<p>women = shrill
men = forceful</p>
<p>Clinton is so very qualified, particularly with foreign affairs. But: too much hatred of her leads to real fear she is un-electable.</p>
<p>Try to imagine a woman candidate with Obama’s slim resume. Or a woman candidate with Edwards’ home situation.</p>
<p>David Schuster always reminds me of the wide-mouthed frog.</p>
<p>I think this was Obama’s best debate he didnt really stumble on his words, he was very clear and I was impressed with his answers, quick thinking. I was a little iffy on his foreign policy, but last night he made me a true believer that he would be an excellent commander in chief. </p>
<p>Clinton also did very well. She did get tougher questions, but I think it is because we have more information. She impressed me as well disarming really tough questions. I think the mandate would be better to effectively cover all people but I dont like the idea of forcing people to do anything, so I am split on the decision. It’s a double edge sword, either you force everyone to buy it and you have millions of people wanting to opt out or you dont force people to buy discount insurance and not enough people buy it to effectively reduce costs. So I still dont know what is the best idea. </p>
<p>However, I did not like how Hillary interupted the moderator so many times. Once or twice or even three times is probably permissible but I feel as if she wanted to do it Everytime! and she practically did. You could tell that the moderators were a little annoyed after some point. I would be too especially considering time constraints. Everyone seemed to notice. Maybe the reason everyone is so anti-clinton is because of her actions. I know that sexism is alive and well but I think more can be attributed to her actions even if it is 51%/49%.</p>
<p>“Try to imagine a woman candidate with Obama’s slim resume.”</p>
<p>Try to imagine a male candidate running on “lengthy” experience that included 8 years as “first man.”</p>
<p>Frankly, I think Obama’s experience tops Hillary’s. I particularly am impressed by his experience as a grassroots organizer. I feel he knows how to collaborate, inspire, and he understands the concerns of the working class and lower middle class.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, due to a family emergency, we had to miss last night’s debate, but I heard excerpts on NPR this morning, including the exchange about Louis Farrakhan endorsing Obama. There was way too long of a pause on Obama’s part in responding to this. His attempt at repudiating his connection to Farrakhan was weak and lukewarm at best, in fact he had to be prodded and poked into trying to sound like he was distancing himself from this horrible person (Farrakhan). That raised alarm bells with me for the umpteenth time.</p>
<p>If Obama truly held convictions in opposition to those of Louis Farrakhan, his repudiation would have been swift, sure, emphatic and extremely convincing. It was not. Obama was hesitant, unemphatic to the point of seeming distant and unemotional, almost creepy in (to me) trying to sound like he was opposed to something 'cause at that point in time he thought he needed to sound opposed. Instead of sounding like he genuinely is opposed to Farrakhan and what Farrakhan stands for. Dangerous imho.</p>
<p>Agree with Suna comment on the women/men comment. </p>
<p>I could support either one as the nominee. I came away thinking about Hillary: It’s really hard for a woman, particularly one who’s not tall, to look “presidential” and to be forceful without appearing emotional or shrill. (Or as a poster on another thread observed, like an angry elementary school principal.) And I came away thinking about Obama: He’s good; I like him. I just wish he had a little gray in his hair and a few more lines on his face. </p>
<p>L.A. Times ran a story on a poll today with what I think is a telling result.<br>
More respondents indicated that the country is “ready” to elect an African-American president than a woman president. (For woman president, 61 percent said the country is ready; for Af-Am president, 70 percent said the country is ready.</p>
<p>Obama’s response to the Farrakhan question did take a long time to get a true answer. However, I understand why he wanted to be cautious. His church gave this man an award, which he said that they shouldn’t have and he has time and time again said that he denounced what Farrakhan has said and really that should be enough. </p>
<p>It’s a juggling act for him because he can’t suddenly abandon his church now, he can’t upset the church but then the church gave him an award, he doesnt want to ruffle the feathers of anyone this far into the campaign and cause contreversy; especially since he is winning. So I think he answered to question the best he could given the circumstances. However, he does need to distance himself a little more and give a more clear answer the next time he is asked. </p>
<p>I do believe that his answer was sincere though.</p>
<p>I think both candidates have the experience to be the president. I like the comment above that said try have Obama running on the notion that being “first man” for eight years as experience. haha, regardless, both candidates are ready on day one, I think it showed in this debate.</p>
<p>I think everyone has been in a job where is “more experienced” person has held a higher position than they have but was obviously overwhelmed or simply bad at their job. I know many of us could undertake jobs right now where more experienced people are running that you could do a better job. So the question is not only experience it is more of judgement and leadership skills. Of course if you have both than you are a clearly superior candidate but I dont think that any candidate outweighs the other in this situation.</p>
<p>I thought Obama gave a very appropriate response about the Farrakhan question, but Russert’s incessant prodding made it look as if Obama hadn’t given a definite answer. Russert also really pushed Hillary: one time they were talking over each other in increasingly loud volume until he ‘won’ the chance to speak. </p>
<p>Also, the difference between ‘denounce’ and ‘reject’? Give me a break…</p>
<p>Hillary did a good job of showing herself as a fighter. Obama continued to show his strength as a collaborator. They both are very qualified, but there is a real difference in style.
