on specifics is dead on.

[cbayer]

20. They both excel in their own ways.

I was most impressed by how they complement each other. When they attack each other, my gut says no. When they support each other, I fell hopeful and see the way out of this.

Being a better debater and winning debates is not an asset to be taken lightly. Our ability to negotiate and debate has possibly never been as important as it is now.

Wright, Ferraro, bitter, elite, etc, etc. It's all fluff. When they talked about getting us out of this mess we are in, that's when I sat up and paid attention. I trust that either of them could at the very least take us in the right direction.

[democrattotheend]

46. Debating skills are important, but not everything

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in all three debates and still lost the election.

[Shae]

47. Debatable

as to whether Kerry lost the election.

Fair election practices are important too.

[democrattotheend]

49. If people decided based on debates, it would not have been close

And I still think it's reaching to say that Kerry really won the election. I don't doubt that there were irregularities and some voters were suppressed, but 100,000 votes is a lot more than 537.

[sandnsea]

18. Yeah, if you want to bomb the ME, Hillary really had command

I thought the last half of the debate was okay - the beginning was ridiculous.

And I also can't believe Hillary's supporters don't have a problem with her somehow saying she was shot at when she knew it wasn't true because she had written the truth in her book so, golly gee, I guess I need a minder to keep that from happening again. :crazy:

She sucked if you want a change in course.

[cbayer]

21. Cmon sandnsea

Do you really thing that Clinton does not represent a change in course? Really? Perhaps not the radical change you wish for, but a substantial change nonetheless.

She was humble tonight in her admission that she had made a mistake. Humble. That takes a lot. Whenever I have done it, it has been really hard. I don't think she is who you think she is.

Two questions, if you don't mind. What is ME? Where is your sandnsea?

[TheDonkey]

24. She was not humble, she was stumbling over words so the questioner "would forget it"

um' she flat out LIED and she expects Americans to just "forget" it yuet you continue to harp on Obama for actually missppeaking? This is why she is a liar and people think she is a liar.

Getting bambi eyes and saying "so sawy" means little when you turn around and start on a hypocritical lie-fest.

[quakerboy]

28. An Answer: ME= Middle East

And a question for you. What was the mistake that she admitted?

[cbayer]

30. I heard her say that she misrepresented the Bosnia episode.

I heard her say that she out and out made a mistake and regrets it.

When I acknowledge my errors (and I do make them very occasionally), I expect that to be the end of it.

[quakerboy]

34. Then you heard what I heard.

I just say it less politicaly.

Misrepresent: "Misrepresent usually involves a deliberate intention to deceive"
Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"


When I make an error, I explicitly admit my wrong, and I explicitly ask for forgiveness from the wronged party. And even then, I have no right to expect that forgiveness. That is the choice of the other. As the person who was wrong, after my admission, the situation is no longer mine to control.

[cbayer]

36. She used the words apologize and embarassed.

She asked to be forgiven. She has no right to expect forgiveness but who has the right to withold it under those circumstances?

[quakerboy]

40. Did she say apologize?

I heard "I am sorry" but it was followed by "that I said". As a youth, I was a prolific liar, and that just smacked to me of "I'm Sorry" then under the breath "that you caught me". If she said apologize I missed that, and will have to rethink it.

As to who has the right.. any one of us. I know it is a rather inflammatory comparison, but a person who hits their partner has no right to expect forgiveness, and the person on the receiving end has no responsibility to provide that forgiveness unless and until they decide they want to. Same principal holds true here. Especially if some one of us does not feel that it is a genuine apology or that there is any change of heart accompanying the apology, there is absolutely every right to withhold that forgiveness.

[quakerboy]

41. The text, for reference

CLINTON: Well, Tom, I can tell you that I may be a lot of things. But I'm not dumb. And I wrote about going to Bosnia in my book in 2004. I laid it all out there. And you're right. On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book.

And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it. I've said it was a mistake. And it is, I hope, something that you can look over because, clearly, I am proud that I went to Bosnia. It was a war zone. General Wesley Clark is here in the audience with me, as one of my major supporters. He and I were talking about it before I came out.

You know, our soldiers were there to try to police and keep the peace in a very dangerous area. They were totally in battle gear. There were concerns about potential dangers. The former president of Bosnia has said he was worried about the safety of the situation.

So, I know that it is something that some people have said wait a minute. What happened here? But I have talked about this and written about it. And then, unfortunately, in a few occasions, I was not as accurate as I have been in the past.

But I know, too, that being able to rely on my experience of having gone to Bosnia, gone to more than 80 countries, having represented the United States in so many different settings, gives me a tremendous advantage going into this campaign, particularly against Senator McCain.

So, I will either try to get more sleep, Tom or, you know, have somebody that, you know, is there, as a reminder to me. You know, you can go back for the past 15 months. We both have said things that, you know, turned out not to be accurate. You know, that happens when you're talking as much as we have talked. But, you know, I'm very sorry that I said it. And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jive with what I had written about and knew to be the truth.

