Did you watch either the most recent Republican debate in South Carolina or the Democratic debate tonight in New Hampshire?

I have personally enjoyed the formats and believe that Brit Hume (FOX) and Wolf Blitzer (CNN), respectively, have moderated well.

Have you enjoyed them? What did you like? What did you not like? And regardless of your personal preferences, have you felt that any candidates have helped or hurt themselves in the debates?

I watched the Democrats debate yesterday, and although I can't take a debate with a two hour time limit and involving so many people very seriously or meaningful, I agree that Wolf Blitzer handled it quite well. Hopefully, the field will eventually narrow down.

Questions from the audience slow the process down because the general public are not professional performers and I think the questions would be better submitted to the moderator to ask.

I don't think any of the candidates hurt or helped themselves but in their attempts to unseat the front-runner both Edwards and Obama seem, to me, to make Hillary look more competent and unruffled. In the instance of Wolf's request to: "by a show of hands" who would take out Osama even if it meant killing civilians", Hillary seized control away from Wolf and led the rest of the crowd in articulating the objection to "hypothetical situations".

I leaned toward Obama early on, and Edwards prior to the debate, but I am gaining a great deal of respect for Hillary. Being married to Bill doesn't hurt her appeal either.

I watched some of the Democratic debate last night. Like Frank said, with so many candidates I found it hard to take it seriously.

I did like the way Senator Clinton seized control away from Wolf. (I hate the hypothetical “what if” type questions too)

quote:

Being married to Bill doesn't hurt her appeal either.

To me Senator Clinton still being married to President Clinton hurts her appeal. I think she has been a very good senator, but staying married to a cheating husband makes me lose some respect for her. I would respect her more if she divorced the adulterer.

On a side note I still believe the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were a waste of time and money as it was a personal issue not a political one. She should have divorced him for it

Frank, I agree with you that the sheer number of candidates is a difficult problem right now. The Republicans had it worse, with ten contenders on stage!

I believe Hillary is looking like a more seasoned, wisened pro. Biden made an impressive showing to me, but had no momentum going beforehand to capitalize on. Obama is the candidate with the most luster, but it may wear thin if his substance and ideas don't take hold. Edwards probably did what he needed to to stir things up a little. I can see why someone who is very liberal might like Kucinich; I disagree with much of what he says, but he says it well. I was shocked that the two audience members interviewed later both liked Bill Richards, whose showing I thought was disappointing.

For anyone who watched the Republicans, I wanted to like and learn more about Mitt Romney but found him to be less genuine that I expected (not that my expectations for politicians are that high to begin with!). Giuliani, to me, was the man on stage with the clear leadership qualities. The elephant in the room for the Republicans is Fred Thompson, not yet officially a candidate, who has an opportunity to step in with good timing in the future and be a front-runner.

I wonder if the Democrats are staking too much on the war? Certainly, it is the issue of the day. And it doesn't take much of a pessimist to see it as the issue next year. Dennis Kucinich even offered in no uncertain terms that it is now the Democrats' war (nicely rebutted by Biden, but creating a haunting sound bite). They must, for now, focus on the war but a "Plan B" needs to be in place for a change of circumstance.

Bottom line is I think FOX and CNN both found a formula to make the debates more interesting than they have been in years past. Projecting that forward with two or three candidates remaining on either side may result in some lively future exchange.

quote:

Originally posted by Koz:

To me Senator Clinton still being married to President Clinton hurts her appeal. I think she has been a very good senator, but staying married to a cheating husband makes me lose some respect for her. I would respect her more if she divorced the adulterer.

Why? 'I think she has been a very good senator' How does her private life and whether she stays married to an adulterous husband or not have any bearing on her fitness to be either senator or President?

Why can't Americans be mature like the French ? [Asked Bill Maher, this week]There were two candidates for their presidency. One, the socialist, has four children but has never got around to marrying their father (with whom she cohabits).As a twist her partner was himself a likely candidate for the presidency but lost out. The other, the conservative,is married but lives apart from his wife.He is now President Sarkozy. Until recently his wife Cecilia was patently having an affair which was obvious to all from national press coverage.Additionally,she was previously married and divorced ( and the man who conducted that wedding ceremony was none other than her current husband Sarkozy, he being the mayor of the town at the time . He himself was married and he eventually divorced to marry her ) Mind, the French don't find any of this surprising. Their presidents often have mistresses and something of a history .The departing President, President Chirac, admitted to having many lovers 'as discreetly as possible' and his predecessor, the late President Mitterand,not only had mistresses but had an illegitimate daughter,now aged 31, a fact well known to all in French politics and the press throughout his career. It was not widely publicised because a) the French have privacy laws: the punishment for breaking them is not severe but they are observed and b) they can't see what any of this has to do with the man's ability to do his job.

quote:

Why? 'I think she has been a very good senator' How does her private life and whether she stays married to an adulterous husband or not have any bearing on her fitness to be either senator or President?

