60 Minutes!!! Kerry and Edwards

[CatWoman]

on now!!

[mhr]

1. The Kitties Are Up For It, All Except Trinity, Of Course

eom

[CatWoman]

2. LOL

She's in here next to me clawing at the carpet.

Stupid Cat :D

[guajira]

3. Why Leslie Stahl????

Seems like she gets the choice interviews, but she is the worst interviewer on TV in my opinion.

Never figured out how she keeps her job, don't even want to speculate!!

[burythehatchet]

4. "pre-nuptial agreement"????????????

this notion of portraying JK and JE as a "couple" is something that the media is really pushing.

[CatWoman]

6. I'll pre-nuptial you

:hi:

Make sure you check my Majette thread in the Georgia Forum.

[burythehatchet]

44. Will do..

:hi:

[teamster633]

7. Showed the clip of *

sticking up for dick..."next"

[CatWoman]

8. actually, Kerry laughed at the clip

but you could see the disgust on Edwards' face.

[Hamlette]

5. I can't watch, would appreciate some hints n/t

[dweller]

9. John E delivers a smackdown on Stahl

'we've said it 10 times, it can't be any clearer' (i think that's it...)

Stahl can't get them to say they were wrong in voting for war, they have said given what they were for info, they don't regret the vote. But the *moron did not go about it right, did not have all the info (wmd's, they would have had the right info, etc)

she changed the subject.

ha.
dp

[Lex]

11. Essentially Edwards was politely saying "How stupid are you, Leslie?"

Then she changed the topic. Excellent.

[newsguyatl]

21. actually they're the ones who looked stupid there

it was painfully obvious they were trying to get out of answering the question.

i'm glad she moved on though.

[Lex]

51. No, they aren't taking the bait.

Not with soldiers actively in Iraq in harm's way will they say it was all a mistake.

Too much ammo for the repukes to scream that they aren't supporting our troops, etc.

[kat21]

101. As I recall -

Kerry was interrupted by her when he was trying to answer her question. It seemed they both were resolved that she was not going to let them finish.

[HFishbine]

23. Yeah, but

it was Edwards who looked uncooperative. She wasn't asking if he regreted his vote (of Edwards) she was asking if we sent men and women to Iraq needlesly, and he avoided answering.

[WolverineDG]

83. nah

if he was going to call her "stupid" in a polite southern way, he'd have said "bless your heart, leslie..."

;)

"bless your heart" = "you're so stupid" in southern. ;)

dg

[newsguyatl]

13. actually i don't think that was a smackdown

that was two politicos trying to get out of answering a possibly telling question... in fact, that's the one question i want answered out of BOTH men, and kerry just sat there and played dumb. KNOWING WHAT YOU DO NOW, do you think the war was wrong? it's simple john, answer it.


otherwise, very good interview. they're great together.


would have been on cloud nine though if both had answered that question.

[Still_Loves_John]

24. Actually, I thought it was a really good answer

Basically what they were saying was that, with the intelligence we had, it was right to kinda rev up to war. But that if we didn't rush like Bush did, we would have found out that there weren't any weapons, and war would have been avoided.

Their message is that at the start the Iraq war seemed like a good thing, but if we had taken it slower we would never have had to go.

[newsguyatl]

32. yeh, but that's a pussy answer.

they were too afraid to say the obvious -- the war was a MISTAKE!


HELLOOOOOOOO people!


looked like political cowards to me.

[Lex]

46. Sorry, but as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq

they will NOT say "it was a mistake."

That gives the repukes too much ammo to say "they are not supporting our troops" etc.

[Still_Loves_John]

47. No, thats the perfect answer.

You are comitting the same sin as so many on the right--you're oversimplifying the issue. It's not a black or white thing, there is nuance here. What they are saying is that when they authorized the president to go to war in Iraq, everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs. Now, what they are saying that that Bush abused their vote by never seriously considering any other options other than war, and because Bush rushed to war there was never any time to validate what most people thought. If Bush had been a little more thoughtful, we would have found out that there were no WMDs and not had to go to war.

[Blue_Roses]

87. Exactly!

and well said!

