Democratic debate

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]431325[/snapback]</div>

You beat me to it! Saddam was going to start selling oil for euros instead of dollars. I'd have described the result as a "decline" in the dollar, rather than a "crash," but that's nit-picking. The choice of currency used for buying and selling oil was a big issue for the people who decided to invade.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]431309[/snapback]</div>

If anybody is paying Berman to post, it's the democrats, because he makes the Republicans took so vile, with his distortions, lies, and racist tirades. No, I think it more likely he's acting on his own. It would surprise me, however, if he's the person he took his screen name from.

 

Its interesting to see that the Democrat candidates, in their very first debate, did not impress anyone. In fact, even their 'target audience' here cannot think of enough things to say about them so they have to descend yet again into Bush bashing.

Think that's enough to win an election when Bush isn't running?

But back to the topic at hand:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 27 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]431315[/snapback]</div>

Now I find that very interesting! You are usually a "pox on all their houses" type of guy when it comes to anyone in the major political parties. What is appealing about Obama for you?

I know why I like him (that's not an endorsement, as I wouldn't vote for him, but he's one of two candidates up there that wouldn't upset me that much if he won).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 27 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]431500[/snapback]</div>

He's intelligent. It's that more than anything. But he impresses me as being more honest than your run-of-the-mill politician. Also, he's a bridge-builder. Rather than slamming the other side and calling them un-American, he looks for common ground and tries to work with his opposition.

Of course, for all those reasons, he doesn't have much of a chance.

P.S. I also like Kucinich.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 27 2007, 08:02 PM) [snapback]431506[/snapback]</div>

We like Obama for the same reasons! He is attractive for those reasons, and he's one I wouldn't mind seeing as President. Kucinich is not in the same league, either in terms of personality, or his chances. He and Mike Gravel could form a mutual-admiration society though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 28 2007, 03:46 AM) [snapback]431610[/snapback]</div>

When you read his keynote speech at the Democrat Convention, you get a sense that he wants to bridge differences and get things done, and even in that ultra partisan environment, where "appealing to the base" means throwing them some red meat, his speech is relatively moderate in tone.

He impresses me as a reasonable fellow, and he seems articulate. The pundits say he will have to put a bit more meat into his campaign soon.

What surprised me was John Edwards recent bump in the polls. The guy who helped lose the election to one of the weakest candidates in Republican history (and that's saying something), is now a not-so-distant third in the polls. Is it because its so early, and his wife's cancer has given him a boost just through name recognition? I just don't care for Edwards at all; he seems too slick by half, the epitome of the ambulance chasing trial lawyer who scored big, got a great haircut, and now wants to smooze all of us. He's the only one on the dias that I have that reaction to, so its more of visceral thing to me, and not at all "reasonable" and based on his policies. I'd shake his hand, but I'd have to go wash it right away.

I actually didn't see the debate, but have seen the clips from it. I'm surprised Bill Richardson didn't do better (in the opinion of the pundits, anyway). I've always liked him for the same reasons I like Obama.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]431061[/snapback]</div>

There was that one interview were she stated that she has never been for the war and didn’t vote for it. if you look at her voting history not only did she vote to go to war but she also mad statement about our need to go to war.

I can remember I think it was on npr but that all I know. I am not even sure if her words were skewed or any of that just what I heard from a quick tidbit.
I can see how something like that might cause a dip in the poles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 28 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]431801[/snapback]</div>

For some reason, I was under the impression that you were above resorting to juvenile denigration of the Democratic Party by deliberately using the phrase "Democrat Party" when referring to it. Its official name is the Democratic Party.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 28 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]431836[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm ... not intentional (or at least, not consciously intentional). I may have picked up that usage from somewhere ... in regular conversation, I refer to the conventions as the Democratic Convention and the party as the Democratic Party.