[Natoma]

CNN, 9pm - 10:30pm EST

[digitalwanderer]

Edwards and Kerry only? Are there any other left in the race?

[Natoma]

Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich , and Sharpton

Yea, basically Edwards and Kerry.

[Legion]

Sharpton

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Legion

Sharpton

I dunno, I laugh more at Kucinich more....at least Sharpton is entertaining to watch.

[Legion]

exactly who is Sharpton representing again?

[Legion]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

I dunno, I laugh more at Kucinich more....at least Sharpton is entertaining to watch.

but you laugh at Kucinich...

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Legion

exactly who is Sharpton representing again?

I hope it's not blacks in Florida. Some of those guys committed felonies in the year 2007 and were therefore barred from voting in the last presidential election. Lord knows what Kat "Lady, you're crazy" Harris will cook up this year.

P.S. That quote is what a judge in 2002 told her in a courtroom regarding her colorful interpretations of the law.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Legion

but you laugh at Kucinich...

Yup, and I laugh with Sharpton.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Yup, and I laugh with Sharpton.

Gotta agree with that. Sharpton is damn funny and he makes great points. Kucinich, wow.... Not even Kerry could stop laughing at him. And even the moderators were making fun of him. Hell Larry King wasn't even paying attention to him at one point, and all you see is Kucinich going "Larry... Larry are you paying attention?"

hysterical.

[Natoma]

You know, I have to give it to Kerry. He's one hell of a politician. Right now he's slam dunking this debate. Unfortunately, that's not saying much considering the debates during the lesser watched 2003 preview. To see Kerry now vs Kerry throughout all of 2003 is to see a complete 180, which is why it pains me that the vast democratic electorate voting in these primaries and caucauses have simply not been paying attention all along, or there is no way in hell they'd be voting for Kerry en masse the way they have.

Edwards has tried attacking Kerry's record, but he just doesn't seem comfortable doing it at all. Whoever told him to attack probably wasn't doing his best for Edwards overall. Edwards is best when stressing his own points and his own record, not attacking. That much I've learned from watching the man. I think he and his handlers may have made a tactical error in this part, but then I can understand the wish to shake things up given the dire need to win a huge chunk of delegates next Tuesday. But he did make a VERY strong point in that Kerry's current stance on the trade issue completely contradicts Kerry's voting record. Edwards may not be comfortable engaging in attack politics, but I know the bush campaign will have no compunction doing this. One big reason why I think Kerry is a disaster waiting to happen.

Of course, November could very well prove me wrong if Kerry wins the democratic nomination (please if there is a god please please please don't let that happen).

Sharpton is always a hoot in these debates and gives great one-liners and even some very comprehensive policy points, surprisingly. Kucinich, as always, just looks like a little chihuahua (or was it sewer rat?) trying to get attention. Maybe I'm just being mean.....

[RussSchultz]

Actually, I thought Kerry did a rather poor job.

Granted, he did a good job of taking up a lot of time, but generally didn't answer clearly, concisely, and was rarely on point.

Edwards had a lot of hand waving explaining his policies (somehow he'll get rid of poverty and that will make everybody middle class and fuel the economy).

Kucinich thinks educating everybody will make them all middle class.

Kerry think giving everybody health care will help the economy. He plans to do this by getting rid of the individual tax cuts and plugging the business tax loopholes.

[John Reynolds]

I'm sitting here amazed as I think to myself that Sharpton probably made the most sense out of all of them.

[digitalwanderer]

Gads, I just came away from that debate feeling overwhelmingly sorry for Kucinich...it's one of those things that is damn near embarressingly painful to watch! :?

"Pity", that's the word I'm looking for.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Actually, I thought Kerry did a rather poor job.

Granted, he did a good job of taking up a lot of time, but generally didn't answer clearly, concisely, and was rarely on point.

Precisely why I believe he slam dunked this debate. He didn't make any major mistakes. People are going to gloss over it and go vote for him simply because of his front runner status. All he had to do was come out of this debate unscathed, and he did that for the most part.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Edwards had a lot of hand waving explaining his policies (somehow he'll get rid of poverty and that will make everybody middle class and fuel the economy).

That's why I wrote that I believe they made a tactical error having Edwards go on the offensive (and believe me, this was "on the offensive" for Edwards. he's not an attack-style politician from what I've seen from the man over the past year). He didn't articulate his own message as well as he normally has. The debate in Wisconsin and the debates in Iowa and Pace University were far more articulate and detailed.

