New Hampshire debate on ABC

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: daveymark
FINALLY, obama and hillary are getting into it! juicy!

You see what Hillary did there? She brought Edwards into it when she implied that Obama was misleadingly attacking her and Edwards. By saying that he is doing it both of them, she subtly tries to get some merit. She knows Edwards isn't her problem, but Obama certainly is. She's using Edwards to gang up on Obama without Edwards even saying a damn thing.

Yeah but it backfired on her when Edwards tore in to her.

:thumbsup:

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
What channel is this on? I can't find it at all!

ABC.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: daveymark
FINALLY, obama and hillary are getting into it! juicy!

You see what Hillary did there? She brought Edwards into it when she implied that Obama was misleadingly attacking her and Edwards. By saying that he is doing it both of them, she subtly tries to get some merit. She knows Edwards isn't her problem, but Obama certainly is. She's using Edwards to gang up on Obama without Edwards even saying a damn thing.

Yeah but it backfired on her when Edwards tore in to her.

:thumbsup:

Hillary has been pretty desperate so far in this debate. Shes gone offensive on Obama and so far its not working.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
What channel is this on? I can't find it at all!

http://tvlistings.aol.com/list...standard?zipcode=29715

ABC

Just change the zip

 

[daveymark]

whatever channel you usually watch LOST is the channel the debate is on.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: daveymark
FINALLY, obama and hillary are getting into it! juicy!

You see what Hillary did there? She brought Edwards into it when she implied that Obama was misleadingly attacking her and Edwards. By saying that he is doing it both of them, she subtly tries to get some merit. She knows Edwards isn't her problem, but Obama certainly is. She's using Edwards to gang up on Obama without Edwards even saying a damn thing.

Yeah but it backfired on her when Edwards tore in to her.

Yup! :thumbsup:

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: GenHoth
What channel is this on? I can't find it at all!

http://tvlistings.aol.com/list...standard?zipcode=29715

ABC

Just change the zip

Thanks guys, KCRG here! So far the part I caught was very boring.

 

[Pabster]

Obama is phenomenal tonight. Clear, concise, and on top of his game. The other 3 look and sound terrible.

Obama hints that he could create a working majority with (some) Republicans and Independents. Particularly those who have felt disillusioned and left out the past 7 years.

He may be right.

 

[Wreckem]

My break down of the Republican debate is this.

Huckabee won, he stayed out of the attacks for the most part. He articulated his ideas on healthcare, which were different from the rest.

Thompson came in second. Did suprisingly well I though, considering most people thought he would drop out. He got some accurate barbs in on Romney. Articulated his ideas fairly well.

McCain got the better of Romney, even if they went on and on about illegal immigration.

Paul got some decent points in, he stayed away from his more radical points, but he participated the least, which probably wasnt his fault.

Giuliani, 9/11, 9/11... 9/11 isnt going to win him the race. National security is his only issue. This election is going to come down to 66% domestic issues and 33% international. He didnt do as bad of Romney, but he didn't do that great.

Romney. Romney blew it, atleast with the GOP, with his "mandate" on healthcare. Basically saying he'd bring the MA system to the federal govt. He is the biggest RINO of the bunch. Although Giuliani is up there with him.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Obama is phenomenal tonight. Clear, concise, and on top of his game. The other 3 look and sound terrible.

Obama hints that he could create a working majority with (some) Republicans and Independents. Particularly those who have felt disillusioned and left out the past 7 years.

He may be right.

Theres already a bipartisan coalition amongst the blue dogs and moderate republicans in Congress. He wouldn't have to do much. If Bush wasn't so partisan he could had them supporting him instead of opposing him...

 

[daveymark]

Richardson is the funny fat kid no one really pays attention to

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Richardson is the funny fat kid no one really pays attention to

Maybe, but he is the most coherent.

Unless he refuses, he will be on Obama's or Clinton's ticket as VP.

