Edwards did a great job tonight. I really liked his comments

[texpatriot2004]

about treating the CEO's pensions and the pensions of the workers exactly the same. It seemed the crowd really responded to him. I think his responses were spot on. In fact, I think Edwards and Kucinich did the best of them all, and they are all very good.

I hate the commentary part of these debates...the spin. I watched it myself. I have a brain. I can decide who I think did the best. The commentary is not necessary they should move on with other programming IMHO.

[girl gone mad]

1. I though the same.

Of course, the talking heads have already called it for Hillary and spoken about how terrible Edwards was.

[Omaha Steve]

2. I agree

Wonder why they FEAR Edwards?

[texpatriot2004]

4. They have good reason to fear him. nm

[Lex]

6. Wait 'til voters actually have to pull the lever.

Hillary will be surprised I think.

[texpatriot2004]

10. Hillary is doing nothing for me. I am a long time Clinton fan but

she just isn't who I would pick now.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. His limitations were highlighted, sadly for him

Perhaps he should've boycotted this debate.

[Lex]

5. Sounds like he did really well. However, Tweety agrees with you.

So there ya go.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. The Edwardians official kneejerk comeback: "Tweety!"

This snappy comeback probably went out in the pre-debate-loss talking points...

[Lex]

13. Tired old "Edwards is a lightweight" Tweety-esque crap will be called

Tweety crap.

Deal.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Failed Senator. Failed VP candidate. Failing Presidential Candidate.

Deal with that.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. He's beating Clark and RIchardson.

:shrug:

[Lex]

20. Your enthusiastic Dem bashing shows your true colors.

There's not one of the candidates that I would feel comfortable taking such glee in beating up on.

Your posts speak volumes.

[Blackhatjack]

26. Careful, you are showing your ignorance with each post you make bashing Edwards...

[JANdad]

28. Glad you put your faith in a loser (failed 04)

That has not even entered the race this time around...how's that workin for ya?

[Robbien]

7. I thought Kucinich did better, but Edwards was a good second

Dodd and Richardson did good on foreign policy, but blew it on middle class issues. As did Clinton.

[texpatriot2004]

11. I thought that DK and John Edwards did the best too nm

[movonne]

8. agree, I thought DK did the best... I lean toward edwards, but

I would vote for DK if he really had a chance..

[Superman Returns]

9. he lost

Kucinich stole his thunder.

[skids]

27. Yes that's what the pundits say, so what do you think yourself? n/t

[Superman Returns]

31. No,

thats honestly what I thought. Edwards is a big labor man, but when you had a guy saying everything the crowd wanted to hear, it made Edwards just the same as the others. I just thought his performance was a bit off tonight on what should have been his breakout debate considering the audience.

[NotGivingUp]

14. I've been saying I'd only vote for Kucinich, but now I think I may have a backup...Edwards. n/t

[Selatius]

15. The commentary is damaging. It's nothing short of propaganda, IMHO

Jon Stewart showed it for what it was when he went on Crossfire on CNN and blasted them for the "Spin Zone."

[texpatriot2004]

17. I agree nm

[bluethruandthru]

16. Kucinich and Edwards were both great!

I'd really like Edwards to come out for single payer universal health care.

[tech3149]

21. I though Edwards did well also, but he missed a KO punch on a few

Regarding the post commentary, these talking heads are just trying to sell the company line to those that don't have two brain cells to rub together. The rest of us hear the BS and say WTF? If the pundits wanted to do something useful, they'd just fact check the statements so we didn't have to do it ourselves.

[jazzjunkysue]

22. His fury is beautiful: Honest and from the gut. Unrehearsed. Unscripted.

DK is great, and right, but in these days of TV, he really can't carry it. Edwards is as beautiful on the outside as he is on the inside. He's our boy.

Tweety just played his "treat the CEO pension/healthcare the same as everyone else" segment. Home run. And Tweety said that was just a historic moment for the country.

Yep. A real lightweight.

John is the real deal. He's our JFK. Period.

[texpatriot2004]

24. I thought Edwards did a great job and I agree that he is very

genuine in his responses. I love the way in the past he has taken on the big corporations. I like his ideas. I like the way he carries himself and communicates with the crowd.

[Booster]

35. Agreed. To me Edwards is the only candidate on both sides

that understands that in order for us to have a strong country we HAVE to have a strong middle class. The middle class has always carried this country when the poor couldn't and the rich wouldn't. Having a strong middle class is what sets us apart from third world countries, where there's the extremely rich and the extremely poor. I'm going with Edwards all the way.