[AP]

92. I wouldn't be surprised if half the reason Bush started the war was to...

...lure democratic voters into oversimplifying the issue to the point that it becomes a wedge issue on the left. Or at least, they're not upset that it is. So, are Democratic voters going to stupidly take that bait or are we going to be smart?

[chimpymustgo]

48. Cowards use the female anatomy as a derogatory term.

Stop it.

[HFishbine]

58. Well

Their answers were soft and squishy.

[dweller]

45. but they did answer it, you are repeating Stahl's line

if they were to say now....'wish i hadn't voted for it' ...it would be a major right wing talking point and flip-flop.

They went with the info they were given, that 'we' now know (altho, we knew already) there were no wmds doesn't allow them to second guess there own decisions.

but the blame and problem has to lie with the *moron. . . who still tries to make a connection btwn Iraq/AQ and the 'plans to pursue the possibility of perhaps considering the activities of looking into' wmds or whatever the f*#k he calls it now.

dp

[prodigal_green]

59. Stahl tried to get Kerry to flip-flop

it was obvious that she was trying to get him to say that he didn't support the war. He has said several times that the chimp's handling of the war has been terrible. He has said several times that he voted to authorize the president to use war as a last resort. Asking if his vote was a mistake is the wrong question.

[aquart]

84. That's Hillary's answer.

Sorry, with a George Bush loose, you don't give that vote unless you're scared of being yelled at for being a wussy coward.

It was a gutless vote and most of our senators remain remorselessly guilty.

They trusted George with power they KNEW he couldn't be trusted with. I don't care how they cover their asses. This is the one they go to hell for.

[paulk]

95. they didn't trust him with anything

Bush had said repeatedly prior to the IWR that he didn't need the approval of Congress or the UN to go to war. In the end he didn't honor the IWR and he never got a war vote from the UN.

It's incorrect to say that the IWR authorized Bush to do what he did when he would have done it anyway. The IWR tried to place some restraints on him.

It's fascinating to me that the left uses the IWR to bash Kerry and the Democrats over the head. Karl and Dick must be laughing their asses off.

[prodigal_green]

99. I agree but

you can see how that would turn into another flip-flop accusation can't you?

It is one area where I think changing his mind would/could be a signal of strength, since a majority of voters are feeling the same way (supported, don't support now, think war is a mistake).

[HFishbine]

20. Yeah, but

the trouble is, he didn't say shit ten times. What he's making very clear is that they'd rather not give a straight answer.

[guajira]

43. HFishbine, Bitch Stahl was trying to get Kerry to say

he made a mistake!! She was trying for a "coup", but Kerry and Edwards were smart enough to not play her game! I'm glad they defended their decisions, otherwise the B* gang would have taken their answer and beat them up with it!

Kerry and Edwards looked and sounded great!!!

[HFishbine]

60. What happened to Edwards insistence

until tonight, apparently, that we were right to go? Last fall, on Hardball, he was adamant that he didn't regret his vote and that he thought we were right to attack. He wasn't as straight forward tonight for some reason.

[Lex]

62. Maybe a lot more info. has come out since the fall? n/t

[HFishbine]

65. Maybe

Should we really have to be guessing?

[Lex]

77. Well I guess I don't expect to know everything about their thinking

all at once. That's why I have to keep reading about them and watching interviews, etc.

[Blue_Roses]

89. Yeah, like maybe Colin Powell himself

saying there was deliberately wrong intel ...alot more has come out.

[thecrow]

104. Kerry even said...

"Leslie, I'm not going to play with you."

[dweller]

63. for all we know

there were 6-7 segments of questions cut out...we may have seen 1,2....9,10.
:shrug:

dp

[gulliver]

42. Their answer was right, but they didn't get it across well at all.

The correctly answered that the problem with the war was the way we got into it.

Would they say the war was wrong? Well, who knows for sure? That's what they should have said. Had we not rushed into war without solid evidence, we might not have gone to war at all. Or we might still have gone to war, only under John Kerry, it would have been done for the right reasons, at the right time, and with the right evidence.

Had we gone to war under Kerry, and who knows if we would, it would not have been done so recklessly, for such little evidence, and with such poor planning and international support.

Kerry and Edwards didn't do their homework on this one. They need to get their message straight.

[HFishbine]

56. If gulliver

can give an intelligent answer, surely Kerry and Edwards can too. Hopefully they'll do better in the future.