 

[daveymark]

that slimy bitch hillary interrupted edwards, the question was asked to him directly too :thumbsdown::|

 

[bamacre]

:thumbsup: for Richardson for answering a question, and honestly.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: bamacre
:thumbsup: for Richardson for answering a question, and honestly.

yup and :thumbsdown: to obama and hillary for ducking it

 

[daveymark]

overall, richardson was the funniest, hillary continued her slide downward. edwards and obama pretty much stayed the same

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: bamacre
:thumbsup: for Richardson for answering a question, and honestly.

yup and :thumbsdown: to obama and hillary for ducking it

Exactly.

The sad things is, these days, if you want to find the most honest candidates, you have to start looking at the bottom of the polls instead of the top.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Theres already a bipartisan coalition amongst the blue dogs and moderate republicans in Congress. He wouldn't have to do much. If Bush wasn't so partisan he could had them supporting him instead of opposing him...

A bipartisan coalition, but not in the White House. Which holds the veto pen.

You can attack Bush for being partisan, but let's be real. So have the other Presidents. Clinton only got things done because his hand was forced by Republican takeover in 1994, and an electorate clamoring for change. Eerily reminiscent of today.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: bamacre
:thumbsup: for Richardson for answering a question, and honestly.

yup and :thumbsdown: to obama and hillary for ducking it

Exactly.

The sad things is, these days, if you want to find the most honest candidates, you have to start looking at the bottom of the polls instead of the top.

It was a meaingless question, and really Obama answered truthfully, he's happy how hes preformed. I dont think theres anything hed take back, maybe more polish, but not take back.

As for Hillary, its clear she would have taken back the comments from the Dec debate where she made a fool of herself(and let Obama come back), over drivers licenses for illegals.

 

[Drakkon]

Watching the repugs now - RP isnt saying too much in the immigration debate but romney is getting eaten alive. Thompson, Guilliani, Mccain all ganged up on him. it was great

 

[AliasX]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Obama is phenomenal tonight. Clear, concise, and on top of his game. The other 3 look and sound terrible.

Obama hints that he could create a working majority with (some) Republicans and Independents. Particularly those who have felt disillusioned and left out the past 7 years.

He may be right.

Really? It seemed to me as though he was a soothsayer, he never actually set down any precise facts. In fact, he didn't even mention anything he would do. He did say that we can do "something" together. You know, achieve change. (All change is good change, look at Bush) He didn't really mention any credentials because I don't think he has many.

What the hell, I might as well toss my vote at the guy who says America will do it together (still don't really know what it is we are going to do) and doesn't have much of a record to speak of. Can't go wrong, you know.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: AliasX

Originally posted by: Pabster
Obama is phenomenal tonight. Clear, concise, and on top of his game. The other 3 look and sound terrible.

Obama hints that he could create a working majority with (some) Republicans and Independents. Particularly those who have felt disillusioned and left out the past 7 years.

He may be right.

Really? It seemed to me as though he was a soothsayer, he never actually set down any precise facts. In fact, he didn't even mention anything he would do. He did say that we can do "something" together. You know, achieve change. (All change is good change, look at Bush) He didn't really mention any credentials because I don't think he has many.

What the hell, I might as well toss my vote at the guy who says America will do it together (still don't really know what it is we are going to do) and doesn't have much of a record to speak of. Can't go wrong, you know.

I just started watching the debate here and in Obama's first answer he explains why he would strike bin Laden in Pakistan if evidence showed where he was, and that he worked with Sen. Lugar on nuclear proliferation bills and that he worked (and will continue to work) for creating a program that controls loose nuclear materials.

I'm not an Obama supporter but I just thought I'd respond to this because I don't think what you're saying is correct.

 

[Lemon law]

My main impression is that if the USA can't do better than that set of republican and democratic total turkeys, we are in a big heap of trouble.

But I heartened to see that all agree that change is the new buzz word.

I don't want to get shortchanged, I WANT MY MONEY BACK.

 

[AliasX]

No all change is good.

 

[MBrown]

I think Obama as pres. and Edwards as VP would be awesome.