Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
retired

Who Won the YouTube Debate?

Which candidate won?  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Which candidate won?

    • Joe Biden
    • Hilary Clinton
    • Christopher Dodd
    • John Edwards
    • Mike Gravel
    • Dennis Kucinich
    • Barak Obama
    • Bill Richardson
    • Anderson Cooper / You!
    • Al Gore


Recommended Posts

I think there could be a potential debate as to who won the debate but I think it is fair to say Hilary lost. If that even makes sense, she spoke so much but really said nothing. I believe the only question she answered was the one asked if she would meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. Other than that I heard alot of nothing.

 

I think we need a female president but Hillary Clinton is NOT the right person for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that BaraCk Obama won.

 

What can I say, I'm a stickler...On top of that, "Barak" makes me think of the leader of Ha'Avoda...

 

p.s. You can edit your poll options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do think that Barack stepped up in this one. I was dissapointed in the last few "unofficial" debates. However a political debate is hardly a debate more than everyone just saying what they think then going on to another question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack did a really good job staying on message, and didn't feel the need to yell every time he made a point like Hillary did. I was really pleased with his performance. Hillary's moment of pointing out the preliminaries to talking with dictators looked petty to me, particularly given how short their responses were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think these debates have winners...

 

Hillary is still the best candidate, without question.

 

why rob? why... What is the meaning of this word, best? Electability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why rob? why... What is the meaning of this word, best? Electability?

 

As in she would be the "best" president. Most people won't spend the time to learn about her Healthcare Plan, but it would have gone a long way to solving some of the major problems with the US healthcare system.

 

She's not stupid, she has experience both in national politics and the white house - she's the best candidate for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i was tempted to say biden, richardson, or dodd. they all seemed to learn from their warm ups.
I think Biden did well. I think he would be a good nominee and probably a pretty decent president. Not left-wing enough to get the party's nomination, though. I was less impressed with Richardson (probably because he's been blanketing Iowa with media buys for months and I'm tired of his shtick) and Dodd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's not stupid
No, she isn't. She is, however, ruthless, vindictive, and petty... ;)
she has experience both in national politics and the white house
If you mean her administration would have their corruption, law-breaking, secrecy, and spin-control operations ready to hit the ground running, you're probably right! ;)

 

[Note to the humor-impaired: Please spare me the "Bush is worse" retorts, okay? When it comes to that sort of stuff, the current administration is a bunch of rank amateurs compared to Hillary's folks...]

she's the best candidate for the job.
I'm not sure how you define "best," but she doesn't bring anything to the table you don't get with Biden other than her sex. Obama is a media candidate; if a white guy with his bio and accomplishments were running, no one would ever have heard of the guy. Edwards is a hothouse flower, not a national candidate. Richardson probably has more talent than most of these others (he is better spoken, more comfortable on TV, has that "gravitas" thing, etc.), but his positions come across as Gore/Kerry Redux. Dodd? Give me a freakin' break, okay? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry shu, i gotta ask. what makes "hillary's folks" worse than the bushies? and i'm asking for some very specific comparisons here - what corruption and lies have come from hillaries campaign/administrations, and why are they worse than the litany of lies and slew of corruptions that we've seen over the last 7 years?

 

if all you meant was that they are amateurs, as in they - their corruption/lies are only less sophisticated, that i think i'll spot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry shu, i gotta ask. what makes "hillary's folks" worse than the bushies?
We aren't going to have that conversation, I suspect, because we won't be able to agree on benchmarks for measurement. For instance, I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration being caught going through hundreds of confidential FBI files, but since it was mostly Republicans being researched you're probably okay with that (or think that it goes on all the time anyway). Whole books have been written about the Clintons' escapades in the White House; if those haven't been sufficient to convince you that things were pretty bad (both from a public policy and from a ethical perspective), nothing I say here is going to make any difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We aren't going to have that conversation, I suspect, because we won't be able to agree on benchmarks for measurement.

 

probably true. i'd have to suspect the measurements used for someone who's as big an apologist for the white house ;)

look i'm not trying to tell anyone the clinton's were spotles. obviously both administrations have done bad things. i'm just wondering where your comparison comes down. i was thinking ethically, mostly.

 

For instance, I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration being caught going through hundreds of confidential FBI files, but since it was mostly Republicans being researched you're probably okay with that (or think that it goes on all the time anyway).

 

is it worse than the privacy violations that come from the war on terror? or maybe it's that they were FBI files that's got you irked. so it's just a sort of flaunting of the justice system that's made the clinton's more unethical. sort of like bush white house reps saying "i dont know what you mean by equal justice under the law" or stonewalling inverstigation after investigation into it's people.

 

Whole books have been written about the Clintons' escapades in the White House; if those haven't been sufficient to convince you that things were pretty bad (both from a public policy and from a ethical perspective), nothing I say here is going to make any difference...