[wildeyed]

73. I got the same impression

They came across as uncooperative and unwilling to give a straight answer, even though the content of that answer was correct. And for the average american voter, impressions are everything, they really aren't much interested in content.

[Cush]

10. Teresa kicks ass

She said that when her late husband was giving money to the GOP, they never whined, but now they are

[newsguyatl]

19. she's ok, but i gotta be honest folks

she hasn't really impressed me yet.

elizabeth on the other hand, is a star. love her.

[wildeyed]

79. They are both great.

Theresa impresses me as someone who has her own mind. She is quirky and strong. Elizabeth is more mainstream in her appeal. She kind of reminds me of Katie Couric. Perky, smart and non-threatening. Both couples are great.

[southlandshari]

108. Oxymoron (or should I say oxymoran?) =)

"Smart" and "non-threatening" are incompatible traits this election year - you can't be both, whether you are a candidate, candidate's wife, etc...

I hope like hell that the entire current administration feels threatened by any and all "smart" people who are coming after them in November.

And one other point - "Perky" is an ill-advised term to use if you are trying to be complimentary to an intelligent woman, IMHO. Others may disagree with me. I just think it smacks of cheerleader rather than valedictorian (and yes, I know you can be both, because I WAS both, way back when). But I left "perky" behind a long time ago.

Wildeyed, welcome to DU (I've been around here a LOT longer than my post count might indicate). Please know I'm not attacking you personally, and stick around. This post just hit some hot buttons with me - apologies in advance if I sound harsh.

[wildeyed]

111. too funny, southlandshari

Cracking on ME for not being enough of a feminist. But being both a threating AND smart woman, I'm gonna say I am entitled to my opinion.

Sorry you took issue with the word "perky". I don't consider it a slam. Try "smooth" or "has social skill" or "nice" instead. She is really, really smart, too. You're from the south, so you know that "nice" goes a long long way here, whether you think it an important trait in a woman or not.

[southlandshari]

106. I'm with you

Elizabeth Edwards was easily the most articulate and interesting person on camera in the 60 Minutes piece last night (followed closely by her husband).

I've read all kinds of great things about Teresa, and have seen or heard at least a couple of good sound bytes of her on tv/radio in past weeks, but was really nonplussed by her last night. It was the first time I'd seen and heard from her up close and personal, and it was disappointing. And Kerry seemed really ill at ease sitting next to her.

* and Pickles deserve every bit of criticism thrown their way for abysmal public appearances. While the Kerrys were much better than the current "First Couple" might be on their best day, it was still weird to watch. I don't think it is helpful to our side to pretend otherwise.

Maybe I just need to watch it again. Does anyone have a link to video from last night's interview with Stahl?

[ArnoldLayne]

49. Teresa tells it

the way it is I like her alot.:bounce:

[samsingh]

12. they did fantastic on the interview

all four are charming, fantastic, bright, and caring.

there is some hope.

[Still_Loves_John]

14. That "look at their hands" thing was a low blow

and she keeps cutting off their answers, but I think they're doing well. I liked it when they were talking about the Iraq war and both went "That's the point" at the same time. They were saying that if President Bush had tried other options, we probably would have discovered there were no weapons and would not have had to go to war, but she kept pressing them.

[hezekkia]

71. Teresa

while I was impressed that Teresa pointed out the republicans' hypocrisy in pointing out her wealth, overall I thought she did TERRIBLY.

1) What the HELL was she doing with her hands before the interview? She looked like a freak, and i was afraid she and John K. were about to get into a fistfight.

2) Leslie Stahl asked Elizabeth E. if she could call her Elizabeth, and Elizabeth says "of course." Then Stahl asks Teresa if she can call her Teresa, and Teresa says "NO." WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT WOMAN. Was that a joke? That joke is NOT going to go over well, and makes her appear snooty (wealth, plus international accent, plus "don't call me by my first name" = bad combination).

3) Stahl asked how the honeymoon (i.e. between the candidates familes) was going (VERY STUPID QUESTION, btw), and Teresa stood there like a deer in headlights for about 4 seconds. Finally Elizabeth answered for her.

I dunno... she scares me... Kerry definitely needs to downplay his wife in this election.

