<p>I’m watching and loving it!</p>
<p>Me too. Excellent and substantive on both sides. Nice.</p>
<p>We don’t have cable so this is the first time I’ve gotten to watch a whole debate for both sides. Very pleased. And makes me want to switch to ABC News in the evenings as Charlie Gibson comes across as so smart and likable.</p>
<p>Getting rid of the dead wood meant more questions for fewer people and a more comfortable presentation.</p>
<p>“The lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here [pause] staggers me.”</p>
<p>“She’s… uh… tenacious.”</p>
<p>“Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth.”</p>
<p>Oops. Wrong thread.</p>
<p>Back on topic. No, I watched Jurassic Park.</p>
<p>Why watch when one can read comments on forums. I am on this board because it is being broadcasted. I am going to side on the candidate that takes the most heat. </p>
<p>OMG all of these potential presidential candidates are so much more articulate than who we currently have. How can we so unfortunate?</p>
<p>[Got Hope?](<a href=“http://www.backwardsbush.com/”>http://www.backwardsbush.com/</a>)</p>
<p>Time is going much quicker now</p>
<p>I think Edwards did an excellent job tonight; he certainly surprised me. Hillary, as usual, tried to pull the same stunts. Absolutely, she is smart and somewhat charismatic. However, we are looking for the next president, and I don’t feel that from her. She keeps talking about her experience, yet I see it as mostly failed experience. Yes, she has a proven record of change, but none of that change was great enough to merit her immediate nomination for president. Hillary said tonight that she would be the first woman president, and that would be great change. Although, I don’t think having a woman as president should matter at all, neither should Obama’s ethnicity. Admittedly, that would be a historic landmark, but it has nothing to do with what we really need as Americans. At end, I will most likely vote for Obama. Initially, he got me interested in the current race. Finally, someone that can represent the people, and not a small minority of wealthy politicians and aristocrats. Edwards is very respectable, but I don’t see him as president either. He should definitely maintain his fight for the middle class, but I feel he would be better served in another area of the government. Obama, I believe, understands the problems our world is facing. This next president has such an important role in shaping the future of so many. America is asleep, and hopefully someone like Barack Obama will come to wake it up. </p>
<p>Always open to hearing others perspectives, solid debate tonight. Thanks for taking part in what makes this country great, democracy!</p>
<p>colegePLEASE, did you watch the Republican debate or only the Democrats?</p>
<p>umm, I only watched the Democratic debate, so I only have a few points about that:</p>
<p>1.) I can’t believe that more people haven’t noticed how Edwards actually smirks when other candidates are talking… I mean, I initially had no bias towards him (other than the fact that I can’t stand his accent!) but he was seriously rolling his eyes, smirking, and even laughing while other candidates (mainly Richardson and Clinton) were talking!! If anyone has it on tape/DVR, I’d love you to watch it again to pick up on this. Idk about you, but that’s not the kind of respect and integrity I want in the next president.</p>
<p>2.) I thought Obama, Clinton, and Richardson were all very well-spoken. I felt that Edwards relied to much on his “my parents and grandparents worked in the mills,” I-heart-poor-people stuff, and I don’t buy it… in that I don’t think he’d be any better for the middle class than any of the other dem. candidates. I know I sound like I’m totally bashing him, but it’s just what I observed.</p>
<p>3.) Obama sometimes comes off arrogant. He should try to watch that.</p>
<p>4.) The Change v. Experience debate is tiresome and there were some cringe-worthy exchanges between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards that put them all in a semi-negative light IMO.</p>
<p>– I’m not saying I dislike all the candidates! I’m just giving my critique. I actually like 2-3 of the candidates. ;)</p>
<p>Overall I thought it was as exciting as a presidential debate could be (excepting an on-stage brawl)…</p>
<p>OH!!! I’m sorry but I have to mention this, because I thought it was funny.
Edwards said at one point that lobbyists/big corporations were “literally stealing our childrens’ futures.” Ahahahaha! Literally?? Are you sure? …I cannot stand it when people use “literally” incorrectly.</p>
<p>I watched both debates; I am generally democratic though. </p>
<p>On the Republican side, a few impressed me: Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Congressman Paul, and Governor Huckabee. I have a great deal of respect for McCain. He has many years of experience, and he has served our country well. Although, I feel he his too old to be President, no offense towards him. Giuliani is more moderate than the others and I would align myself with him in general regarding the Republicans. He cleaned up NYC, and there is no reason to believe he can’t take action in the U.S. Government. Ron Paul is the oddity out of the bunch, I felt bad for him. All of the Republican candidates disappointed me when they began to gang up on him and his beliefs. Just because he doesn’t fit in with the current Republican mold does not mean he deserves to be disrespected in the form of chuckles and jeers. I agree with a lot of what he says, but to have a complete non-intervention strategy is simply ridiculous in today’s society. Obviously, we must have some foreign policy, and his seems too weak. Lastly, Huckabee who seems to be the Cinderella story of the campaign. Evangelicals have boosted him up as the old-fashioned family man: good, hard-working, and devout. I really hate it when religion gets brought into politics, but he kept a good distance from his religion tonight, and that was wise. I found him speaking as a President should. He maintained above the fray as the rest squabbled over the various topics. Still, his lack of knowledge on the real issues and solutions to those issues, disturbs me.</p>
<p>That brings me to the other candidates: Thompson and Romney. Thompson did not impress me, and his delivery was very nonchalant. He has experience, but it didn’t show. Romney was very crude tonight. I felt uncomfortable through some of his tirades. As well, he made some awkward, panic mode, gesticulations. He wasn’t calm and collected as he seemed in the past.</p>
<p>In all, if I HAD to vote for one of the Republicans, I would vote for Ron Paul or Giuliani. Either would bring a new spirit to the White House, and make serious change.</p>