Tonight looked like an entirely different man, and I think it was because he changed strategy and tried to "attack" Kerry. I just don't think it's in him to do this, and it hurt him when giving his own message.

Kucinich......

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

I'm sitting here amazed as I think to myself that Sharpton probably made the most sense out of all of them.

The sad thing about Sharpton is that he can go from making complete sense to making a complete idiot out of himself. And of course he was never a serious candidate what with his long history of (sometimes deserved, other times completely undeserved) race baiting and race mongering.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Gads, I just came away from that debate feeling overwhelmingly sorry for Kucinich...it's one of those things that is damn near embarressingly painful to watch! :?

"Pity", that's the word I'm looking for.

I guess I am just mean. Eddie and I couldn't stop laughing whenever Kucinich came up with a question or response with the moderators. It was pure comedy every time.

[Clashman]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Gotta agree with that. Sharpton is damn funny and he makes great points. Kucinich, wow.... Not even Kerry could stop laughing at him. And even the moderators were making fun of him. Hell Larry King wasn't even paying attention to him at one point, and all you see is Kucinich going "Larry... Larry are you paying attention?"

hysterical.

Kucinich really isn't being given a fair chance. He's been repeatedly cut out from the major media debate, and this was evident during the televised debates here. He was repeatedly cut off mid-sentence without being given the opportunity to finish his points. Both Kucinich and Sharpton have fared well in several states, but this has always been downplayed by the media, because, afterall, we know the only *serious* candidates are Kerry and Edwards.

Natoma, I've seen you come out pretty harshly against both Kucinich and Nader, but from what I can tell you align more closely with them politically. Could you explain some of the differences you have with them? I'm curious, here.

BTW, with regards to the media cutting Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race, (and Dean before them), this isn't the first election where this kind of thing has happened. There's an excellent documentary available on the internet called Spin, which documents similar incidents happening in 1992. Above it's coverage of that issue, this is perhaps one of the absolute best political documentaries ever created. I'd highly recommend checking it out, (and it does poke fun at both "sides" of the political spectrum). Best thing about it, is it's available for free on the internet: http://www.illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html

It's huge, at 600 mb or 1.2 gb, but it's well worth the wait. You'll probably never see anything else that offers a similar "insider's perspective" on the U.S. political machine.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

I'm sitting here amazed as I think to myself that Sharpton probably made the most sense out of all of them.

believe you me.. I was just as shocked during the last debate when kucinich made the most sense of the four...

sharpton... once you get past his shouting is pretty kewl...

[RussSchultz]

Uh, Kucinich and his extreme isolationist views would destroy the world economy if brought to fruition.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Uh, Kucinich and his extreme isolationist views would destroy the world economy if brought to fruition.

his discussion about gay marriage made excellent sense compared to the wallowing responses of kerry/edwards.. and I don't remember what sharpton said...

not all his ideas are great but the same goes for most of the others...

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Clashman

Kucinich really isn't being given a fair chance. He's been repeatedly cut out from the major media debate, and this was evident during the televised debates here. He was repeatedly cut off mid-sentence without being given the opportunity to finish his points. Both Kucinich and Sharpton have fared well in several states, but this has always been downplayed by the media, because, afterall, we know the only *serious* candidates are Kerry and Edwards.

Natoma, I've seen you come out pretty harshly against both Kucinich and Nader, but from what I can tell you align more closely with them politically. Could you explain some of the differences you have with them? I'm curious, here.

Realistically, Kerry and Edwards are the only viable candidates left. Sharpton was never a viable candidate because his history has frankly been too scandalous (good or bad, he's a too much of a lightning rod). Kucinich became a non-viable candidate the instant he called for immediate removal of troops from Iraq and unilateral removal from all our trade agreements.

I've bashed Bush for his unilateralist administration, but Kucinich would be almost as bad, if not worse, especially when it comes to our national security. Do I have serious disagreements with the manner in which we were dragged into war? Certainly. Do I believe we can leave now and let things sort themselves out? Certainly Not.

And as much as I'd love to support Nader and Kucinich because of their support of civil marital rights being extended to gay couples, my politics is far more complex than just one single issue, as important as that issue is to my personal well being.

Originally Posted by Clashman

BTW, with regards to the media cutting Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race, (and Dean before them), this isn't the first election where this kind of thing has happened. There's an excellent documentary available on the internet called Spin, which documents similar incidents happening in 1992. Above it's coverage of that issue, this is perhaps one of the absolute best political documentaries ever created. I'd highly recommend checking it out, (and it does poke fun at both "sides" of the political spectrum). Best thing about it, is it's available for free on the internet: http://www.illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html

It's huge, at 600 mb or 1.2 gb, but it's well worth the wait. You'll probably never see anything else that offers a similar "insider's perspective" on the U.S. political machine.

