Should be a good one tonight.

Who do you think will win?

I'll cruise by the chat area, so stop in if interested.

Damn, I am at work, and want to see it, I wonder what time it will air in the AK? I just hope Ron Paul goes all Mike Gravel on them.

He is, someone needs to drag that crazy Texan from the stage. Is he Ross Perot reincarnated?

Oh yeah, and Ron is saying we brought it on ourselves.

Like we say in the comedy biz, it is only funy cuz it is true!

Romney is toast. Ron Paul has to calm down and prepare better for his debates. It doesn't matter if he is right, he has to present his views better.

I agree. The one thing I did notice- Guiliani continues to be a one trick pony, pimping the dead of 9/11. Romney is toast, period. Huckabee was the least nauseating next to Ron Paul. John McCain, whom I usually like and admire McCain, and bear him no ill will, came off as an arrogant *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, and possibly, a kind of grumpy insider. Only Ron Paul and Huckabee made an original statement or point all night. Romney was informed, but once again, his Clinton like inability to make a real decision about where he stands was pilloried and obvious. Thompson is as weak a candidate as they come, only the fact that he was on TV before is obviously the only reason he gets to be on stage with the real candidates.

Overall, I would say, of the MSM dubbed front runners, Huckabee did best, and didn't lose anything, Guiliani continues to be "I am the only leader of 9/11" and Ron Paul doesn't articulate his ideas well enough.

Overall- win is to Huckabee. A candidate that I am absolutley terrified of.

I caught most of the Republican debate while at the chow hall this morning. I was impressed that Thompson at least talked about the Constitution, though I'm not convinced he believed himself, he looked droopy as ever. Guiliani hawked his book 'Leadership' more times than I could count, and spoke often of 'his' city being attacked on 9/11.
Huckabee was likeable, but not inspiring. McCain was rather snarky at times, but believable. Romney had me checking my wallet every few minutes. And Paul? He certainly stayed on message. He is the only candidate I heard get applause [caveat-I didn't get to see the entire debate].

I know that online polls aren't very scientific, but they're interesting. A Boston TV channel poll of who viewers thought won the debates gave Paul a fairly close second place finish of 24%out of candidates from both parties. Following a first place polling of 30% by Clinton.
Link

Did you catch him on PBS interview with Bill Moyers? Not being a dynamic speaker is a weakness for Paul, but one-on-one with a moderator that
engages him, Paul explains his views quite well. If you missed the interview you can check out the Jan 4, 08 program of Bill Moyers Journal.

I missed the debates but from what I have read in the GOP debate it was "dogpile on Mitt" night with EVERYBODY taking swipes at Willard. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

As for the Dems (now trimmed down to a tidy quartet with Dennis Kucinich shut out), Miz Hillary apparently tried to cold-cock Obama and tried to get Edwards to tag-team her, but he wasn't playing along. From the post-debate analysis I've read, Clinton risks driving up her own sky-high negatives by going after Obama, but what choice does she really have? If 70 percent of the Democrats that took place in the Iowa caucuses find
Hillary unlikeable, there's not much she can do to change that perception in less than a weeks time.

There are a lot of candidates in the New Hampshire primary. Again, the corporate media has excluded many candidates from exposure of their ideas. It there are legal candidates for an election, the media should not be able to gerrymander the outcome by giving preferential treatment to some over others.

On the other hand, this was the best debate I have watched for giving equal time to all on the podium.

Watching a few Sunday shows I was reminded of how warped the networks are. I saw a few political consultants on Meet the Press. It is clear they know that media coverage is so important and they know media gives overwhelming coverage to those who win the latest state primary. For a news program to do this, it does not make sense. They admit that all parts of the country are not the same. Voting patterns in one state do not necessarily reflect how other states will vote yet they present bias towards some instead of giving information on all candidates so voters can make a informed decision. I do not care what polls or one state election says, at each state all candidates start at zero and the media should be required to treat them as so.

I am really tired of nobody in the media backing up Ron Paul and his assertion that US foreign policy plays a role in islamic hatred towards the US. How Giuliani can get away with saying our foreign policy has nothing to do with it baffles me in this day and age. I wish Paul hit him better on that because its really serious.

I agree. The american voter needs media personalities to take these candidates on in a fairly objective, fact-driven non-politically motivated way. we have plenty of personalities ready to pounce on any one whose assertion infringes on their comfortable left/right world view, but so few great journalists in the middle ready to hunt the elephant in the room... or the elephant on the stage, as it were.