Who won the debate tonight?

[jefferson_dem]

If you watched the debate, who do you think won?

[sailor65]

1. Kucinich pwned n/t

[TahitiNut]

5. Even shorted (pun) on time, he slam-dunked without verbal vomit.

He really nailed it ... without filibustering.

[TransitJohn]

2. Dennis did.

I thought he had an extremely good showing.

[liberalmuse]

3. Kucinich and Olbermann....

I love the fast-pace of this. I came in when it was almost over (actually, it's playing here now). I want Kucinich as President!

[AlCzervik]

4. in this format with this audience it was Kucinich no doubt.

[itsrobert]

6. I was leaning Obama before the debate. But Edwards hit a GRAND SLAM TONIGHT

Obama's long answer about Barry Bonds without actually answering the question just showed me how much he is wishy washy and doesn't seem he is willing to take a stand.

[Colobo]

9. You won't vote for Obama because of Barry Bonds???

[itsrobert]

14. He wouldn't give a straight answer on a easy question

He was afraid. Not a mark of GREAT LEADERSHIP.

[Colobo]

17. BS! It was a bizarre question.

[itsrobert]

23. But did you HEAR a simple YES or NO?

He was a big chicken.

[superkia]

43. I think he would have answered if it were to all of them.

Just not a question thats really important to all of us on the priority list and he knew he would be the only one taking the hit on a question that didn't need to asked at this forum.

[sandnsea]

7. Kucinich

I think Edwards and Obama did equally well. Kucinich tore it up, he did incredibly well. I wonder if there are any strategists changing their minds about domestic policy after watching these union workers respond to Kucinich.

[Colobo]

8. My take

Winner: Kucinich

2) Obama / Edwards
4) Hillary
5) Dodd
6) Richardson

Big time loser: Joe Biden.

[Ikonoklast]

24. Agree

Dennis looked good, sounded strong, made concise points, and was self-effacing.


He needs a place at the Big Table in the Executive Branch. Cabinet level, at least.

[libnnc]

40. Wow. Didn't expect that from you

I agree. Kooch won and Obama did well with the home field advantage and a strong no bullshit delivery. Solid second.

[goodgd_yall]

47. This is the second time tonight I've agreed with you

[Sparkly]

50. That's interesting, cuz I think Obama won...

Certainly in terms of who "gained most ground," you know?

I thought Kucinich was strong, Biden was okay, Clinton wasn't as successful as in past debates, but I thought Edwards was the one who lost the most ground.

[fishwax]

62. I'd agree with the following adjustment

I'd put Edwards down with Clinton. Of course, I only saw the last half or so of the debate (hoping to catch it on replay soon), but from what I saw ...

Winner: Kucinich kicked ass

2) Obama held his own
3/4) Clinton and Edwards had their moments, but took some shots as well
5/6) Dodd and Richardson--they were both there, right?

Loser: Biden

[Captain Hilts]

10. The Democratic Party won tonight. nt

[liberalmuse]

13. Amen!

They are showing that WE are the party of America.

[fishwax]

63. hear, hear!

the field of candidates looked great tonight. I can't imagine a GOP show like that ...

[samplegirl]

11. THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!

Thats all that matters!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. How did KO do as a moderator? (Edit: NM, I see the other thread..)

[sailor65]

15. Even the wrapup

was totally dominated by Dennis.

[Debi]

16. Kucinich easily. n/t

[Graybeard]

18. Kooch is not my candidate but he was great tonight.

Kucinich had the huge crowd cheering for more. The others lost the crowd at one time or another.

[Yael]

Definitely DK -- he was on his mark all night

[Yael]

19. Definitely DK -- he was on his mark all night

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. Kucinich - he generated the greatest passion and had the crowd behind him

I think Richardson's intelligent responses were impressive to several questions, but the guy lacks charisma.

[flvegan]

21. Kucinich. The others can't even see him.

[Dob Bole]

22. The "CHANNEL" button...

Seriously, I couldn't stand to watch this. It was a bunch of shuffling and Howard-Dean-Scream audio.

[Ikonoklast]

29. It's a "Debate", with "Politicians"

Not watching golf.

[Dob Bole]

34. I didn't say that it was less interesting than watching golf...

that crap is way more boring. What I did try to express is that it was like being at a fair, watching the candidates at a distance while walking by eating your candy apple.