[Kat45]

88. As for your point # 2, of course it was a joke!

I got it; found it somewhat amusing.

[LittleApple81]

100. Question: does she call Laura Bush Laura? I don't know, but it

seems to me she should start by using the more formal address AS A MATTER OF RESPECT.

[thecrow]

105. I agree about the "hands thing"

That was terribly undignified.
She apparently didn't want to hold hands at that moment and JK seemed to want to. As it seemed to be pre-interview stuff, I think it should have been cut out of the footage, but then I'm not CBS.

And the question about "Can I call you Tere-ees-a?" and her answer NO " Maybe that was because Stahl was clearly mispronouncing her name! JK CLEARLY calls his wife "Ter-aze-a". Maybe she is just being indignant that they can't get her name right.

I thought her answers were very poignant, especially the one about her deceased husband supporting the Republicans.

I like Tereeeeza alot and am looking forward to having an outspoken woman as first lady. We've had Stepford wives too long!

[Wind Dancer]

15. Filmed this weekend!

Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards play such an important role in this campaign. I was so moved by both of their speeches yesterday at the Raleigh rally, I was able to shake the hands of everyone except Elizabeth - Kerry, Edwards and Teresa looked me in the eyes and said thank you. I was so impressed with the sincerity of their commitment after hearing them in person, a great day in NC!

[Wind Dancer]

16. OOPS, dupe!

[PCIntern]

17. WOW!

Teresa really let that phony have it. she's really articulate and the use of her deceased husband twice was brilliant. Then, you must also understand that Edwards' wife made two excellent points, including that Kerry must have some charisma...since this wonderful Teresa married him. Jiu-jitsu interview. she really beat the crap out of Stahl.

You can make the case that Stahl's questions were good inasmuch as they are the RW talking points - they were parried wonderfully.

[newsguyatl]

26. why is everyone here so hostile to stahl?

jesus.

i thought she was extremely friendly and gave a great interview. (though she did interrupt a little too much)

[Blue_Roses]

91. she's an incompetent

reporter. She stumbles her interviews alot. her interviews don't flow and often appear forced.

[Shopaholic]

28. Loved Teresa & Elizabeth in this interview--they kicked butt!

And the two Johns weren't that bad either!

[kstewart33]

96. Thought Teresa and Elizabeth were great too

I like Teresa alot. She's her own woman, answers questions her own way. Interesting with depth. Elizabeth is more mainstream America, will connect better with middle America. Both are great.

Guys, we're lucky to have them.

[HFishbine]

18. Their answers on the war, was it right or wrong...

are not going to cut it. Stahl asked Edwards, you've said you will never send young men and women to war needlessly, were they sent to Iraq needlesly? Edwards insistence that they had answered that was evasive and insulting.

Sorry Johns, but you're going to have to make up your minds. Was it right or wrong to go into Iraq? This "Bush did it the wrong way" crap is not an answer to that question. We're in deep doo-doo if we don't get some straight answers.

[PCIntern]

22. No offense, but you're wrong...

it is an issue of the Senate not being told the truth compounded with the vote to AUTHORIZE the Chimp to go to War...not TO GO TO WAR. What is the matter with everyone?

[HFishbine]

29. So say you

Did Edwards or Kerry say that? I didn't think so.

[newsguyatl]

36. looks like you and i are on the same page hfishbine.

[HFishbine]

41. How about that.

And I read today that you're from NC. Guess you can't be all that bad. ;) Where in NC, if I may ask?

[PCIntern]

40. OK...

One more time...

It's like asking the question: Do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?

Kerry and other Senators, rightly or wrongly, voted to AUTHORIZE him to go to war if and only if all other avenues were closed at the end of the day. I'm not saying that any of this was a good idea, but that's what they voted for. They didn't DECLARE WAR. Bush did that and we're all gonna pay the high price. Their contention is that they were lied to by an assortment of folk (of course we all knew that beforehand) and then Kerry voted to withhold the additional funds as a protest vote. But it is apparrently just to complex for the American people. That's why Iran-Copntra didn't go where it should have - because the average person couldn't fathom three or four facts' connections.

[HFishbine]

52. One more time

You make the case for your answer by rephrasing the question. What's the answer to this question: Were men and women sent to Iraq needlessly?