[cbayer]

43. I just saw a replay and she sad apologize.

Some will see it as sincere, some will not. I do.

Being physically abused by someone may be unforgivable. Telling a tall tale about something that is really insignificant in the long run is probably forgivable.

She is not who she is being portrayed to be. That's my belief.

It's been great talking with you and I hope we run into each other in the future.

I am going to sleep now.

[quakerboy]

45. She said that she had

Apologized. not that she was apologizing. If you can find that claimed apology, that would be worth something to me. Otherwise it all looks like a semantics game supporting a pride to great to admit a lie, at least to me. And after the Iraq vote, followed by the Iran vote, I start to put together a pattern. Inability to really step up to ones mistakes in a straight forward way is a fatal flaw in a potential president, in my opinion.

I hope you sleep well tonight.

[sandnsea]

31. Like Reagan admitted his Iran hostage mistake?

She said the lie about being shot at just tumbled out of her mouth. You accept that? That isn't a mistake. I've never lied about being shot at, have you? I would have to think long and hard about the last lie I told, I'm 50 years old, she's 60. I mean come on.

The ME, Middle East. If her lies don't bother you, I'd think her admission that she is planning on making us the caretakers of the ME would scare the pee out of you. It does me.

My sand and sea is in Oregon.

[cbayer]

33. I went through Katrina. Stories take on a life of their own.

I recognize that many of my memories may not be accurate. I might exaggerate to make a point.

Not excusing anything, just recognizing that a lie is deliberate and their are other untruths that are not.

Did you ever see the movie Rashomon? If not, I will give you a synopsis. A story told from the perspective of all the participants. All different, none wrong, none accurate (because who is to decide).

The Middle East discussion was quite unsettling. I am an isolationist, when it comes down to it. But someone has to keep on eye on the world.

My sandnsea is in southern california.

[sandnsea]

37. Not the same

Usually when you get a bunch of people together to repeat a story, you can piece together what happened by comparing and contrasting statements. They're all true, just different things are remembered or interpreted. But they all fit together - kind of like that hospital story which is why I didn't jump on Hillary about that. The $100 amount was the clue because that's the new fee many people have to pay with their ER insurance. That wasn't the case with the sniper story. She just flat made it up. If she was under 30, I'd give it a pass. She's SIXTY. If you don't have a sense of yourself by SIXTY, you never will. And it is dangerous to have someone in the White House who feels the need to embellish - look at the chimp.

I am not an isolationist, but I also know what our government has been up to and would like some chance for it to end. Her words tonight make it clear she isn't going to do it. Why would anybody who knows what we've been up to, support her in keeping the militarism going. Why??

[cbayer]

39. They said the same thing.

Obama said that nothing is off the table if Iran attacks Israel. They used the same words in terms of the military retaliation that would be exercised against Iran. I heard neither of them call off the militarism.

You really can't make the point that he did better than she did on this subject. They were both way too hawkish for me. But they were both less hawkish than McCain.

I equate the Bosnia story with the Wright story with the bitter story with the elite story. Not very important to me.

[sandnsea]

44. Oh my gosh, no they did not

He didn't say anything about mass retaliation or making the US the protectorate of the ME or beligerence towards Iran. You need to go back and read what she said again. It was just as bad as anything McCain has planned.

And no, lying about getting shot at is quite a bit different than ones minister using the pulpit to get the people to look at the world from a variety of viewpoints - the bastard. Most of the people at DU would be praising Wright at any other point in time.

[quakerboy]

25. This is why I dont use ignore.

G'day. Thanks for a bit of relative equity.

[cbayer]

29. G'day to you, quakerboy.

Had you thought of ignoring me before?

[quakerboy]

32. Nope.

I try to limit my ingores (I got up to a whopping 2 at one point) to those who are truely disruptive, speaking purely hateful trash. If I see substance, even if I disagree, I read. Otherwise whats the point of being here? I disagree with you often, but you are, in my estimation, civil.

[cbayer]

35. If you don't mind, I would be interested in your disagreements with me.

I don't recall you having disagreed in a post. I love a good, civil debate and will generally respond. So, anytime you want - challenge me.

[quakerboy]

38. Mainly in that

I like Obama and dislike Hillary. But your posts are generally polite and genuine disagreement, not the absolute crap that abounds, which I feel a need to call out. A debate is fine. Pick a topic, and we can go from there. Substance is sadly lacking in so many posts here.

[PM Martin]

27. I agree too!

[ShortnFiery]

48. The only people who win with this shit is the upper 1% because they keep us fighting each other.

Don't look at *the man* behind the curtain. :crazy:

[not_too_L8]

50. I think they/we all lost

that's right they ripped of the American people by focusing on wedge issues rather than the issues that are important to all Americans.
We were deprived of meaningful debate by the two presidential hopefuls