I don't know who won, but I can tell you Clark lost.

Gephardt could not talk about his strengths, only Bush's weaknesses. Dean seemed baffled at times. Sharpton made me laugh (I love watching this man talk. I always feel like he's on the verge of saying something really off the wall.) Good ol’ Kucinich looked like he hadn't smiled in about 700 years. Kerry looks like asparagus to me. Lieberman made a bunch of terrible let-just-be-nice jokes. Edwards looked more presidential than usual, but couldn’t go beyond the my-daddy-was-poor rhetoric.

I liked Edwards until he started saying that middle class people pay more taxes than those in the upper tax bracket. (This rhetoric makes me mad, but that’s for a different thread.)

So my question is: Who won last night?

(Let’s try to keep this a discussion of the AZ debate only. Thanks guys.)

Wow, seeing that I'm the first to vote, that means that Edwards has 100%

I like Edwards and the more I hear and see of him, the more I like him. He's got class and dignity and just carries himself so much better than any of the others. Yeah, Dems talk about the poorer people paying more taxes than the richer, but Republicans have their rhetoric too.

Edwards came out on top.

Thank you for recognising the tax bracket rhetoric for what it is. I really was losing hope for Democrats when I heard that so thank you for saying that.

Edwards is a good guy.

Sure, you know a politician is still a politician, regardless of what party their associated with.

I think the biggest winner was George W. Bush.

I thought Clark did the best from what I saw. I've been seeing more and more of it and I think the not a real democrat charge was ringing hollow. Clark got massively shorted on time during the second half. But when he did speak to that 2nd LT. you saw the commander in him shine through. The fatherly all powerful demeanor that he's crafted over his career really needs to be shown more by the campaign. He actually seemed to care for the officer personally. The rest just used the troubles of the questioners as their jumping off points. Clark really seemed to engage the guy. He needs to do more of that to sew this election up.

I think that Clark really took a hit last night. The media has really picked up on the 'not a real democrat' idea. CNN's webpage cover story is "Clark takes the Heat". I think the fact that he didn’t even affiliate with a political party until weeks ago really hurt him in AZ. I stand by my assertion that he lost support as a result of last night. I think the attacks of the other candidates make those other candidates look weak also.

The problem I see is none of the candidates has the charisma of even Al Gore. Not sure why he is not jumping in, the nomination would be his and Bush is definitely vulnerable. Dean was doing better in the underdog role. Now I believe expectations have been raised for Dean and an early primary defeat will be trouble.

I think this is a winning statement. It's only a one liner but it's deeper than that. That qoute is indicative of what is wrong with these Dems. Not one of them is running on a plan of their own with any kind of details. They're only running on the idea that they won't do what Bush would. In my opinion that kind of poltitcs only works when it is clear that our leader is doing something wery wrong and obviously taking us down the wrong road. Now most Dems might think he is, but it's going to hard for them to prove that to moderates and conservatives in either party. So far we're in uncharted water with the last two wars and the war on terror in general. Plus the economy is on the upswing since the American people were good enough to elect a prodominantly Republican Congress one year ago. It is very clear that if the economy turns up (as it is) the Dems will have no chance against Bush and the more division they create amongst each other, the harder it'll be for them to endorse the last man standing after the primaries (but they'll do it anyway). Hence, Bush won last night.

I wouldn't say that. Actually, none of them 'lost'. Then again, none moved forward either. I think Clark did fine...I missed the first half hour or so. Maybe I missed something big but from what I saw he handled himself well.

Repubs probably shouldn't watch the debates...they have all made a pact to attack Bush rather than each other. It's a strategy that they have not yet felt the need to discard. Once there are less candidates to spread the nastiness around that will change....I expect this to happen once a few more people have dropped out of the race. I would rather Gephardt remain in congress. But he did mention that he does have a plan...several times. I'm not sure what it is that people are looking for when they say they expect some new plan...each point they speak on gives you their perspective. You can't lay out some complex plan in a thirty second soundbite but I bet if you look at their websites you'll find out more if you really are interested.



