1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Clinton & Biden stand out in debate!

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by top gun, Jun 4, 2007.

  1. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    It appeared to be a stand out performance by Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden in the Democratic debate in New Hampshire just concluded on CNN.

    John Edwards and Senator Obama were major players however John Edwards while making some legitimate points attempted to separate himself from the pack by being somewhat more confrontational. This may have hurt as much as it helped in the overall impression of things. Senator Obama made calm rational points but did not show the passion usually expected from him.

    I'd make this point for Senator Joe Biden. I don't know if he has the resources and the campaign machine to go all the way, but by his answers, his experience, conviction, and rational common sense he certainly looked very strong and presidential.

    At one point when the subject turned to the recent vote to continue funding the war in Iraq (which Biden had voted yes on) Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

    At another point when the talk turned to a presidents ability to just make anything happen both he and Senator Clinton chimed in one after the other saying... People think that a president can just do anything they want. But there's a Congress and other factors involved. Senator Biden concluded with... Being president requires you to occasionally be practical, implying that this was not one of President Bush's strong suits. The obvious common sense of that statement drew laughs from the crowd.

    Senator Clinton looked rested and was steady, friendly and well versed on each and every subject and question posed and seemed to strive to be sure that the audience understood that everyone on the stage was respected and all fighting for the same things be it sometimes by different approaches.

    It's my opinion that the other four candidates are truly out of the running for the nomination and it would be best to start seeing them fall away to give more time for examination of the top four.
     
  2. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tell me again why the Democrats couldn't have continually sent bills that would have allowed just enough funds to bring our troops home and not a dime more? They could have attached instructions demanding this. And if Bush wanted to veto them fine, send another one and tell the people that Bush is playing chicken with the troops' welfare and they (Congress) are not going to budge.

    The Democrats proved how they lack backbone.
     
  3. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    While I did not watch the debate I was out working, I am not surprised to hear that Clinton and Biden were in the lead. Obama is still the darkhorse candidate and keep in mind he only has 2 senate years under his belt. If Obama doesnt work this election season you will for sure see him again.
    Drippinhun, I think it is a bit unfair to cast the democrats as spineless in this sense. Because continually sending bills that they know Bush will veto will backfire. It would be all to easy for the GOP to spin it against the democrats to say they are holding up the entire congress in frivilous bills they know will never pass nor do they have the votes for a veto. They have sent thier symbolic bills they know will be vetoed. Keep in mind, Democracy is about compromise and despite a rift between the legislative and executive branches they still have to work together to pass laws.
     
  4. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bunz, this declaration of their cowardness did not start with that particular vote. However, this was the defining vote since this was the primary issue the Democratic Party was voted back into the majority.

    Grant you I have a biased attitude having been a lifelong Democrat and watching them help authorize Bush's authority to conduct this nebulous war on terror in the first place. Then when they gave him the green light with Iraq, that was the final straw. Now claiming they didn't know that the evidence presented to them had been concocted, I was in shock thinking, "Didn't the Gulf of Tonkin affair teach you why maximum scrutiny when someone plans on sending our young into harm's way is the least you can do as a representative?"

    I would rather see the party lose its majority to make a principled stand instead of holding onto power. This is why they command very little respect from me.
     
  5. lipmonkey

    lipmonkey New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northeast zoo
    I didn't see anything great come out of it.

    Edwards tried to play the attack dog but came across as weak in that department.

    Obama isn't the great public speaker I have been hearing from his supporters.

    Richardson came across as rambling.

    Mike Gravel from Alaska needs to go back to Alaska.

    Dennis Kucinich made a few good points but he's about as exciting as a loaf of stale bread.

    Chris Dodd about the same Kucinich.

    Joe Biden was the most impressive on the issues.

    Clinton is playing it cool and still hasn't said anything that will come back to haunt her.

    I give the edge to Biden.
     
  6. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    It's a difficult situation and I can understand how someone might think you could just force the matter but it's not really like that. I think Biden said it best... Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

    The thought of Bush not bringing the troops home until the casualties increased significantly is a real possibility. I think those who voted against the funding were trying in their way to send a message that if elected they would end it quickly but Biden (the only one on the stage that voted to continue funding) felt you needed to have the votes or the presidency to actually end it BEFORE you took away funding to troops in the field. Different strategies to trying to win the presidentcy. Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.
     
