IMHO, the so-called "second-tier" candidates CRUSHED

[rateyes]

the so-called "first-tier" candidates in last night's debate. I find it ironic that, when it comes to experience in actually governing, it's the candidates with the least experience that are considered "first-tier." It's the candidates who have been around the block more than a few times with decades of governing experience who showed last night that they actually know what they are talking about.

Dodd, Biden, Richardson & Kucinich all showed a better grasp of the issues than did Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Of the three so-called "first-tier" candidates, I believe Edwards won the debate. But, to tell you the truth, after last night's performance, I would feel more comfortable with a Dodd, Biden, Richardson or Kucinich in the oval office.

Having said that...after Iowa and New Hampshire, if it looks like there is no chance for one of the "second-tier, but most experienced" candidates to win the nomination...I am willing to switch my vote to Edwards or Obama in order to keep Hillary (who is the least electable and the most objectionable to progressives, IMO) out of office.

[Atman]

1. You're catching on!

That's why they're "second tier" candidates...they speak the truth, and the corporate media doesn't want that, so they'll force us to choose between Hillary, Hillary, Hillary or Hillary. Obama is in it just because he gives us something to talk about. Edwards is the emergency-backup wealthy white guy they can default to.

You're absolutely correct about the positions of the other candidates. That's how I "discovered" Kucinich during the last election...I actually read the candidates' platforms and when I saw what DK stands for I said "holy crap! I could have written this myself!" But the corporate media will never actually tell you any of that. Instead we get Nora O'Whora asking Elizabeth Kucinich how America could possibly deal with a first lady with a tongue stud. And by that I mean her piercing, not Dennis.

.

[rateyes]

3. If last night did just enough to push Hillary into a corner...

and have her actually start taking a stand on issues, it will have been a good thing. But, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that where she says she stands is where she actually stands. She reminds me of the person who played the governor in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." She is almost as proficient as Condi Rice in talking forever in answering a question without ever actually answering it.

[disndat]

11. Exactly.

H.C. must have learned the trick from Condiliar. Condi always would say something like, "Yes, but first let me talk about...blah, blah, blah, as Condi tried to digress." One of the Democratic Senators questioning her, yelled, "Answer the question! Answer the question!"

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. The media has decided that

the most electable candidate is the one who raises the most money....and then spends that money on the media. Interesting circle, isn't it?

[rateyes]

4. Very interesting. nt

[Atman]

5. Bingo!

What do those giant "war chests" have to do with being president? Absolutely nothing. But the advertising sales department sees them as an untapped spigot. Obviously, Hillary has to spend her millions on advertising...that's what it's for. They want to sell her ads every two minutes. DK doesn't have enough of an ad budget to make him worth their while.

.

[ellenfl]

6. i thought the moderators gave more credence

to the others with regard to hillary by having hillary rebut everything. the mods kept putting her on the defensive and thereby pounding home the objections.

imo :-)

ellen fl

[Bitwit1234]

7. That's why the debates are stupid. Each candidate

should have their own 1/2 hour question and answer session. That way you can get the benefit of each one of the candidates views and answers.

[Atman]

8. Actually, MSNBC already did that...and aired it in the middle of the day

when no one would see it. They did lengthy sit-down interviews with each candidate, let them go on about their various positions. It was very educational, and DK kicked ass. But as I said, for some stupid reason they did the interviews at 11:00 in the morning or some such idiocy, and never re-aired them. MSNBC's viewership at 11:00 could fit in cross-town bus, so effectively no one saw them.

.

[rateyes]

9. That's a good idea, except I do like to see the candidates

hold their opponents' feet to the fire.

[bigwillq]

10. I agree.

I thought Dodd, Biden and even DK, when he was give the time to answer the serious questions, did better than the "Big 3".

[Renew Deal]

12. Richardson was terrible and Kucinich wasn't so hot. I agree on Dodd and Biden,

Dodd and Biden were very good, especially Dodd.

[SoCalDem]

13. Which is precisely why we need a political channel

where ALL "qualified" candidates would get EQUAL time..FREE OF CHARGE ..uninterrupted by a quasi-debate format .. to lay out their own plan.

No negative swipes at other candidates.

In the year prior (which is now the new norm:eyes:..) each week would cover a new topic, and each candidate would be free to lay out their beliefs.

With a format like that, people WOULD get to know the people by what they believe and plan to do (should they get elected)

"Commercials" would be banned..

There would be no NEED for lobbyists' money..in fact it would be ILLEGAL.. Surely the donations received from individuals (no un der 18-ers allowed to "donate") would be enough for them to travel to campaign events.

During any particular week, all candidates would focus on the SAME issue for the same length of time..(Poor Mr 911iani)