Personally, I prefer a collaborator, as I think our country needs this right now after so many years of divisive politics. I’m willing to give in on some issues that I really care about- such as universal health care for all-in order to have a leader who can pull the country together. </p>
<p>I felt Obama had the tougher questions this time, and the moderators did their best to bait the candidates into going after one another. Obama resisted most of the time, and ended with a call to unity. Hillary seemed to take every opportunity to take the bait and go after Obama, was more combative, and ended with a call to all women to vote for her because she would be the first woman president. In that sense, I think she “won” the debate,(can you imagine Obama directly calling for all minorities to vote for him because he would be the first black president?) but it didn’t persuade me to prefer her.</p>
<p>Hillary can get away with a “fighter” persona, being a white woman, who traditionally are seen as non-threatening. Can you imagine if Obama let himself get as worked up and agressive as Clinton has become? He couldn’t get away with it. An angry black man wouldn’t stand a chance. </p>
<p>We all bring so much of our own prejudice into our decisions. I don’t see this debate changing anyone’s mind.</p>
<p>I don’t think the moderators were tough enough on Hillary! My guess? She will release this year’s tax returns—prepared with release in mind. I mean she’s “too busy” to get them together!!! Yeah, right. She probably uses an accountant who filed last year’s returns long ago and could probably email the whole set in 15 seconds. The idea that at this point in the campaign she can get away with the failure to release her tax returns, the list of donors to the Clinton library, and presidential papers relating to communications between her husband and herself is MIND BOGGLING. </p>
<p>Increasingly, I dislike her. Whining that she always gets the first question? (First, it isn’t true. Someone has already counted the questions in the last debate. She got the first one 60% of the time; Obama, 40. Now that may not be perfect, but it’s certainly not “every time” and why is it something to whine about amyway? ) And when asked to explain her attacks on Obama’s fliers re her health care proposal she answers that she’s just so “passionate” about health care. NOT ONE WORD in those flilers was untrue! Hillary knows it–thus the non-response. </p>
<p>And, gee, how nice of her to FINALLY admit she voted the wrong way on Iraq. I’d respect her a lot more if she’d done that at least 5 debates ago.</p>
<p>Hillary as a fighter? She lost that possibility in the first 10 minutes when she whined about the “unfairness” of being asked the first question. Whiners are not fighters. I thought Obama handled her with relative ease throughout the night.</p>
<p>"Hillary can get away with a “fighter” persona, being a white woman, who traditionally are seen as non-threatening. Can you imagine if Obama let himself get as worked up and agressive as Clinton has become? He couldn’t get away with it. An angry black man wouldn’t stand a chance. "</p>
<p>Exactly what I was thinking. Obama has to remain super calm because if he seems angry at all, he’ll scare people.</p>
<p>OK, what if Hillary belonged to a Methodist church (not to pick on the Methodists, but she actually is Methodist, I think) where the Minister was a big fan of David Duke, and the church magazine gave David Duke a lifetime achievement award, considered him a man of greatness, held a huge ceremony in downtown Chicago honoring David Duke, then put in on the cover of the latest issue of said magazine, read by thousands of people. Hillary sticks with the church but says things like she doesn’t agree with the minister, that’s not how she feels. Later on David Duke publicly endorses Hillary and she has to be prodded and poked into using the words denounce and reject (with a lukewarm delivery). Still sticking with her church and her minister.</p>