[Ikonoklast]

37. I listened because it's important

One of those people talking all that boring 'shrill' stuff will be the next President.

I want to know what that person has to say.

[Dob Bole]

44. I want to know what that person has to say too...

I'm an AFL-CIO member, and this debate was supposed to be for me. However, it's hard to know what a person has to say when watching the debate gives you a seizure. The setup was very poorly planned.

[Ikonoklast]

48. UFCW Local 880, 24 years

And I've NEVER attended a Union meeting that wasn't, at least, 'rambunctious'. This was tame, by comparison.

[Dob Bole]

52. It would have been fine in person. And the transcript will be fine. It was bad for TV...

not to mention that I never watch cable news channels anyway...it already doesn't hold my attention. I read it instead.

[Virginia Dare]

74. KO mentioned the Lincoln/Douglas debates last night..

one can imagine that these probably got rather raucous as well. If you read the transcripts, there seems to be a lot of cheers and applause and yelling out by the crowd. This is the way our Presidential debates were meant to be, with some real audience participation.

Having said that, it was a bit distracting watching it on TV, however I'm sure it was a much different experience in the audience. Get that many union brothers and sisters together, and the sparks will fly...:applause:

[Breeze54]

25. What debate?

:shrug:

There was a debate?? It wasn't on my TV! I didn't see any National Debate.

Oh, I forgot, silly me! The Dem debates are only for the "paying cable crowd"!

Money talks, bullshit walks and wage earners and non-cable subscribers don't vote!!! :sarcasm:

Fuck them!! :grr:

[MonkeyFunk]

67. or you could stream it

on your computer.

I really don't think it's terribly elitist to show political debates on basic cable. It wasn't a pay-per-view event.

I don't expect the broadcast networks to cover a primary debate held 6 months before the first primary.

[Graybeard]

71. delete n/t

[bluethruandthru]

26. Kucinich rocked...

I also liked the fire in John Edwards. Tough call. Obama didn't impress me. I hated the non answer to the Barry Bonds question. It may have been a BS question...but why then was it so difficult to answer?
Hillary has the right answers...but I'm just not sure if I believe her.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. I had to vote for Kucinich

even though I don't like him at all.

But he did great, and it was his topic and his crowd.

[TransitJohn]

30. Right on man.

Thanks for giving DK his due. :hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

35. I try to be objective

[TransitJohn]

42. Me too.

I appreciate that about your posts.

[Annces]

28. Kucinich

http://imgred.com/

[Solon]

31. Kucinich won on the bread and butter issues...

The ones that matter for 90% of the people in this country.

[CTyankee]

75. We Dems keep saying that but then we hear that the public is only interested in being protected

against the Terrorists and so that's what Bush talks about all the time. It's probably why Hillary talks so tough. The polls show that John and Jane Q. Public give higher ratings to Repubs than Dems on just that ONE issue.

[democrat2thecore]

32. Kucinich won this debate, imo. -nt

[AnnieBW]

33. Richardson is still my guy, but Dennis ROCKED tonight!

He really kicked ass and took names. Although his thing about being the "Seabiscuit" of the campaign made me think "he's hung like a horse?"

[Ilsa]

36. This was Kucinich's night. This was his forum, his people, his best

issue, and he was great. Hope the good work holds over for the next debate.

[flying rabbit]

38. Hillary won

In a canned, beltway, imperial, schmoozy way.

[Breeze54]

39. No one won.

When the "debate" is only accessible to the paying cable public

and not the voting non cable users? America loses. Big time!

The question poll really should be, "Who lost the debate tonight?"

Answer? AMERICA!!!!

:grr: :nuke:

[superkia]

49. No money for the corps. pockets, no debate for you!

Thats our American way. Bitch at Clinton for dodging the question about the lobbyists, I think the rest were for getting rid of them?

[Breeze54]

55. They all say that, every election time, but how does that help America tonight?

I could say a lot of things, as a candidate, especially while on camera!

It all sounds soooo good!!!! Blah!!

SHOW ME!!

They haven't shown me a thing, as they are blocking the debates, to the rest of America!!

Fuck them!

