I think both Clinton and Obama did very well tonight, although I think the cheap shots made by Clinton were unnecesarry and just gave Obama a larger edge when it came time for him to respond. Also kudos to Obama on the topic of him 'plagerizing', and kudos to Clinton for getting major brownie points by 'being honored' to debate with Obama.

Obama, Im not American, I just like him.

He asked who "won" the debate, not who you like most.

Obama. If you noticed after it ended, he actually bothered to shake the staff's hands. Clinton just ran off to sign autographs.

Didn't watch. I've seen enough of these two to know which one I'd rather have as President. My turn to vote has passed, but I'd urge anyone who hasn't voted yet to back Obama.

I watched out of curiousity. I wondered if Hillary could do something to break Obama's streak. I don't think she did but she is clearly the better choice of the two (not that I would vote for either).

I found it interesting that the debate format seemed to favor Obama. It seemed more often that she would be asked the hard question first, Obama would respond, and then she would have no rebuttal time. It wasn't until deep into the debate she forced a rebuttal and then it seemed that the moderators all tried to shut her up. However, when Obama forced a rebuttal nobody objected.

I in no way want another Clinton in office but if it has to be one of the two then I'd prefer her. Her answer simply on whether or not she would personally meet with foreign leaders (Cuba) show her more qualified than Obama, or should I say his answer showed him to be grossly unqualified.

Whatever, if he wins the nomination he has a better chance of beating McCain I believe. If that's the case, I can only hope good ole racism and Islamophobia come to the rescue.

yeah, we wouldn't want one of them there colored people as president.

You're disgusting, and an example of why the US is really unpopular.

Wow. Clueless.

edit - I should say that I don't consider his race and partially Islamic heritage as liabilities. It's just a fact that some people will. In that case, if it helps the lesser of the three evils McCain to win, I can't really complain. I shouldn't have had to say that but the point obviously went over your head.

McCain, I'm sorry, is NOT going to win. Just think about it for about 2 seconds. The chances of him winning are the chances of TE's IQ going above 50 in the next few years. It's just not gonna happen. But can I get a video of the debate if anyone finds it? I'm really wanting to see it but I don't have cable.

This is a little out of my league, so I contracted the RAND Corporation to come up with the most eloquent, effective and complete way of telling you to **** off. It should be coming in next month. I'm also billing you for it.

Eh? People said Bush wasn't going to make it for the second term and he did. But I guess that's because Kerry's image as a leader is as strong as a wet sponge.

Bush was charismatic and at least entertaining to watch, it brings people to the polls. Plus, kerry was an ******, and it's difficult to usurp an incumbent.

Old Man McCain, yelling at you to get off his lawn, doesn't quite draw people to the polls.

Everybody here knows I'm a little on the slow side so you need to be a little more direct if you want me to actually understand this.



Absolutely. I do agree with the sentiment that McCain won't win however we have already seen many shifts in this race against what the conventional wisdom told us.

I think the implication is that your comment about racism and islam is going to get you lynched.

conventional wisdoms such as don't vote for black people?

Personally, I thought alot has to do with people knowing what to expect with Bush. Change scares some people. With Kerry, I really didn't know what direction Kerry going to go with the country. And that's not considering all the "flip-flop" jokes.

Well of course. I don't agree with the rationale that Obama should be voted against because of racial or religious reasons but that doesn't mean I disagree with what the results of that vote will be.

Yeah, clearly? No, actually I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this one.



What were their answers?

Psh. Vote Mike Gravel!

It's rather childish to think of someone "winning" a debate. In general, debates are for the exchange of information. In this case, the exchange of information and ideas such that the listeners can better understand the debaters.

I say we just write in "Outlaw Torn" on all the ballots and vote me in as president.

*Edit: Also, it seems like the media, at least in Indiana is seemingly focusing on Obama's positives and Clinton's negatives during the debate. I didn't watch it personally, so I don't know how it went, but this is how I came to my conclusion that Obama won. Also shows you how much power the media has to skew things.

Quoting dis for when McCain wins.

it may be that i am hella tired, but that quote would go in my sig if it werent for the stupidly small max sig length. >.> <.<

I'm honestly torn on who to vote for if it becomes Hillary v. McCain. I don't mind all of Hillary's issues, but I find her character utterly unsuitable for the position of president. I don't like McCain's stance on issues (or the 180's that he's pulled now that he's suddenly having to court the conservatives), but his character is more tolerable than Hillary's.

I may vote for Outlaw Torn in that case. Or, just for ****s and giggles, vote for Ron Paul. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the president wanted to eradicate the federal government.

Why is Wolfy's sig so long?

Also, I agree with Emon. There's very rarely a clear cut winner, and you're obviously going to claim your own candidate won.

But in MSNBC's defense, Clinton was being asked certain questions because of her brash and instable stance on those topics. Obama has usually been clear on his stances, where Clinton tends to say a few different things (And this isn't criticism. I'm not saying she flip flops or is inconsistent, she's just not a very pointed speaker, nor does she have very clear policies) that the moderators were trying to get 'right.'