It's not about their votes, or about how Bush went about it, but as a matter of policy, were men and women sent to Iraq needlessly? It's not a trick question and a straight answer will being with a yes or no.

[PCIntern]

81. Yes...

but that's not the whole answer...

The fault lies at the feet of the Bush Administration no matter how you slice it. That's how they're answering the question.

Look, if I lie to you and say that your best friend has been in an auto accident and you have to donate blood right away, and you do, and then you find that I'm lying, the blood donation, while you had the best intentions, was unnecessary. Everything changed when you found out that it was all a lie.

(That's not to say that someone else might not benefit but that's belaboring the point.)

That's the story here - that's been their answer - that they based their votes on fallacious info., then everything changed. If they say that they regret it, then it's an official flip-flop of which they're not guilty. But the RW machine will blow this way out of proportion.

[still_one]

30. Listen, I am voting for Kerry no matter what, but

it was "WRONG" to go into Iraq.

Remember Afganistan, al queada, Oshma bin Laden, Mullough Omar?

They had better admit it was a mistake!

[Catt03]

68. He SAID his vote was not a mistake

from what he knew at the time.

There....

[sampsonblk]

37. What on earth is the difference?

Everyone in the Senate knew that Bush was going to war. The troops were already in position for the most part. Under those circumstances, a yes vote is the same as voting for the war.

[sampsonblk]

27. Same here - we need a real answer

That cutesy stuff is going to get them in trouble. You can get away with that one some issues - but not the major ones.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

35. They need to come clean and take a stand.

one way or the other.

This plays right into the GOP talking point about waffling.

[NNN0LHI]

74. So says you

Its like asking someone when they quit beating their wife. Ain't no right answer. To take a firm stand on something as fluid as the Iraq situation and one that Bush has control over is playing into the GOP's hands. Kerry is way too smart for that. So forget it. Ain't happening. You don't like the way Kerry/Edwards are handling it vote for Bush if it makes you feel better. You will know what you are getting there if thats what you require.

Don

[sampsonblk]

94. Not even close

Asking someone if they quit beating their wife is a loaded question. Asking someone if they think we should have gone into Iraq or not is more than fair.

A man worthy of being president should be able to answer this question directly and without these political considerations that you suggest. Its a pretty simple question. And the public has a right to know.

Bush can answer it. Nader can answer it. Other Dem candidates answered it. Our party faithful have answered it.

"You don't like the way Kerry/Edwards are handling it vote for Bush..." Can't we all get along?

[NNN0LHI]

97. Asking for a firm position on a situation that changes daily...

...is a loaded question. Nader can say anything because he has no chance of winning anything and therefore has nothing to lose. Bush can answer because he is like the monkey caught with his hand in the cookie jar and won't let go. Kerry/Edwards have no idea what the situation in Iraq will be like in November. Neither do you or I. I am more interested in what they plan to do after they take office. That will be plenty soon enough for me. Because by then the whole Iraq situation will be different than it is right now.

Don

[sampsonblk]

103. Nonsense

Don, I appreciate the fact that you are a strong supporter of the ticket, but this thing about the loaded question is nonsense.

Saying invading Iraq was unnecessary is not dependent on what happens daily in Iraq. The wisdom (or lack thereof) of invading Iraq does not does not fluctuate with the situation. These are two separate issues.

For my part, I wouldn't bet a dime on what will happen tomorrow in Iraq. But I can still say - as many have said all along - that it was wrong to go in there under false pretenses in the first place.

Kerry and Edwards cannot keep tip-toeing around the most important issue of the election. They are going to have to take a stand at some point. Or Bush will slap them in the face with it during the debates. And that will be a kick-butt moment in favor of the right-wingers.

[NNN0LHI]

107. I agree with you Sam. I really do. But its no good man

Saying what you are suggesting makes complete sense to you and I. But that ain't enough. Got to get past the right wing media lying, and distorting that position into Kerry being a Saddam apologist. Yea. If Kerry says his vote was a mistake now that will easily be equated to him saying he wished Saddam was back in power in Iraq. Same result if he were to have voted against the IWR. Think about that for a moment. No one could get elected president talking that shit. See what I mean now?

Don

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

31. I agree..this was a jarring note.

They are going to come clean and take a stand on this.