[Bryn]

59. I wish I had invited you over to watch it with me.

I didn't know you didn't have cable. :(

[Donnachaidh]

41. Kucinich, with Edwards in hot pursuit.

Everyone else seemed shrill and/or rehearsed. My opinion, ymmv :shrug:

[B Calm]

51. I agree!

[Diane R]

45. The Media says Hillary won. Just move along, everyone.

[harun]

53. The media would say she won even if she wasn't at the debate (n/t)

[superkia]

46. If the sheeple would listen to him, the Sea Biscuit would dominate!

[skids]

54. Everyone but Biden...

...who threw away what would have been a good performance with that horribly insensitive gaff. Pity that.

My opinion of everyone on that stage including even Biden, despite that, improved a bit tonight. Still liking Edwards, but looking forward to having any one of the candidates as the next POTUS.

Though they all missed two really great opportunities:

1) on the question about campaigns starting earlier and earlier: the right answer would have been to say, yes, in fact just this last week we candidates got more press than (list several actionable news events) and we hope our supporters don't forget to also give their support to America's immediate problems, especially on a local level.

2) Hillary grazed it, but was the only one to even come close: when you get the "but what will Dems do about Iraq other than withdraw" question, then is the time to walk people back to the troubles that started post-invasion: The missing weapons and explosives. The protection of the oil ministry during the destruction of valuable intellegence files, and ok throw in the museum thing too. The contract fraud. The missing money. Say Democrats will deal with it in a way that does right by our soldiers, so they know they really are making America and the world safer, as they deserve. And we'll do it because A) we aren't blithering idiological idiots with no grasp on reality, like the neocons and rubber stamp congress and B) we really do want to make the world safer, not just the world's oil executives and C) Republicans have reached a level of corruption that prevents them from doing anything right for want of a way to finagle it for their cronies.

[Pachamama]

56. Well, I know who "lost"....Biden....

I couldn't believe that when the woman whose relative died in the Sago Mine disaster last year asked her question and mentioned the current mine accident, that Biden, instead of sensitively addressing this person's questions, starts going back to the previous question about Pakistan and defending his position...

Bad move...while it might have been burning Biden to make sure he got it on the record, he majorily effed up by not answering that woman....the boos were deafening...

[Gravel2008]

82. It was her husband, no less!

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either. He deserved the boos, big time. Grossly insensitive.

[Bryn]

57. I watched the debate tonight at 11pm central time

I love all 7 of them. It makes me angry that Bush Administration doesn't care for people at all and won't work for us the people and is completely opposite of Kucinich, Hillary, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Obama.

I pick Kucinich because he is very strong in mind and is determined to change EVERYTHING for better and to destroy EVERYTHING/ANYTHING Bush Adm. stands for. He's so straight forward. He reminds me of Dalai Lama. Will work very very hard for peace for all.

The rest of them will destroy Bush Administration.

Hillary if won will be in the White House like a Green Goddess with a broom. I mean it in a very good way. She will clean up it up real good. She did make several mistakes in the past, but that's why she will be a very good president. She learned. I suspect she will pick Biden for VP.

[Nutmegger]

58. No question about it, DK was the true person of passion.

He spoke from the heart and wasn't afraid to give straight answers. When all of the candidates waffled on NAFTA/WTO, he had to courage to not only give a direct answer but engaged the audience. All the candidates saw how the audience reacted.

[KharmaTrain]

60. Mixed Scorecard...

As in every debate, everyone could walk away saying their candidate either "won" or "came off good". I'm not sure what "winning" means...that the other candidates drop out or stagger off the stage? I haven't seen that happen.

Some observations...

Some of the candidates played to the TV audience, others played to the crowd. Hillary obviously played to the TV and stayed "high ground". With her poll numbers high she doesn't need to pick fights with the other Democrats and tonight was focusing right on the Repugnicans. Is she taking thing for granted?

Obama has faltered in the past two debates...sorry to say...and so have Edwards. Unfortunately my junior Senator's proving that he's not quite prime time material yet...as his campaign lately has been reacting rather than being pro-active. Edwards has to be on the offensive, but I can see the campaign wearing on him. He definitely played the house tonight and hoped to trap Hillary into a pissing match on lobbyist money, but Hillary really isn't biting, and this issue alone won't help. I love Senator Edwards, but he's on the fringes of the big issues...I was hoping he'd be the strong anti-war candidate, but that issue was barely on his lips tonight.

