John Edwards did exactly what was expected of him: he successfully drew the lines of distinction between him and the others, especially the other two in the top tier. Obama made no attempt at this and Clinton didn't need to.
I think Senator Clinton really helped herself. She was very commanding and took charge as to what questions would and would not be asked. ("We are not going to answer hypotheticals") She seemed like a leader. I believe she clearly won and I am a Richardson supporter!
I think Edwards and Obama clearly lost some points. (Wasn't Edwards a little negative, and didn't he run on the total opposite platform in 04'???) Richardson did ok as did Biden.
Hillary and Joe Biden came across as the most knowledgeable, and frankly, the most realistic candidates on the floor. Obama was a real disappointment. I think he tried to redirect the debate too much and went off topic often. He never answered half the questions. I agree that Edwards did himself in.
Hillary won the debate, though not hands down. Biden and Dodd both came across very well to me. They would make great VP candidates in my opinion.
Only former Senator Mike Gravel was willing to say that English should be the official language of the U.S. All other contenders including the front-runners refused to say so. On this basis alone, none are qualified to be president.
Biden – well informed, feisty, gave great expainations about why things aren't working and has practical solutions for todays problems – clearly the winner.
Edwards lost big in my book. Its hard to take someone serious who spouts how much he wants to help the poor and under privildged while at the same time pays $400 for a hair cut. I pay $13.95, maybe he should try that and give the other $386.05 to charity! I had high hopes for him, even in 2004, but have completely lost faith.
First of all I would have preferred a more equal distribution of time to the candidates. It was unfair to the likes of Biden and Richardson which I had wished that I could learn more about them.
That being said, between the "big 3" I liked Clinton's performance the best. She was steady, very calm, informed, forceful and held her ground. I did not think she provided too many exciting sound bites, but solid work by the Senator. Some of the posters above also pointed out an extremely important fact: that she's the only female in the crowd yet she's the front runner. That's quite extraordinary!
Edwards tried to impress but he tried too hard. He deserves to be second because he seemed more confident on the issues but tried to hard to differentiate himself from the flock. I do not think he scored any extra points by doing so.
Obama, I thought was not very good. He stuttered a lot with his answers, and his comments all seem to lack "depth," reinforcing the notion that he lacked experience.
Of the second tier group. I thought Richardson did very well. He showed poise, knowledge and experience. Biden showed strength, but I found him too "angry." Brings back memories of Howard Dean circa 2004.
Dodd wasn't memorable, Kucinich was too much of a liberal renegade, and the gentleman from Alaska (what's his name again?) seemed obsolete and detached.
I would love to see a Clinton-Richardson ticket. First female – first Latino/minority ticket. This would be a glorious day for America.
First Place – Hillary Clinton
Second Place – John Edwards
Third Place – Barak Obama
Hillary Clinton. I think the rest of them are auditioning for VP.
John Edwards did exactly what was expected of him: he successfully drew the lines of distinction between him and the others, especially the other two in the top tier. Obama made no attempt at this and Clinton didn't need to.
I think Senator Clinton really helped herself. She was very commanding and took charge as to what questions would and would not be asked. ("We are not going to answer hypotheticals") She seemed like a leader. I believe she clearly won and I am a Richardson supporter!
I think Edwards and Obama clearly lost some points. (Wasn't Edwards a little negative, and didn't he run on the total opposite platform in 04'???) Richardson did ok as did Biden.
Hillary Clinton
Hillary did owesome!!! She would be the next president of United States Of America.
OBAMA
Hillary and Joe Biden came across as the most knowledgeable, and frankly, the most realistic candidates on the floor. Obama was a real disappointment. I think he tried to redirect the debate too much and went off topic often. He never answered half the questions. I agree that Edwards did himself in.
Hillary won the debate, though not hands down. Biden and Dodd both came across very well to me. They would make great VP candidates in my opinion.
Only former Senator Mike Gravel was willing to say that English should be the official language of the U.S. All other contenders including the front-runners refused to say so. On this basis alone, none are qualified to be president.
if the dems are smart, they will put Clinton-Edwards on the ticket for this election, and groom Obama for the next ticket (in 8 years, hopefully).
Kucinich and Gravel.
They are the only two that assumed their audience was intelligent instead of the reverse.
We'll see how correct they were soon enough.
SAMEO SAMO--!
The biggest question should have spanned more time-TERRORISM AROUND THE WORLD???
So little time and concern was spent on this topic!!!!!!
Biden – well informed, feisty, gave great expainations about why things aren't working and has practical solutions for todays problems – clearly the winner.
Edwards lost big in my book. Its hard to take someone serious who spouts how much he wants to help the poor and under privildged while at the same time pays $400 for a hair cut. I pay $13.95, maybe he should try that and give the other $386.05 to charity! I had high hopes for him, even in 2004, but have completely lost faith.
Sen. Clinton won hands down...
“You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight!!”
John Edwards
First of all I would have preferred a more equal distribution of time to the candidates. It was unfair to the likes of Biden and Richardson which I had wished that I could learn more about them.
That being said, between the "big 3" I liked Clinton's performance the best. She was steady, very calm, informed, forceful and held her ground. I did not think she provided too many exciting sound bites, but solid work by the Senator. Some of the posters above also pointed out an extremely important fact: that she's the only female in the crowd yet she's the front runner. That's quite extraordinary!
Edwards tried to impress but he tried too hard. He deserves to be second because he seemed more confident on the issues but tried to hard to differentiate himself from the flock. I do not think he scored any extra points by doing so.
Obama, I thought was not very good. He stuttered a lot with his answers, and his comments all seem to lack "depth," reinforcing the notion that he lacked experience.
Of the second tier group. I thought Richardson did very well. He showed poise, knowledge and experience. Biden showed strength, but I found him too "angry." Brings back memories of Howard Dean circa 2004.
Dodd wasn't memorable, Kucinich was too much of a liberal renegade, and the gentleman from Alaska (what's his name again?) seemed obsolete and detached.
I would love to see a Clinton-Richardson ticket. First female – first Latino/minority ticket. This would be a glorious day for America.
You can't win a Presidential Debate as they currently are, you can only not lose them.
Nobody lost anything last night, as expected.
Biden – I was glad to see that this candidate stands for immediate US action in stopping the genocide in Darfur.
Biden and Obama (tie)
obama without a doubt
Mr. Edwards was the clear winner.
John Edwards
Obama won the debate.
Biden stood out as the most forthcoming, reasoned, practical, and knowledgeable candidate.
Hillary Clinton. She presented herself as someone completely in charge...as a commande-in-chief should.