[Connie_Corleone]

33. That's the only thing I don't like.

I don't like their answer on the Iraq war vote. I don't know. I think it would be better if they just admit that the vote for the war resolution was a mistake. I guess they're looking at how the voters will perceive their answer.

I think it would be noble to admit they made a mistake. But that's just me.

[Lex]

39. As long as soldiers are over there in Iraq, they're not going

to flat out say "It was wrong."

Not with active soldiers on the ground. They won't say it.

It will give the repukes too much to scream about--"not supporting the troops" etc etc

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

50. Then they need to say it was right.

Listen, the big argument the GOP is going to use is Kerrys waffling flip-flopping, and maybe on Edwards. With Edwards it will be 'hes a weasel word lawyer".

Now if they duck questions w. flip flops and weasle words they are going to play right into the GOP strategey.

This is a serious point and they need to figure out which way they are going to go. Either the war was right, or it wasnt.

They need to be clear because the voters will see right through spin or nonanswers. Thats going to turn folks off.

[Lex]

54. No, what they said was it is not a black or white issue.

It is not as simple as 100% right or 100% wrong. Not now. We have soldiers on the ground there now--U.S. interests in trying to keep the peace now that Bush has them over there.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

61. Yeah, but we are dealing with TV and the average voter.

These nuanced answers wont play in today political environment. We should know that by now.

[Lex]

64. I think the American people know it is a complicated situation.

I think the American people know we were all lied to and misled.

And that we have soldiers to try to protect there now.

[seabeyond]

69. doesnt do it for you, makes perfect sense for me

especially as i saw and remember it all grow, and not just looking at it from this point.

i think how they are explaining it, is a straight answer. what i dont get, is why you dont get it. and why the media doesnt get it. cause i get it

[paulk]

98. "Bush did it the wrong way"

I honestly don't understand what you find wrong with that answer. The two Johns were very clear - if Bush had done it the right way - the way Kerry and Edwards would have done it - the arms inspectors would have found no WMD - and there would have been no war.

No political candidate who is vying for the role of commander in chief can call a military action a "mistake" when American troops are on the ground and taking casualties. It would be the height of stupidity. It would guarantee a lost election.

And then we really would be in some deep doo-doo.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

25. Leslie Stahl was very tough on that war question...Edwards....

...right back at her.

That was a wierd moment.

I like the wives. Tereza Heinz is like some contessa. Very elegant and composed. Mrs Edwards was a good old gal. Sweet.

[Cocoa]

34. all four of them DESPISE Bush

you could tell.

Especially after Stahl played the clip of Bush, the looks on their faces, I'd give anything to hear what they were actually thinking...

[Wind Dancer]

38. I missed it!

Can anybody load it here so I can see it. I really wanted to watch it but had no idea it was already 7:30. Thanks!

[Zomby Woof]

53. thanks for the heads-up!

I still have 2.5 hours out here before it airs...

Did you see the Big Dog interview a few weeks ago? I am enjoying his book... when I laugh out loud at some of his anecdotes, I have to share them with Katy, lol.

[mzmolly]

55. Shittttt! I missed it.

:(

[Imperialism Inc.]

57. They did great.

They certainly do give off a vibe of liking each other. Edwards socked Kerry on the arm in a good buddy kind of way. I still say Clinton and Gore did it better though. I remember Hillary and Tipper going on the morning shows and giggling and having a good time like a couple of school girls.

They did tap dance around the war question but that is smart to stay on message like that. They leave it open so you can interpret it any way you like.

Kerry nailed it on the millionaire question. "Who said that? You mean George Bush the millionaire and Cheney the millionaire or Rumsfeld the millionaire. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in my life!!"

[chimpymustgo]

66. They were all TERRIFIC.

nt

[ArnoldLayne]

75. I liked that

too about which millionaire said that.:evilgrin:

[scarletwoman]

67. All very impressive, EXCEPT for their Iraq invasion tap dance.

As someone else already posted, it was "the one jarring note" -- VERY jarring, imho, particularily in contrast to how smooth and honest the rest of the interview came off.

I thought Ms. Stahl did them a HUGE favor by dropping the subject. I was cringing through that whole bit -- C'MON! Come CLEAN, dammit! -- and couldn't believe the outright act of mercy that Leslie performed in finally letting them off the hook.