As much as one can bemoan how Dean was treated, frankly he did it to himself. I love what he did for the democratic party, but he overplayed his hand, and I feared he was going in that direction long before the "I Have a Scream" speech in Iowa. Even his staunchest supporters on the blog were writing about this back in September before anyone really caught wind of it in the media and the public.

I don't doubt that the media has biased elections against certain candidates, but when you look past the media bias and actually see what's going on, it's actually pretty accurate imo.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Clashman

It's huge, at 600 mb or 1.2 gb, but it's well worth the wait. You'll probably never see anything else that offers a similar "insider's perspective" on the U.S. political machine.

Don't you mean the U.S. media machine?

[Clashman]

Not simply the media, because it focuses on how politicians use it as well, through things such as the Satellite tour, etc. It's really very interesting.

[Clashman]

To Natoma: Kucinich called for neither an instant nor unilateral removal of U.S. troops. In fact, removal of U.S. troops would be predicated upon U.N Approval and the transfer of peacekeeping role to the United Nations until the Iraqi people were able to handle the security situation themselves. Also, with regard to trade, Kucinich hasn't been calling for the U.S. to tuck itself into a hole and withdraw from the international trade community. Rather, he's demanded that trade take place in a just and equitable manner. Edwards on the other hand, seems to be copping out to me, saying on the one hand that he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA if he would have been in office to suck up labor votes, and at the same time saying that if he got into office he would only seek to restructure it, which would seem to me to be a perfect way to wind up doing nothing once he got into office.

Kucinich on Iraq: (Admittedly the timeline might be overly optimistic, and any UN force would likely contain U.S. troops, but the general idea is fairly solid, at least compared to the ghost plans of Kerry, Edwards, and Bush).

"If we stay the course it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in and it's wrong to stay in. The demands of an occupation are overstretching our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces makes us vulnerable at home. The reserve call-ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for hometown security. Americans are asking, is there a way out? I say there is. This is my plan to get the U.N. in ... and the U.S. out of Iraq! This plan will bring our troops home within 90 days of U.N. approval, and strengthen American security.

"The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq.

The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.
The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The U.N. must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The U.N. must assist in developing free and fair elections.
The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
The United States must contribute financially to the U.N. peacekeeping mission.
The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
U.N. troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.
The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the U.N.
"I will work tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all U.S. troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the U.N. community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

"As President I will go to the U.N. and announce America's intention to abide by this plan if approved by the U.N.

"I will ask the U.N. Security Council to ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under U.N. mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives U.N. support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my plan that within one month, the first U.N. troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first U.S. troops will be sent home. U.N. peacekeeping troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the U.S. In place of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.N. will open an office to direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by U.S. invasion. In two months, the U.N. will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person, one-vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding between the American and U.N. force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. By the end of month three, all U.S. troops will have returned home.

"In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing Council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

"In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

"The U.S. owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the U.S. invasion. The U.S. will also owe a contribution to the U.N. to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, highly visible manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering top-shelf technology from U.S. corporations for Iraq, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. This is precisely what corrupts the Administration's reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the U.S. invasion, including compensation for its victims. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to furnish Iraq with what we do not have here!

"The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price America has paid is the loss of our moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost us our credibility and done serious harm to America's standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

"America must make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the U.N. move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for all Americans.

"We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home in 90 days, transfer authority to the U.N. with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and save billions of dollars. It will enable the U.S. to think creatively about how to deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorists and criminals who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on our nation, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, my plan will also enable the U.S. to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America."

Kucinich on Trade:

So what I'm saying is that the people of Ohio and the people who labor in industries and do high tech work all over this country ought to know they only have one candidate in this race who not only understands the issues, but who is politically independent enough to be able to stand up for the economic interests of American business, of the American men and women, and of the American future. Because this is not about separating us from the world, this is about setting standards for ethical commerce.

We need trade. Trade is the essence of human interaction. We need countries to be able to talk to one another. We need the chance for trade to serve as the basis for peace in the world. But there's another thing we need. We need trade that's based on principles of equity. We need trade that's based on principles of social and economic justice. We need trade that's based on human rights. We need trade that says there shall be no child labor, nor prison labor, nor slave labor. We need trade that protects the environment. We need trade that protects our society. We need trade with a vision of social and economic justice. Oh yes, we need trade.