  7. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I've been very impressed with Biden so far.
     
  8. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Hell No! He moved away 20something years ago to Virginia, we dont want him back at all. It kills me anytime he plays the Alaska card. His notion of a nation wide voters referendum would be the most detrimental thing to Alaska.
     
  9. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    While I agree with you to a point, that was the case of a democratic PotUS pulling the wool over the eyes of the legislative branch, it appears the GOP learned more from that. But also in terms of giving Bush the green light in the first place, they didnt have the votes to stop it regardless at the time.
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Hey Bunz I'm with ya on this one. Mike Gravel is waaay... waaaaaaaay out there. I cringe every time he says something hoping he won't make the whole Democratic Party look silly just because he's in it.:D

    The other guy that makes my eyes roll a little is Kucinich. Not because he has bad intentions... I think he's a very compassionate guy with a real heartfelt hope for things. But he's just not tough enough for any kind of a world stage. Let's face it... he's a Hippie in a suit:) . That's fine if you're a major or something but you have to have a tough side somewhere if you're going to be the president. Nice guy though... and you should have seen his wife! That's one tall, good lookin' red head.

    Richardson is clearly a good diplomat but not president material.

    Dodd has experience but lacks the energy needed to win.

    Biden really shined! He really impressed me.

    I thought and Clinton came across as smart, rational & moderate. A peacemaker... almost spokesperson for the group. I hope she keeps wearing the dark suits. She looked good... I'd even go as far as to say presidential. I know she's a women but the bright colored pants suits take away from her message. It's like the guys hitting the campaign trail wearing shorts... it just doesn't fit what you're trying to do.

    Edwards and Obama didn't make any big mistakes. They made their points. But I don't know that they won any "way to go!" points. I've seen both look and sound better.
     
  11. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    I will only vote for someone who will get us the hell out of this war. Neither Billary, Biden, Obama, Rudy, Romney, McCain will do this. In fact if you want 4 more years of bush, then cast your Vote for the above mentioned. Then weep.
     
  12. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    From all the statements I've heard and watching all the debates all the Democratic candidates want to bring the troops home. Clinton's made the statement several times, "If George Bush does not bring the troops home... when I'm elected president I will!"

    Now it seems to be kind of a split decision over on the Republican side. They really all want to stay and keep the conservative fear mongering thing alive... but they see the polls @ 70% of Americans wanting us out and they're in a bind politically.

    You could put your faith on either side on a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich. They'd definitely leave as quick or quicker than anyone else... but they have no chance at getting the nomination let alone getting elected. And they'd probably both be two very good human beings that are a little to weak overall to be president.:)
     
  13. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    If they really wanted to end this war, they could. They have the option to send bush a bill with a time line until he signs it. Eventually he would have to. No you have been fooled by smoke and mirrors my friend. Now that you've seen it, maybe it will be harder for them yo do it to you again.
     
  14. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    My friend... I'm pretty involved here being 50 and working on several campaigns over the years from school board to president. THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES! They can't override the veto. You need huge bipartisan support before you start choking off supplies to troops in the field.

    The Democrats win the next election the troops come home. It's that simple.:) Let's work together to make that happen.
     
  15. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    I would do just about anything to bring Americans home from Iraq. However, I don't think that any of the Democrats running will do that. They will not want their party to look week. If they do bring any home, they will be combat troops only, that is not a good idea. Remember Saigon 1975? We are building fourteen permanent bases along with an embassy the size of a small town. This war(i usually call it "this mess") will continue for many years to come. Only a strong willed president will be able to do any thing about it.
    As far as votes go, they have the option to send the same bill time and time again until it gets signed. Now they want to wait to see what happens in Sept. BS! How many more will have to die or kill until then. The truth of the matter is, the surge isn't working, will not work, and it will take generations until Iraq becomes stable again, not till Sept.
     
Loading...

Share This Page