[texpatriot2004]

39. Yes, he really understands this issue of protecting the middle

class.

[GreenArrow]

36. there are many words I'd use to desciribe John Edwards

but "unrehearsed" or "unscripted" are not among them. He has a well practiced spiel, and delivers it well, he specializes in caressing people's emotional buttons, but as Gertrude Stein said of Los Angeles, "there's no there there."

If you like him, vote for him, but I won't be.

[marions ghost]

38. I tend to agree

No matter how you analyze what Edwards actually said --(yes, this answer or that answer could have been better), the audience was responding to something more intrinsic--to his believability or authenticity or whatever term fits best. He has heart and he gives people hope. That's not an intellectual thing so much. Edwards spoke directly to the audience, and they knew it.

Kucinich did a great job but he still comes across as more cerebral. Even though he is so in tune with the great earth-shattering shift that we here feel is inevitable, he doesn't instill as much confidence in the average voter, especially the ones badly roughed up by Bu$hco. But I think Kucinich stock definitely went up in this debate. More progressive views (generally speaking) are at least being HEARD and people are getting the message, even if they vote for someone else. Edwards and Kucinich both have the necessary vision ...but I think Edwards is seen as more grounded. It's a matter of perception more than reality.

I thought Hillary and Obama did very well. They were about even to me. Both are so intelligent and quick on their feet, but this is all about connecting with the audience rather than winning a debate against each other. Hillary has a huge disadvantage being a woman but I think she did her best and came off as the strong candidate that she is. If I thought that any woman had a real chance, it would be one like Hillary. OK more progressive etc etc-- but as strong and savvy as she is. Actually I thought Hillary and Obama make a better team than they do rivals. That whole rival thing is a bit lame IMO.

This is hard --there are several excellent candidates. They all did great considering that brutal 30 sec rule which is ridiculous. Should be a minute. At times they were all speaking gibberish. It is just not possible to coherently answer when you're anticipating the buzzer every second.

All 4 --Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and Kucinich KNOW what a big job a Dem will have to clean up this mess (I liked Hillary calling for brooms and vacuums in Washington--she connected on that all right). All 4 of them have the vision of where this country really needs to go, with differences on how to get there...but they all have the big picture vision.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I thought that Edwards could have been much better.......

When he answered about having walked 200 picket lines, and Biden came back to say....."it ain't what you've done while running for Prez this time round" (or words to that effect), and Keith allowed Edwards to rebut, he only repeated himself. It was a lost opportunity.

In reference to when the Disabled gentleman told the story of his very moving situation, I think that Edwards' answer was not what it could have been. IT was the perfect storm for Edwards to really make an impact (I feel your pain type of moment), and instead he states that the Gentleman is "exactly what is wrong with America".....a sentence that was not well put together, as it could have been understood as the Old gentleman being "a" problem. Not well articulated. Also his continuing answer making it be about the Corporate CEOs really didn't provide a solution for the man, more of something that whiffed of payback (let the CEO feel your plight). All in all, Edwards didn't really make me feel like he was the leader of the labor movement....more like one who has been working with the Unions to be able to say exactly that.

Watching the debate by my lonesome without any real leanings for any candidate helped me see what some see in Hillary Clinton; she really didn't make any mistake and had full answers. Kucinich is a liberal dream candidate, and Obama was solid. Edwards was no better than the lower tier.......which was surprising to me because he's supposed to be the Angry Populist. Seems like Kucinich stole that mantle from him......

[Blackhatjack]

25. Hmmm.... You were an Edwards Supporter Before Tonight? I think not.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Do I have to be an "Edwards" supporter to have an opinion on his

debate performance? And is it only Edwards supporters who are going to be truthful about who did how?

I believe that I substantiated my statement? Did you want to comment on that........or are you here to check on who's who? :shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

30. I read your post & thought it might be appropriate to disclose to readers you don't care for Edwards

Since I have read your comments about Edwards before, I know that your opinion is not based on an impartial evaluation of Edwards' performance tonight.

I always disclose I support Edwards.

It just seems it would be more honest and forthright to disclose somewhere in your post "BTW I don't care for Edwards." That way people could gauge your comments in light of your dislike of Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Well, thank you for making it your job to make sure that

we all know that Edwards is not impressive to me....as much as he is to others.