As far as Kucinich...another person I really appreciate...he was playing strictly the crowd and I can see why his supporters came off feeling good, but for others who were watching, he appeared to be showboating and giving his own answers, not necessarily to the ones Keith was asking. Biden knows his shit when it comes to foreign affairs, but his coziness to the banks and arrogant demanor can and have ruffled feathers (I saw this in him in '84), Richardson would make a great Sec. of State, but keep him away from the bugdet and Dodd...while showing me a lot more fire than I've ever seen in the guy...and probably has the widest experience than anyone else on the stage, just doesn't seem to have found an issue people can identify with him on.

Formatwise, I felt the YKos forum on Saturday and this one were the best of any debates. Keith kept things rolling, got out a lot of questions and did well in keeping the campaigning to a minimum. The 30 second rule was a problem, but what can you do when you have so many people. Here's hoping the League of Women voters were watching and he's selected to handle a Presidential debate next year.

[lvx35]

61. My two cents on ranking them all

1) Obama: Just came off looking of good, especially defending his foreign policy under attack. He seemed honest but also balanced in his responses tonight. He made no mistakes in my eyes and somehow it feels like he won, even though I have nothing to say about him. Maybe because of this.

2) Kucinich: Tied with Hillary about. the man was fire tonight, he was a dragon. Hot, hot, hot. I agreed with his every comment, unlike the debate where he said something like he backed reparations which I didn't like. My only disappointment tonight was that I get it now that he's strong and confident and clear, but I feel like I need more of his core philosophy now that I've seen his strength, I REALLY wanted to hear about his logical plan about how we can get out of Iraq NOW, and the moral basis, but I got what seemed like rhetoric. I need to know there is cool calculation beneath the fire now.

3) Hillary: The woman is ice, she never screws up and she has SOOO much energy and appeal. But tonight I saw a little weakness, not justifying her lobbyists and corporate connections as well as Obama held his ground. I need to know more of how this all connects. I wanted her to say "listen, Google inc. didn't start the Iraq war." or explain it to me more, but she seemed a little aloof. Still shined, I adore her.

4) Edwards: Still seemed like a slick attorney, though his policies seemed great, I didn't like the way he came off. He was thrown the biggest softball with the guy who was teary talking about not being able to afford his wife's health care, and he hit a double, no homerun. Too much intellect, not enough connecting to the desperation and horror of it all. I would like more empathy just to see that there is a human underneath that politician exterior. I don't trust those who come across as too concerned about appearances, it seems like they are weak and will flip flop.

5) Dodd: Nice guy, not really getting my attention though.

6) Richarson: Poor guy, he sucked tonight. I really like him, but he just didn't do well. It was over after he said he would "take their money more" or whatever and just seemed like somebody slipped him a dose. He didn't seem confident at all, he was way off.

7) Biden: Richardson would have taken the bad cake, had not Biden decided to slide in to the worst slot with his asshole response to the woman who lost her family. I'm glad the audience booed it. Complaining about Edwards response is talking about imperfections in a diamond next to that. Edwards at least addressed his answer to the person who suffered horrible trauma. The debates have shown me I like nothing about Biden. His signature move is to call the other candidates liars when they question Bush's policies and to be a general asshole, last time to DK this time to the questioner. Lame.

[MessiahRp]

64. I am undecided but Kucinch was pretty awesome tonight.

I was a Kerry supporter fron Feb. 03 on so I'm not usually wishy washy in my choices but I can't seem to find someone that fits my personal beliefs on all the issues yet. I like DK, maybe enough to vote for him in principle come primary time (the WI primary really won't matter this time around) but he has no shot at winning.

This field doesn't have anyone I truly can get behind.

Hillary and the Clintons are corporatists and Bill, while a fantastic speaker made some poor choices on welfare reform and NAFTA to appease their Republican counterparts in the past and now we're facing the largest disparity between the poor and the rich since the Great Depression. Obviously Bush could have corrected that but why would a Republican do for the poor what a Democrat would not?

Obama's right on diplomacy but he seems to damn aggressive in regards to Iran and Pakistan to me.

Dodd and Kucinich are nice guys with good ideas but neither has a chance in hell.

Richardson does very poorly in these debate settings which sort of sucks because he seems like a good guy who leads his state well.

I didn't like Edwards as Kerry's running mate (and he didn't carry his home state so I was right about that) and I still don't like him. He drifts way off topic when asked straightforward questions in these debates and panders too much to the audiences he's in front of at the time.