 

right. neither is wearing a white hat. i bet for every book on clinton there's one on bush. that's not really what i was asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idon't see anything wrong with putting a relative political tyro like Obama in the Presidency, especially one with a pretty good group of people around him.

 

I would like to remind everyone that were an election held in Britain tomorrow, it is quite possible--perhaps likely--that a certain David Cameron would come out PM (the Tories have been doing very well in the polls, and outside South-East England, too). Cameron has been an MP for six years--two years longer than Obama would have were he to become President. And he would have been a frontbencher (which is the real equivalent of being a Senator in British politics) for a mere four years, and party leader for two. Obviously, an election isn't about to happen tomorrow, or this year. But if the UK Conservative Party is willing to entrust this (politically) young man with this very good organization around with the leadership, and if the British people are willing to award that party with that organization with a plurality in the opinion polls and an almost-certain increase of seats and maybe even the Premiership come the next election, then why can't the US entrust its Presidency to a man with similar experience? (Heck, Cameron has less experience in government as a whole; Obama was in local and state government for years, while Cameron went straight from party functionary to party candidate in '01). And don't talk about how the US presidency is unique. Yes, it is, I and recognize that.

 

I also recognize, however, that a President is no longer a single human being but rather the organization that he brings with him. The people who support him, advise him, and guide him are, put together, about as important as the man himself. While he does make the final decisions, most presidents--especially relatively inexperienced ones--will tend to govern in consultation with advisors. In addition, if Obama picks an experienced VP candidate (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Carl Levin spring to mind...I won't say Richardson, though), that should shore up any concerns, I would imagine.

 

The president is not a man. He is an institution. And institutions can get very old and very experienced in a very short period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The president is not a man. He is an institution. And institutions can get very old and very experienced in a very short period of time.

 

Latent sexism aside, this really isn't the point.

 

No one would say that Obama is an idiot, or that he couldn't *eventually* be a good president...the point is that he doesn't have the lawmaking experience to become the president NOW.

 

There are some things that people have to learn about the political system, interacting with Foreign leaders, communicating to the American public and managing a huge portion of the government. Obama has little experience in most of those categories. His platform is idealistic, Clinton's is a bit more pragmatic. This is probably informed by her experience in the Governor's Mansion, White House, and Senate.

 

JFK is another example of a politically inexperienced person being president...and while everyone loves him because he was charismatic and got killed, he wasn't a great president. Obama would probably fall into the same trap.

 

Now - the critcism stemming from Obama's inexperience isn't that "Inexperience = no president." But rather, "Obama's inexperience has lead to a mediocre campaign, along with some problems in his ability to govern." If some political upstart jumped into the field and had EXCELLENT ideas along with a good uderstanding of the system, people would vote for him or her in a heartbeat. The point is that Obama isn't a great candidate, his inexperience contributes to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in she would be the "best" president. Most people won't spend the time to learn about her Healthcare Plan, but it would have gone a long way to solving some of the major problems with the US healthcare system.

 

She's not stupid, she has experience both in national politics and the white house - she's the best candidate for the job.

 

I take it that you are referring to the healthcare plan from 15 years ago that failed? She has yet to release one this time. Although her bullet pointed memo was almost impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in she would be the "best" president. Most people won't spend the time to learn about her Healthcare Plan, but it would have gone a long way to solving some of the major problems with the US healthcare system.

 

She's not stupid, she has experience both in national politics and the white house - she's the best candidate for the job.

At this point, she is too deep in the pockets of the insurance industry to really do anything meaningful. If you want decent nationalized healthcare, vote Socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it that you are referring to the healthcare plan from 15 years ago that failed?

 

Without being too nitpicky, the plan didn't fail - it failed to be enacted. This is an important distinction, because most people who have no knowledge of the healthcare system (or this plan specifically) would say the plan would have been a failure. That is factually inaccurate. There have been numerous studies done concerning the viability of the plan, and nearly all of them conclude that the plan would have reduced healthcare costs across the board, reduced institutional redundancy, improved the quality of healthcare, and given access to many more people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without being too nitpicky, the plan didn't fail - it failed to be enacted. This is an important distinction, because most people who have no knowledge of the healthcare system (or this plan specifically) would say the plan would have been a failure. That is factually inaccurate. There have been numerous studies done concerning the viability of the plan, and nearly all of them conclude that the plan would have reduced healthcare costs across the board, reduced institutional redundancy, improved the quality of healthcare, and given access to many more people.

It's all irrelevant - We're not getting universal health care from either of the major parties. Remember, it's not the republicans that killed the Clinton plan in 94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been numerous studies done concerning the viability of the plan, and nearly all of them conclude that the plan would have reduced healthcare costs across the board, reduced institutional redundancy, improved the quality of healthcare, and given access to many more people.
I'm game. Post some links to such studies, if possible. My default position about social science research making such claims is severe skepticism...
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...