<p>Same reaction on your part? I bet not. Esplly since it’s Hillary. There would have been lots more attention to such a scenario by now, instead of almost no attention. I would be upset if she didn’t switch to a different Methodist church and minister who didn’t hold such allegiances. It would affect my opinion big time, yes, that one thing. </p>
<p>It still very much looks to me like everyone is giving Obama a pass on this. And it still sounded like, even tho’ he said the words “denounce” and “reject”, that he didn’t actually mean it. Just words.</p>
<p>I don’t know that Obama has been given a pass on Farrakhan. I’ve read a lot of negative comments trying to imply close connections between them. I’ve also read about Obama’s criticism of the award his church gave to Farrakhan. That was some time ago. Finally, the Obama is a Muslim meme is as much about linking him to Farrakhan as it is about implying he has connections with radical Muslims throughout the world. I believe mailings to that effect are still in circulation.
“Denounce” and “reject” are words. I don’t know how they can be anything but “just” words."<br>
Somebody claims that Obama should have been even more forceful and should have said he “renounced” Farrakhan. But that is absurd. One cannot renounce something or someone one has never laid claim to. I might as well renounce the crown of England (but I can denounce a monarchical system).</p>
<p>“And it still sounded like, even tho’ he said the words “denounce” and “reject”, that he didn’t actually mean it. Just words.”</p>
<p>I didn’t think he needed to be prodded to say “denounce.” I think “denounce” is an even stronger word than “reject.” To me, it sounded like he meant it. Given Obama’s track record including being for reestablishing warm feelings between African Americans and Jews, I think he meant what he said. If he were antisemetic, I think that this would have come out long ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kind of funny, on The View this morning, Joy Behar addressed the difference between the words; she looked them up in the dictionary to learn the subtle nuances of each word. Reject is a personal action, as in a girlfriend rejects her boyfriend; denounce it rejecting someone publicly. So Obama’s word of denounce was correct the first time around. </p>
<p>Granted not many are really going to research this difference in order to scratch a tally mark on a score card, but those who do will most likely see it was just another attempt of Hillary’s to try to catch Obama on something, but in the end, he was the one originally correct in his choice of words.</p>
<p>“And, gee, how nice of her to FINALLY admit she voted the wrong way on Iraq. I’d respect her a lot more if she’d done that at least 5 debates ago.”</p>
<p>Co-sign, except that I think that the right time was at least 3 years ago.</p>
<p>I’m a Jew, and I think it’s absurd to suggest that David Duke and Louis Farrakhan are in the same league. Klansmen are terrorists, plain and simple; Louis Farrakhan is a bigoted gasbag. If you want me to see them as equivalent, or even close, call me when the Nation of Islam hangs a Jew in the public square. Anyway, if Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is good enough for the Anti-Defamation League, it’s good enough for me.</p>
<p>“I’ve also read about Obama’s criticism of the award his church gave to Farrakhan. That was some time ago.”</p>
<p>The award was given out at a huge ceremony in downtown Chicago in November 2007 and Farrakhan was on the cover of the December 2007 Trumpet magazine. This was not “some time ago”, it was very recent. It basically just happened.</p>
<p>Yes, that is right, and by my lkight, that is some time ago. i.e., not yesterday or in preparation for this particular debate question. Obama immediately criticized the award. What else should he have done?</p>
<p>“Denounce” is a much stronger word than “Reject”.</p>
<p>A pertinent example for this forum would be to compare the two statements:</p>
<p>I applied to Harvard but they denounced my application.</p>
<p>I applied to Harvard but they rejected my application.</p>