Biden is a smart guy but he has no chance either and he comes off as condescending too often. That would certainly turn off a lot of voters.

Gravel was a key member of Congress in stopping the Vietnam war. It'd be nice if he chose to redirect his efforts to run for the House or Senate and be that once more for Iraq.

My mind is still not made up on anyone yet. Maybe part of me is holding out for Al Gore. Maybe when I watch these debates I am hoping, praying for one of the frontrunners to say the right things.

I still have not heard Hillary lay out a comprehensive health care plan. For all their bluster about taking money from lobbyists and not being Washington Insiders, I'd like Edwards and Obama (and Hillary for that matter) to pledge to return the powers the WH has taken from Congress and the American people back.

If you want to talk about giving power back to the American people, it all starts with eliminating all of the ridiculous power grabs Bush and Cheney have reserved for the Executive Branch.

Hell all the Democratic Candidates should take that oath and do it publicly. Promise to end illegal wiretapping (I did hear Edwards touch on that briefly), restore Habeus Corpus, force the executive branch to prove that executive privilege or classified refers only to pressing national security matters. Set in place rules that members of an Administration HAS to comply with subpoenas. Set new rules to force any members of the DOJ and other Government agencies that partake in political work for the White House or their party, to resign and possibly face prosecution. For that matter force the DOJ to have to assign Independent Counsel whenever the House or Senate Judiciary Committees vote for prosecution of Contempt of Congress or Perjury charges. Renounce torture.

The next American President MUST look nothing like the last one.

Im sure I'll come around to a candidate and I'm nitpicking the little things for now, but it sure would make things easier if I knew for certain that the Democratic Candidate would pledge to end this power grab.

And frankly after this past week, I can't trust certain beltway Democrats to do such a thing.

Rp

[Gravel2008]

65. I'll vote "other". As in Mike Gravel.

Um no, wait, my mistake... Gravel wasn't even invited to the debate! I guess we can't have anyone telling uncomfortable truths in the debates, now can we?

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1932

Senator Gravel was not invited by the AFL-CIO to attend tonight's debate. Although the Senator has a 100% pro-union senate voting record, they chose not to offer an invitation. Furthermore, they claimed the reason was because the Gravel campaign did not return a questionnaire in time. Unfortunately, the AFL-CIO was seeking an excuse not to have the Senator attend.

Kucinich was very good, and he ranks as firmly as ever as my second choice, but it pisses me of that they excluded Gravel. He had as much a right as any of the others to be there.

[Mind_your_head]

68. I'm sure that Mike Gravel would have added more to the debate than

Richardson did (he was really talking out of his ass tonight).

Mike Gravel KNOWS what he's talking about - even if a lot of it seems 'unpopular' right now.

It's a SHAME that Gravel wasn't even invited :-(

[B Calm]

70. Gravel's an idiot. You should of heard him on the Mike Malloy show!

[Gravel2008]

77. Cross-post a lot of crap, do we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1537768#1538195

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Notice that the Gravel campaign does not deny that they did not

return the questionnaire on time. If he can't even supervise a few campaign employees, how in the world will this guy run the executive branch?

[Gravel2008]

79. I think that questionnaire business is a bullshit excuse

And even if there was one, and they didn't fill it out, well, what? Would they have turned down Hillary or Obama if they hadn't filled it out? Of course not. Whoever heard of filling out questionnaires to participate in presidential debates anyway? If you're a serious contender it's in the interest of the organizer to invite you, unless they're deliberately trying to censor you. Like Gravel says himself in this interview with MSNBC, he has as good a labor voting record as any of the other candidates - or even better - so he definitely should've been there.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YIRTNar2lcw

Also, you have to smile when the anchor says at the end, "thank you so much for your <...> frankness, Sir". You just know she respects what he's doing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. You hit the nail right on the head

If you're a serious contender it's in the interest of the organizer to invite you

A serious contender he is not.

[Gravel2008]

81. No, of course not.

Because as we all know, whether you're a serious contender or not is established by your poll ratings over a year prior to the election, or by how many people go on about you being "unelectable". Gravel is a serious contender, make no mistake. And even if I realize the slim chance of him being elected in the end, him being in the debates will still serve the purpose of exposing more Americans to the truth about the war and our government. Truths the MSM don't want us to hear.