<p>But, I am voting for Obama. :D</p>
<p>I just posted on another thread about Clinton’s tired rhetoric. I think the best performance goes to Edwards.</p>
<p>I agree with 1sokkermom that Edwards’ performance was the best. I also thought he looked better than anyone else up there-- very fresh and not at all tired. I think if you listened to the wrap-up afterwards, most everyone felt that Edwards performed the best as well.</p>
<p>Obama simply has no substance. He has never been very definitive on his plans or policies; What are they, by the way? Does anybody know? Where he does <em>seem</em> to have a plan-- those plans are not at all viable. I thought he looked tired last night, and I thought he came across badly when he made a comment to Hillary about her “likeability” factor. Honestly, while I think he is a charismatic speaker, he never actually says anything of substance. He is taking a boatload of money from special interest groups, as is Hillary, and let’s face it-- if he were a white man, saying and doing all the exact same things he’s saying and doing now, in the same charismatic way-- I don’t believe anyone would be paying much attention to him at all. And to have him speak of civil rights and being a black man in America, well, let’s be realistic. I doubt this man has ever been, or felt like, a disenfranchised black American male. His life has not been that of a typical black male fighting for equal rights in America. He can recognize those problems and fight for others, but he’s never truly had to live that. </p>
<p>As far as Edwards and his rhetoric about being poor in America, well, he has lived that. He is the only candidate, to my knowledge, who knows what it’s like to grow up poor; he’s the only candidate who knows what it’s like to have to drop out of college, because neither he nor his family has the money to allow him to continue; he’s the only candidate who graduated from public universities, both undergraduate and law school, which I find interesting; he’s the only viable candidate who really is the first person to graduate from college in his family. This guy is self-made, but he definitely knows what it’s like to live in this country and have no money. He has actually implemented, on a small scale, his own plan to make college affordable and viable for students, and that plan has been successful. He really did fight for and defend those who needed it most when he was a lawyer. If you’re not familiar with some of those cases, you should read about them, most especially the last one he took on.</p>
<p>I never saw him smirk or laugh at others at all, and I watched the whole debate, from beginning to end. However, when Richardson twisted and manipulated Edwards’ very words, he certainly had the perfect right to do so. Richardson rambled and just seemed a bit out of it to me. I have no idea why he was up there. </p>
<p>I also thought that the Democrats looked focused, engaged, and stayed on topic (with the exception of Richardson, who-- at times-- appeared as if he might have early onset Alzheimers). The Republicans, in comparison, looked like childish, bickering amateurs. And talk about smirking and laughing-- they all did that with Ron Paul. Frankly, I think Paul scares them. He would have been much better suited on the Democratic side. I actually liked a lot of what he had to say. He was more truthful than any of the Republicans. Fred Thompson looked ridiculous. He didn’t even seem to be listening half the time. It’s really too bad about Mitt Romney, who looks like he’s right out of central casting. He has the looks, that’s for sure. </p>
<p>At any rate, I’m impressed with Edwards. He doesn’t simply talk the talk.</p>
<p>“1.) I can’t believe that more people haven’t noticed how Edwards actually smirks when other candidates are talking… I mean, I initially had no bias towards him (other than the fact that I can’t stand his accent!) but he was seriously rolling his eyes, smirking, and even laughing while other candidates (mainly Richardson and Clinton) were talking!! If anyone has it on tape/DVR, I’d love you to watch it again to pick up on this. Idk about you, but that’s not the kind of respect and integrity I want in the next president.” from post #10.</p>
<p>If you think for one second that such a highly skilled litigator didn’t practice his non-verbals for hours without multiple analysis from others and himself, you are mistaken. Some might be so ingrained he didn’t need to practice. But the effect and purpose is to influence those less intelligent than you (many). What they took away subliminally is that the others are not serious candidate.</p>
<p>My impressions:</p>
<p>Republicans: Grumpy Old Men Social Hour</p>
<p>Democratic: Warming to Obama. Edwards like a clown. What is with him and weird face making body language? Adored Hillary. Kind of liked Richardson too.</p>
<p>“Obama simply has no substance. He has never been very definitive on his plans or policies; What are they, by the way? Does anybody know? Where he does <em>seem</em> to have a plan-- those plans are not at all viable.” from post 13</p>
<p>Those watching the debate in my house were overwhelmed by his speeches, and were cheering and screaming in joy at his responses. (very irritating!) I think it is way too early to count him out.</p>
<p>Sign up for his email campaign and you will receive lots of written literature stating his views very clearly. Or read the Internet. His ideas are stated VERY CLEARLY everywhere.</p>
<p>Plan 1 (I’ll leave you to find the rest). Remove the US from Iraq. Since that is a very complicated process that will depend on input from multiple sources, he can’t give you great detail. It would be impossible. Unlike our current regime, he is aware of the Constitution. Don’t forget he is a Constitutional Scholar.</p>
<p>
Obama is not a constitutional scholar. Being a lawyer and teaching a class here and there on law does not make you a consitutional scholar. In fact, I have not seen any evidence Obama has any greater understanding of the Constitution than does Hillary or any other lawyer in the running.</p>
<p>Are there any Republicans that are Constitutional scholars? I don’t even know what that really means. I did watch the debates. I think Ron Paul quoted the constitution quite often. IMO, that certainly doesn’t qualify him to be President! 
</p>
<p>One who teaches Constitutional Law at Harvard I consider a scholar. I would imagine other defining characteristics are used by others. What do you include? Are Clarence Thomas and those whose names escape me nominated by Bush scholars? How much experience does our HEAD OF THE SUPREME COURT possess? Harriet Miers?</p>
<p>Isn’t there a cabinet member whose chief task is Constitutional Scholar?</p>