Everything else was GREAT. But they have GOT to put out a MUCH more coherent message about the invasion. It was so OBVIOUS that they were doing the hoary politician sidestep on the war question that it was downright embarrassing.

sw

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

70. "I'll answer this"...Edwards holding Kerry back a bit....

They blew that question. And it was such an important question.

Frankly, Id thought they'd handle that better than they did.

[guajira]

78. Embarrassing for you maybe

but I loved how they made Leslie keep trying to make them say exactly what she wanted them to!

Kerry and Edwards showed her they weren't going to be manipulated by her sorry ass - and then she had to back down and change the subject, FINALLY. Sure made her look like the fool she is!!!

[mourningdove92]

72. I thought they all did great. Kerry called Stahl on her war question

right off the bat. He said to her that she was "playing"

I am as anti Iraq war as they come, but if those two had said that our soldiers were sent into war needlessly, the campaign and our hopes would be over. They did answer her question, they just did not give her what she was digging for....DIRT. What they did say is that if Smirk had done his job, we would never have had to go into Iraq. They put the ball right back into Smirks court, where it belongs.

[dweller]

80. Bingo!

do not lose the focus.....this is the *moron's war, let him answer the question, let him take responsibilty for the 1st time in his privileged life for all the lives lost and lack of wmd's.

Kerry and Edwards should not have to prove a negative.

dp

[DaveSZ]

82. Stahl tried to make them look bad imo

They did reasonably well, but danced around the Iraq quesiton.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

86. Of course she did.

..and that should have been expected.

What was suprising is that they weren't prepared to handle this inevitable hard question with some clarity.

[annagull]

76. They have GOT to get it together on the Iraq issue

So they are still saying they would vote the same way knowing what we know now? America has turned against this war, and they better have a black and white answer because George Bush sure as hell does. Christ, this is bumpersticker politics, fair or not, and these nuanced wishy washy answers are not going to win us the election. People want to hear this:
I'M JOHN KERRY AND I WILL GET AMERICA OUT OF THIS MESS IN IRAQ.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

85. You are exactley correct.

They need clarity on this.

[3trievers]

90. votes would be the same

but John Edwards said a President Kerry would have moved slowly,investigated,allowed inspectors and would have not entered Iraq.

[Cats Against Frist]

93. I don't think it was the end of the world

but I do think there were about a hundred better ways that they could have responded to the question.

What happened is that Stahl MADE them look like they were trying to dodge it, by the way she kept asking the question.

They basically answered "yes" it was a mistake to go to war in the way that we did, when we did.

But they can't throw out there that they think that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in ANY aggressive action -- even if they think that it should be UN sanctioned, or have broad-based support. Hell -- I don't even agree with that, and I'm pretty much a pacifist, and I recognize the foreign policy decisions that have created this situation.

They COULD have said that their vote wasn't a mistake, but the "loss of American lives" was unacceptable -- they could have been more strong, on points like that.

But on national television, in an election where "homeland security" and the "war on terror" is an issue -- they CANNOT look weak on this question.

Even for all the shit that Bush pulled -- the best we may have is that it was a mistake, "when" and "how." I wish it wasn't like that -- and we could have a real national dialogue on the history and the ramifications of our past (and present) policies toward the Middle East -- but we won't.

[JDPriestly]

102. The answer to THE QUESTION.

If you want to know what Kerry and Edwards voted for regarding the Iraq War and why they and so many otherwise honorable men voted as they did, read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" pages 140, et seq., under the heading "Deceiving Congress - An Impeachable Offense." Also see Public Law 107-243 on www.findlaw.com and Bush's formal "determination" responding to that law sent on March 18, 2003.

Dean's pages 146-151 are especially interesting

[southlandshari]

109. kick

kick for a link to the entire interview. Anyone?

[jab105]

110. I was very disappointed in their answer about the Iraq war...

they had to know it was coming, and they need a better answer or they will lose...I dont care what you guys say about justifying it, at some point, they have to take a stand.

They can still support the troops...but given current informaiton, they have to see that it was the wrong choice.

I'm sure a speechwriter could make it come across beautifully...bt honestly, when I was watching it on tv last night, I felt sick to my stomach, it was a horrible answer, absolutely awful!