My sentiments, exactly.

I don’t think being an adulterer, or allowing your spouse to be one affects the day to day job of being a Senator or President, but it does show a lack of good judgment in my opinion.

If you are going to cheat on a person that you swore you would not cheat on, and deceive and lie to that person in the process, that person is capable of lying to anyone. I know that almost all politicians lie and deceive sometimes, but to deliberately hurt the one you supposedly “love” is wrong in my opinion.

I don't understand that, Koz. How can the ability to lie and cheat on the part of the husband have anything to do with the wife's being able to cheat and lie to anyone ?? She may have felt justified, but I don't think there is any evidence that she did any retaliation that has become public knowledge. On the contrary, I believe she has shown a great deal more forebearance and forgiveness and strength than he has. She thinks: "This poor, weak, philandering rascal doesn't know what's good for him and us, as a family unit. In spite of his weakness, I am too well aware of his strengths and potential; Im not going to let him off the hook; in the long run he'll know better and be grateful that one of us took our vows seriously, and didn't throw in the towel".

I may be prejudiced but I have new respect for the woman and I think she may well turn out to be our best president since Lincoln. IMHO.

Because I was busy with some work during part of the debate, I did not "see" everything I heard. Some commentators have mentioned that Hillary Clinton's body language was poor. As many experts will attest, non-verbal communication is generally more important than what is said. This could be important as the contest tightens. Did anyone notice this?

On a separate note, can I just say that I liked Wolf Blitzer cutting people off when the verbal diarrhea started flowing.

The Republican candidates differ with Bush on Iraq, immigration policy, Katrina, spending, diplomacy, education, prescription drugs, etc. There is a lot to recommend them to Democrat voters

'One of the minor candidates - not one of these two - remarked to me months ago that in the end the choice would be between people "with better hair."

True enough.' Giving the US minnows their moment

"The Republican candidates differ with Bush on Iraq, immigration policy, Katrina, spending, diplomacy, education, prescription drugs, etc. There is a lot to recommend them to Democrat voters"

How many of them had the courage to speak out against bush before it became popular to do so? How many are now scrambling to curry favor with those that they publicly scorned just a short time ago, like McCain's shameless embracing the Religious Right? It seems to me that their convictions are about as well-grounded as bush's rationale for invading Iraq.

Aw, shoot, DG. Bush bashing has been a popular sport for Democrats for a long time, if not part of their job as politicians.

McCain, not only recently but in revelations about past campaigns, has proven to be a politically expedient man. I don't know what he really believes.

I guess I don't need to re-hash all of the quotes, even pre-Bush, about Iraq from the Democratic leadership. Unless everyone has forgotten. They seem to have.

That really didn't address the question. Further, you mention McCain, but not Guiliani's evasive idea of a Republican, nor Romney's RV political philosophy. ("If you don't like the view, I'll move the van.")

No, you don't need to re-hash any pre-war quotes (Nor do I have to ask the names of the men who sold a war using cherry-picked information), but maybe you could show how long some stayed with what was obviously a large body of deception from their own party's leadership. If nothing else, that demonstrates poor judgment.

Well said on Romney.

But I see you are already in attack mode for anyone with an "R" next to their name. Enough so that what I figured was a lighthearted comment was taken way too seriously.

Just what do you think a Republican is that Giuliani can't be one? One does not have to see the world in black and white, be against all social issues, be against all taxes, be pro-life, etc. to get a membership card.

I don't see all Republicans as naked opportunists, just the ones most likely to get the nomination. That doesn't mean I agree with the few (that are running), just that they have stuck to their principles.

Just what do you think a Republican is that Giuliani can't be one? One does not have to see the world in black and white, be against all social issues, be against all taxes, be pro-life, etc. to get a membership card.

No, but it does seem that way. On what has become the core issues of the Republican party in the last decade, Rudy fails to qualify. But switching parties would mean the end of his political career. Besides, if he got elected President, how do we know he won't try to stay past his term by claiming that we needed him, like he did in NY when he was already on his way out as mayor. I have the feeling that he would have to be removed from office kicking and screaming, saying, "The country needs me! Forget the law! We are in an emergency situation and I am the only one that can help!" I also would hate to see the US turn even more toward a police state, and that is the direction Rudy would go to, in my opinion. The Constitution means different things to Rudy than it does to me. I happen to like it.

Did anyone watch the Democrats debate last night? What did you think of the format, with questions from youtube.com?

I thought Mr. Obama was particularly sharp and may now be resonating with a broader political audience, while Mrs. Clinton is starting to sound like a broken record. I am writing off John Edwards until he proves himself in the primaries.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
I am writing off John Edwards until he proves himself in the primaries.

I dont know but for some reason John Edwards seemed very sincere to me in that speech. I think you guys are lucky to have a good bunch of people to choose from. In our case the choices are bank defaulters, mullas and extreemist, hypocrites, looters, racists, terrorists, etc.