Is Kucinich also not a serious contender, pray tell? Is he also "unelectable" to you...? Not directly related to topic, but by your reply I get a creeping feeling that you view only centrist, DLC, Blue Dog, MSM-approved candidates as "serious".

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. The Iowa Caucuses are about five months away

And that's assuming that they don't move the date up due to SC moving its primary forward.

[radfringe]

66. Hillary came on strong, Kuchinich said all the right things

Edwards floundered, Obama scrambled, Biden was up and down, Richardson just treaded water

did any of them have me shouting "YES YES"? no

the closest my partner and I came to picking a "horse" was speculating which of them would make a good VP - and it came down to either Biden or Richardson

we did agree the actions of the current congress will have a big impact on whoever the nominee will be - it can lift them up or drag them down. The reactions I'm hearing at work is basically "If the dems in congress won't stand up to bush/cheney - then how can I believe any of them will stand up to the terrorist threats or any other threat?"

my partner is of the notion if we have a dem congress and a dem president the likelyhood of "something" being done increases. My thought on this is will a dem congress do their job or become rubberstampers, on the other hand a repub congress will do whatever they can to obstruct things.

my big concern is with inheriting the powers bush/cheney have amassed. yeah, ok, we are pretty much sure the next president will be a dem and 90% sure he/she will use the powers wisely - but it's not guarantee the ones which follow would use the powers wisely. so the issue for me in this (s)election is who will take steps to curb those powers so they don't end up in the hands of another bush or worse.

[Buns_of_Fire]

69. Da big Kooch, of course.

But then, I've been for him all along. Heck, if he'd come out and just wagged his willie as an answer to every question, I would have considered it an impeckerable performance, too. ("First, though, I'd like to thank the AFL-CIO for tonight's opportunity..." *pause* *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip* *waggle, waggle, waggle* *cheers and applause* "Now, about NAFTA -- fix it or dump it -- here's what I think about NAFTA..." *pause* *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip* *waggle, waggle, waggle* *more cheers, more applause*)

Big loser, though: Biden. Didn't show enough cleavage.

It's nice to know, though, that our WORST candidate has more on the ball than the republic's BEST candidate.

And so begins the DU Primary season in earnest. Look for our new brand of asbestos underwear, available soon at a store near you...

[lonestarnot]

76. Worst candidate. Who said that? hmmmmf.

[Virginia Dare]

72. Big disappointment..

way too much pandering to the crowd. I guess that is the nature of the beast.

Kucinich clearly was hitting all of the right buttons, but I had two issues with his answers. One, bravo for pledging to trash NAFTA and WTO, but what are the implications of doing so and how would that be handled? Two, he did not answer the question about a hypothetical worst case scenario in Iraq, he merely repeated what we all know, and that is that he would pull all troops out. His best line of the night was the one about China and MFN. Bravo for that Dennis. He pissed somebody on the panel off with that (Dodd?).

Hillary had a great line about taking on the right wing smear machine, I would have cheered for that had I been int he audience.

Edwards did okay, but this was not his venue. Biden put him on the defensive a bit, and I didn't like the way he answered the question about being from a right to work state, but it was a tough question.

Same with Obama, he did fine, just nothing spectacular.

I guess the one thing that struck me was for all of those that say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, if you watched last night's debate, you would see that clearly that is not true. Just imagine any one of the Republican candidates up there answering those questions.

[pinto]

78. The Democratic Party.

Held outside in front of a vigorous, engaged crowd and addressing some day-to-day concerns that are the core of our party, televised nationally - this was a good one.

I really think the party as a whole came out a winner.

Kudos to the AFL-CIO for pulling this off and the candidates for their participation.

[EFerrari]

83. I didn't see it until today. And have to say, Dennis was brilliant.

I don't post threads in GDP and have only recently decided to work for him because he reps my values. But, MAN, he was on a tear and so much clearer this outing. It was a thing of beauty. :)

[Just-plain-Kathy]

84. A friend of mine who supports calls DK calls him, “Little Big Man”.....

Kucinich should embrace that name.

There are plenty of non-political savvy Americans who only hear their “news” from comedy shows.

What characteristic will Jay Leno pick on during his nightly monologue? Or, how would the candidate be depicted on SNL?

If DK embraces the nickname “Little Big Man”, he would be addressing the elephant in the room. ....Sure DK doesn’t look like past presidents, but if given a chance, I think he would be a great president!!