I think it's just his mannerism...there is something about him that put's me off as well.


This has been the surprise of the debates to me...Sharpton has always had the reputation as being off the wall and I've been pleasantly surprised to see he isn't. He just says it like it is and I like him. You have to be a little less honest to be President so he probably will never have the chance for that roll but I'd like to see him in Congress or as a Mayor or something.


I would hate to lose him in Congress. I like the guy too but again don't see him making it as President. He is intense...better that than a smirking idiot.


These two seem to me ready to say whatever they think we want to hear. Problem is neither of them are able to peg what that is until they see it working for someone else. We don't need either of them in Congress either.


I think Edwards would make a fine candidate...in about fifteen years. He has a lot to learn first. My kids were cracking up last night because I mentioned that I thought he was good looking. They think I'm nut's. Maybe I am....politicians are rarely considered good looking by normal people...you know...the kind not addicted to politics.

Who won last night?
All of them.

I suppose you checked their websites for their policy proposals, instead of basing your analysis on a nine person debate? If the questions, intros, etc. took absolutely no time, each candidate would have had 10 minutes each to respond to what aren't always the most important or substantive questions about their policies. I'm certain, as an unbiased observer , you wouldn't have made such a blanket statement about the candidates w/o giving each of the frontrunners a thorough examination, huh?



I'll grant you that it will be hard to get conservatives to vote for any Dem, even one with Clark's credentials on military and economic matters. However, as the last election showed, you don't need 50% or even a plurality to win the presidency. A Dem with appeal to moderates and Independents will be competitive when added to an energized base, regardless of what happens between now and the election.



It is clear that a dramatic upswing would make the Dem's chances slimmer. There'd still be plenty of issues to campaign on, however, and barring a national disaster bounce, I don't see Bush's numbers returning to the invincible levels you foresee. There'd have to be significant improvement in areas like unemployment, and early enough for it to "sink in". Most people left of the political 50 yard line dislike Bush enough that they'll support whomever wins quite readily. The deficit and questionable judgement on Iraq will still be issues. I worry much more about Bush's well-connected fundraising and Karl Rove's subhuman political tactics.

My analysis of the debate is that it's hard to stand out for good or ill in a nine person debate. I didn't see anyone caught completely flatfooted and didn't notice any candidate that had more than one really shining moment, and I think this says less about the candidates' quality than it does about their quantity. Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely, Braun, and maybe Edwards need to go accept reality and start fundraising for someone with a chance. I hope Graham is taken as an object lesson.

Just so we're clear, Mosely-Braun is one person. (Did you watch the debate?)




This is not true. Many women are attracted to Bush, and even more were to Clinton. Looks has everything to do with presidential elections in modern times. T.V. and short American attention spans have moved elections away from the issues and towards image. I think you would find that politicians are considered very attractive by the average person.




Ghephart harped on Bush's problems. I understand if the candidates make a pact not to attack each other (which, if they did fell apart in AZ), but Ghepart Bush bashed too much. At one point Paula even interrupted him and asked him to stop answering question by saying what Bush was doing wrong. She tried to get him to focus on what he would do rather than what Bush is doing. Quite the contrary, Ghephart spent the whole evening bashing Bush, which in my opinion makes him look weak.



Al Gore was going to run until the Democratic party approached him and told him not to. There is a rumor that Clinton had to call him and ask him not to run. The reason he shouldn't run is because that race already happened in 2000. Regardless of what Bush is doing, he in now the incumbent. If he beat Gore, the VP in 2000, he would surely beat Gore, who is not in politics, in 2004 as the incumbent.

You are right about this of course. And I've always known it. But I don't think it's whether or not the candidate is 'handsome' it's whether or not they look 'presidential'. Hollywood type I mean. This is why Kucinich and Perot have such a hard time. They do not have the right 'look'. It's why Clark has had it so easy, however.

In America it's sad but true...the voters often choose style over substance.