I think it's interesting that Barack brings his deep ideals, moral footing, philosophical understandings, and political microscope to the table, and Hilary's debate tactics consist of "day one" and her socialized medicare plan. I have never heard her develop a whole point without using rhetoric or one of those two talking points.

Last but not least, the entire plagiarism thing is a cheap political jab, and a highly baseless one at that. All three of them have their general speeches written for them. They all have staffers that suggest lines and ideas to use in debates. Hilary's just pointing out something they've all done, and is making it a big issue. I don't think Obama nor McCain are low enough to stoop to her level and argue about using other people's words. If they were, they might criticize her for "We can do it!" chants.

Jay-Z won this debate.

Obama has the naive position that he would personally meet with any world leader without preconditions and Clinton had the more reserved position that she would want to see certain progress before entertaining a personal meeting. She, of course, would engage them in the diplomatic process. She seems to understand what a State Department is for.

On the surface Obama's position might seem the more noble but I call it naive because it shows, at the very least, his lack of judgment on the issue. A personal meeting by the US President with leaders such Chavez, Castro, Akmadenijad (sp I'm sure), and Jon Lil'Kim provide a propagandic tool of immense proportion to foreign (and not necessarily foreign) entities.



I think most people think of the winner as the candidate with the best performance and better inspiring answers. Of course that's a superficial way to choose the winner as it really doesn't matter which one has the best positions or is better qualified.



Are you talking about the most recent CNN/Univision debate? If so I think you are somewhat right but I had some problems with the debate format and also how Clinton dealt with it. It seemed more often than not Obama got the last word in. You could tell be Clinton's reactions, note taking, and facial expressions that she clearly wanted to respond but the moderators never gave her the opportunity. Now, I also fault her for not speaking up and forcing a response until near the end but when she finally did, all three moderators were trying to shut her up. Obama was cordially given the opportunity to respond when he clearly wanted to do so and another time the worst admonishment he got was "please make your point quickly" which of course he did not.

I also think that while Obama is quite clear on some issues that isn't even a component of the campaign. He rarely talks specifics but he reads inspiring speeches. Clinton has been more focusing on policy positions which is bound to open her up to criticism and the occasional flip flop.



Well, I think that is an overly man-crushy statement on your part. He simply has better oratory skills. I found the final question and answer to be the most telling. Essentially it was what was the hardest thing you've had to overcome and Obama's answer was basically being a two year old and then he went on to describe a life that left me wondering if he has ever had a real job or had to overcome any real obstacle in his life. Clinton only even had to allude to her experiences as everybody already can sympathize with the embarrassment of being married to Bill Clinton has led to. She then went on to give an emotional recount of being in a situation with disabled veterans and how that made her realize no matter how much she thinks she has overcome in her life it pales in comparison to the sacrifices some others have made. And her she had the final word. I think her answer was a home run compared to Obama's but that it was too little too late.



I think generally the criticism is unfair but it is illustrative of the point that the words they use are rarely their own. He specifically has been given credit for being such a great speaker and having such inspiring words. I think the point is would he be so without his speech writers and recycled words?

Obama=JFK
Hilary=Nixon

Charisma will do you wonders

It's Kim Jong-il, you retard. You have no business engaging in public discourse about subjects more complex than making toast.

You have no business responding to jokes in this manner.

You have offended the son of the Great Leader. GTFO

Kirby, I would like to take this time to point something out. I realize that you already "hate" me for reasons you perceive based on my posts but you recently said something along the lines of I have never once laid out logical arguments, etc, etc. Well, while I don't expect you to agree with my positions in this thread I hope you will agree that I have reasonably expressed my opinions with substantive explanations in fairly pithy posts. Now Jon'C is taking the time to personally attack me, which is fine, because of a minor pun in one sentence.

This is why I no longer feel the need to get involved in lengthy, substantive discussion online. I used to. Some of the older TACCers may remember. It just seems to be a waste of time, something I have much less of with a two year old running around the house.

Just please remember that as bad as you think I am, I don't engage in personal attacks although you were apparently offended when I used the word little in the other thread. For that I apologize but I didn't mean it in an offensive way. Still, it was in poor taste.

Her secret weapon for getting them on our side, eh? I don't think they're that desperate.

Damn, it sucks when typos are immortalized in quotes (my extra "in"). I'm just saying her positions is superior to his (of course with the obligatory "in my opinion").

Her position, though, isn't any different from Obama's - except that she would wait until her first year is over before meeting unconditionally with those same leaders. It's an arbitrary difference that Clinton has made only so that she can say, "See? See? I'm different from him!"

Aw. Don't worry Wookie, I still love you.

I don't think your characterization of the paragraph is accurate. I interpret it more along the lines that she would not consider meeting in the first year to give her time to assess the progress they have made. Seems consistent with what she said in the debate.

Thanks Mort. I think you of all people would admit that if I were the type to engage in personal attacks and insults you would be at the top of the list to receive them. Having said that, I'm not worried. This is only an internet forum after all.

Maybe this will help explain why some of my posts seem so childish and simple minded:

I TOLD YOU. I'M NOT 12. I'M A FORTY TWO YEAR OLD INVESTMENT BANKER!

You're certainly more logical in this thread than I've seen you in a while.