However, I do believe that I provided enough information, and stated rationally enough my thoughts as to why I felt he could have done better........and it is unfortunate that someone (like maybe you) couldn't have just disagreed with my assessment by stating some of his/her own take. So based on the paragraph that I provided to justify why I felt like I felt, too bad someone could'nt respond intelligently in their own assessment without making it personal towards me. But I guess you are not that poster that could just reason in your response rather than to pounce on my behind! :eyes:

[Blackhatjack]

33. Why pretend that you are impartial? I am not the only one who knows you don't care for Edwards...

Your opinion is fine.

However, if I were going to give a critical evaluation of another Dem Candidate for President I would disclose my preference for Edwards so readers could gauge my comments from that perspective.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I'm so glad I'm not gonna have to read what you have to say......anymore

since you like to make it personal and since you don't deal with the actual issues, i.e., in this case, the performance of the candidates.

If I were you, I thread slightly more lightly.

Nominee Edwards may want my vote during the GE. Your tactics could get in the way.

See you........till then! :hi:

[Blackhatjack]

37. I have nothing to do with whether you vote for Edwards or not in the GE ...

[coco77]

41. I haven't chosen a candidate..

because there is a long way to go. From what I have seen so far, Clinton and BIden seem to have more of a grasp of the issues but I have never seen what everyone sees in Edwards. Edwards seems to pick an issue and keeps on harping on it and repeating the same thing over and over.

I was tired of watching him in the last campaign and I kept wondering what in the hell were people seeing that was so fantastic and I have yet to see it. I know some of the posters are trying to convince us here at DU but, I am not convinced.

[lebkuchen]

40. I thought they all did great

in that they aren't hostile to humanity and the environment, as the GOP is.

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. I wish John and Dennis would look positively grim-faced in all their

public appearances. I saw Dennis smiling all the time yesterday, as I'd seen John doing a fortnight ago.

It's now occurred to me that the reason they do so, may well be because they fear the Republican noise-machine will smear them as "wooden" and "unexpressive", as they did John Kerry.

My attitude, in their shoes, would be to take them on, all guns blazing. "Plastic smiles is for Republicans who don't have policies, just lies and distortions. So pardon me if I scowl more than I smile! We believe a radical change of course in the management of this country has never been a more pressing and serious issue." Something along those lines.

Don't let them frame a single thing! (I say, 'thing', because the actual noise they generate is always directed at thangs, real or imaginary, which are just too trivial to count as 'issues'). Nothing funnier than to watch their noise-machine in action from a window in a national sound-proof room! Like during their Clinton 'impeachment' drive.

[DJKDJKDJK]

43. Dennis can't deliver peace with a scowl on his face

We need hope, we need people to think, we need action, we need you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. That's the best way. If the English comedian, Mike Read, can gesture with his hands that his

audience should stop applauding ("All right! That's enough!"), Dennis can deliver peace with a scowl! Though Dennis and John are playing the straight men to the comedians favoured by the Republican MSM noise-machine.

But maybe you're right up to a point.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. I don't mean that Dennis and John should scowl at their own, but before

a mixed audience of maintstream Democrats AND DLC and Republicans, such as on TV, for example.

The thing is that while the campaign workers, heroes every one, should feel in high spirits, as a general rule, the hooplah, razzamataz, ballyhoo, etc of your political campaigns has been used by the right, properly so-called and their roadkill minions, as a distraction from the fact that what is at issue is not a bipartisan love-fest, but a life and death struggle - for the very livelihoods of most Americans. More so than ever now, until those machines are replaced by hand-counted and checked paper ballots, under public scrutiny.

Do you get my drift? You don't have to perform. It's serious. It's no longer part of the zany US presidential campaign history of yesteryear. I'll bet the unvarnished truth is more than enough for most Americans now to more than duplicate Kerry's landslide. Well that's my take, though perhaps I don't take factors into account you'd be more aware of.

[KillCapitalism]

44. My dream ticket in '08 is Edwards/Kucinich.

I would be so excited if this ever happened.

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. I bet you're not the only one by a long, long chalk.

[B Calm]

48. That would be a great ticket!

[autorank]

47. I want Edwards to keep going...what a talent and he's right.

He just needs to step over the line. CM is screwing him anyway. So why not just say,
"Screw NAFTA." He could have said that in Chicago and said "fix it." I want him to do a
full tilt populist campaign, no prisoners, go after the monopolies and when they bash
him say its a Republican program - Theodore Roosevelt, "the trust buster."

Excellent point!

:hi: