Edwards was warm, engaging, firm, and unflappable, was able to weave his themes into

[Ninga]

his answers and was stand up and adult in his assessment of Clinton.

That was ALL he had to do last night. No less, no more.

The next debate is Nov. 15th, and Edwards will score a trifecta.....being strong once again.

Please remember, his media buys are still in the wings, and will hit the airwaves at the opportune time....which is when the average voter (not Du'ers) finally decides to pay attention.

What we are witnessing in Edwards is the unfolding of a confident, focused candidate who is not being defined by others, but is his own person.

I wish him the very best, and hope that he is able to overcome the big $$$ and the polls...because if he does.....he will be a stellar President.

[AndyA]

1. Yes, Edwards I hear has some awesome creatives ready to roll when the time is right.

He just needs to keep doing what he's doing.

America wants change. They voted for it in November 2006, and got something less than what they wanted. America will vote for change again in 2008, but this time I think it will be even more widespread.

Change is desperately needed, and Edwards is the only one without all those ties to lobbyists and corporate interests that seem to have so much control over government lately. When Edwards is President, the big corporate greed we've been susceptible to will come to an end.

I don't agree with Edwards 100% on everything, but I do know America needs change, and I can't see any of the others doing that. Dodd and Kucinich could if given the chance, but I just don't see that happening.

I was proud of Edwards last night. He made his points, and spoke the truth.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I thought he was awful...sweaty, attacking, ugly...it was not good for him

I commented on another post about the visual: smaller Clinton in-between the two men who kept attacking and gesturing towards her and facing her with their attacks. It did not look good for Edwards. I will not be surprised if this sinks him.

It became too personal--and they were chided by Richardson and Biden.

[Ninga]

3. It takes an enormous amount of courage to step onto a stage and debate and defend

your views.

Debates are not a patty cake, play nice, oh can't we all get along event.

It would seem to me, that your assessment is without policy substance and just plain 'ole emotional.

If Edwards is to be sunk.....so be it.......but it will not be because of last night.

His policy initiatives speak to the core of what is so very wrong in Washington DC. The poor and the working class have been forgotten by most politicians and Edwards just plain "gets it".

Another poster this morning said it very well........Edwards and Obama have had to struggle and fight and work very hard to achieve and get to this place.......it is a fact that needs to be remembered and considered.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. emotional? What a load of crap

Those that believe Edwards and Obama did well, are listening to the hyperbole and not the substance. Obama said she was not answering the social security question--and that is enough for you. Because he got out the attack, he wins. But...he was then asked to state what she said that was different than he believed--and he could not say it. In fact he agreed with Clinton's answer and said that he believes the same.

So, attempt to dismiss by analysis as 'emotional' (I find that very sexist and offensive, by the way). But you are not even looking past the zingers to the stubstance. Sure they said "nanny nanny boo boo" to her--but when asked to go deeper they could not.

[Ninga]

7. Substance trumps crap each and every time... just watch it unfold before your very eyes.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. exactly

And Obama only got zingers and when it came to follow-up with substance he failed.

[Ninga]

11. Nonetheless, Obama delivered substance and won debate points. Follow-up is

typical and expected in debate.

People who coach debating skills, coach how to answer in the follow-up.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. what?

He did not follow-up--that was his problem. I think we are having two different conversations.

[Ninga]

16. Oh, perhaps we are....but in my view Obama did score some debate points.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Desperate, huh?

Ugly? Personal? Can we say hyperbole?

:rofl:

NGU.

[IA_Seth]

5. Unfortunately, I agree..

I don't know if last night's attacks will play well, it's probably too early to tell (and it all depends on how the media portrays it), but JE and BO being on either side of Hillary, going back and forth between them... well I just think it's ammo they didn't necessarily need to give.

[Ninga]

8. Debate points scored are not attacks, they are points made and points won.

[IA_Seth]

24. And as a JE or BO supporter, that's how you'll see it...

But as an undecided I think it is easy to see it differently, that's my point. We'll see how it plays out in the polls I guess, so far the reactions seem to be split from what I can tell.

Seeing two taller men surrounding Hillary and speaking to her like they are disgusted (rightly or wrongly) might not come across as Presidential to some viewers.

[petepillow]

17. He wasn't the only sweaty one, but aside from some annoying blinking he was very good I thought.

He would make an excellent VP to Biden, IMHO.
I say that because I like Biden a lot, but Edwards is definitely an excellent candidate and I wouldn't have to cover my eyes as I pulled the lever in the booth.

[Catchawave]

19. Edwards did just fine, calling a candidate "ugly" is personal.

Richardson is running for Hillary's VP, he scored points with her !

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. I meant his demeanor

his attacks were ugly. He did not come across as presidential. He came across as personally attacking a democrat.

[LSK]

25. Debate, n

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6. to participate in a formal debate.
7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

[Ninga]

26. Wonderful and thank you!!

[saracat]

27. But if Hillary is supposed to be such an"attack " dog and able to Handle the RW

why should this matter? Can't have it both ways.You are either equal to the male candidates and able to handle yourself or you aren't.Comments like this are playing the gender card and it is disgusting. Hillary is a coporatist candidate and Edwards, dodd and Obama were correct to mow her down. She doesn't deserve special treatment because she is a "woman".

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. Special treatment? She did get special treatment--treatment none of the others had or could have

handled. They bombarded her with attacks from all sides including the media. And she handled it with grace and dignity. She is one tough woman.

Not one of those men has ever had to withstand those types of attacks. And until they do--perhaps they shouldn't criticize.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. I felt Edwards has his strongest night. He was very good.

[Ninga]

14. Nov. 15th is the next debate. For those of us who follow closely, we get to witness the

unfolding dynamic (if there is one).

Political campaigns are like live musical performances.....one good performance does not make a career if you bomb in the next........


I would like to think and believe that Edwards has the chops to navigate through this unbelievably difficult process....and now.....with electronic instant communication and the media picking their darlings....who knows??

[youthere]

13. Okay..I'm not an Edwards supporter, but here is my take:

I think of the top three last night Edwards did the best. To be honest, my impression of Edwards is that he's always been kind of wishy-washy, but the way he pressed Clinton last night was a welcome surprise to me. Towards the end he did start to come across as being a little petty and downright bitchy, but I kind of have the feeling he was enjoying watching Clinton get ruffled as much as I was.;)
Obama did well too, I liked seeing him step into a more agressive stance, but it was clear that it wasn't comfortable for him. He wasn't as polished as he normally is (and no, I'm not an Obama supporter), and you could tell when he was thinking on his feet because he stumbled more...but STILL was able to deliver his point. Impressive, but it shows his newness. Edwards was smooth, all night, but what I got from him and Obama was not so much a clear picture on how they stand out from the other candidates on issues, but more that they can "get Hillary pissed" (and it was clear that she was). Ultimately, that's what last night became was a "who can make Hillary madder" contest between the two of them. Dodd even got in a couple of kicks.
All in all, I liked seeing this side of Edwards, and it makes me feel more comfortable knowing he has the ability to get tough when necessary. Since I believe he will win Iowa, it makes me feel much more confident in him (though I hope my man Joe will be giving him a run for his money). I would have always supported John Edwards in the GE, with some reservations, and now I can say that I would confidently support him in the GE (though I still gotta'pull for Biden in the primary!)

[surfermaw]

31. Run John Run, then bring Joe with you

Would like to see come Jan.2009 ...President John Edwards and Vice President Joe Biden



JOHN amd JOE....sound American , doesn't

[rjones2818]

15. My problem with JE last night

(and mind you, he's in my bottom three with BO and HRC) was that he was apologizing so much that it made me wonder why I would vote for someone who makes so many big mistakes.

[Ninga]

18. Please understand that candidates in a TV forum are going to play to the larger

audience who may not follow politics like we do

So.

It is most likley that there were many viewers who heard JE for the first time.

[monmouth]

20. Joe Biden outclassed all of them...If he only got the "air time" as the rest...

Joe is ready for the "first tier"..whatever that means. I agree the second tier has much going for it over the first.

[Ninga]

21. Biden was very good. However, Dodd, Edwards and Obama were just as classy. The name

of the game is "traction"......

Everyone has the exact same opportunity to plan their strategy.

Edwards is showing how to keep pace and make points, and it is not money that is doing it for him....it is his strategy.

Biden has the same opportunity.

[laureloak]

22. Edwards did an excellent job of cornering Hillary.

Now I see what a game player she is. Her whole platform is based on how she can "play politics".

[laureloak]

23. Great, great, great.

[calteacherguy]

29. He was a jackass. nt

[Donnachaidh]

35. wow -- that's mature

:eyes:

[Ninga]

36. Your post says more about you, than Edwards.

[creeksneakers2]

32. Edwards came off as desperate, cheap and petty

His personal attacks on Hillary backfired on him. At one point, the other candidates started to back Hillary against him and point out how Edwards takes money from hedge funds and trial lawyers groups. Edwards had to sheepishly admit he's not perfect either. Edwards looked like a punk who got put in his place because that's what he was.

I was starting to like Edwards when he came out against military spending but last night took him down a long way on my scorecard.

[1932]

34. I'd like to see that scene you describe. Is it on YouTube?

[creeksneakers2]

37. From transcripts:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528787/page/11/

EDWARDS:..... And so the question, I think, that voters have to ask themselves is: Do you believe that the candidate who's raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican, the candidate who's raised the most money from the health industry, drug companies, health insurance companies, the candidate who's raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican or Democrat -- and the answer to all of those questions is: That's Senator Clinton.

Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't.

And I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate. That's what I believe.......

(snip)

RICHARDSON:..... No, and I'm positive. You know what I'm hearing here? I'm hearing this holier than thou attitude towards Senator Clinton that -- it's bothering me because it's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need. Do we trust her? Do we -- did she take money from special interests?

We need to be positive in this campaign. Yes, we need to point out our differences. And I have big differences with her over the war -- I would get all our troops out -- over No Child Left Behind -- I'd get rid of it. I also have differences over Iran. I think that was the wrong vote for her to cast because I think it was saber-rattling.

But I think it's important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans. If we continue, I believe, harping on the past and not focusing on the future -.........

(snip)

DODD: .....We as a party certainly have to take that into consideration. But let me add, since the matter's been brought up here as well, this situational ethics situation does bother me in a sense, what Bill Richardson has alluded to. My friend John Edwards here, certainly taking money from the trial bar, special interest group, here to be condemning one candidate for taking money from one group as opposed to another........

(snip)

WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, do you want to take 30 seconds and respond on situational ethics?

EDWARDS: I do. First of all, let me be absolutely clear about this. I think I said it a few minutes ago. Nobody on this stage is pure, and that absolutely includes me. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be.....

(snip)

WILLIAMS: Congressman Kucinich. You're smiling. Why?

KUCINICH: Well, I'm glad to hear people take a stand for integrity. When people get money from New York hedge funds and then they attack another person for getting money from Washington interest groups, you know what? They're both right. So I'm not going to get in the middle of that one.....

[1932]

39. Why'd you snip his answer?

The part you are criticizing is the part that was so powerful, Edwards sent a link around by email the next day. Here's what you left out (and you can watch it at the link below). You really think he looked bad with this answer????



It is true that I, like Senator Obama, have taken no money from Washington lobbyists in this campaign and no money from special interest PACs. But I am not interested in patting myself on the back, or actually talking about anybody personally on this stage.

I completely disagree with what Bill said. This is not about the past. This is about the future. This is about whether we believe this system works. I mean, we are here in Philadelphia where the founding fathers decided that the power, the sovereign power in this government should not reside with the rich and the powerful. It ought to reside with the people.

And everybody in America can see what is happening now. We don't have universal health care because of drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists.

The reason we haven't tackled global warming is because of oil companies, power companies and their lobbyists.

http://johnedwards.com/watch/debate/

[Ninga]

38. It was a debate. Please see your Webster's for a definition. You can crab and cry all

you want, but it is the game of politics.

[bvar22]

33. Make no mistake, "If you want combat troops fighting in Iraq till 2012,

vote for Hillary."