They all did great, but here's what I think. .

[AGirl]

Obama's response to terrorism and how the GOP has played the fear card for the past 8 years was wondrful. Obama also made the distinction between taking lobbyist money and having the whole campaign mostly funded by corporate lobbyists, I believe that’s an important distinction. Hillary made the great point that anyone who has money will have self interests, that’s correct, but there is something behind business interests and corporate profits that can easily be accumulated by the corporations , and not by individual donors. It is intellectually dishonest for Hillary to not admit the nuances of this debate about corporate influences.

In terms of the supposed distinction between political leaders and civil leaders, I do not see why such distinction has to exist. I don’t now why Hillary has to distinguishing between Dr. King as a civil leader and Lyndon Johnson as the president. Why can’t someone be both an inspiring figure and a political leader? I don’t get this old fashioned view of top down democracy, I don’t think its healthy, maybe it’t he only way one can become a president in the U.S, but still, Obama’s message of hope and Edward’s message of fighting the power are inspiring , Clinton would also make a great president, she is a significant woman, but her view on politics seem a bit dated and elitists.


In terms of policies, they are not all that different, but I believe it does matter how one leads, and the process of democracy is just as important as the result of democracy.


I believe that while Hillary can deliver the change that democrats might want, the way she attain power is not what most progressive people would want.

[msongs]

1. sounds like you oughta support dennis kucinich, based on your comments nt

[BootinUp]

2. Politics is a rough game

she is simply making her case that she knows the game and how to win it.

[AGirl]

4. Yeah, it’s the whole debate about “pragmatism” and “idealism”

That's what it comes down to.

[calmblueocean]

3. I had many of the same thoughts.

I think Obama's message on moving beyond the politics of fear and refusing to play their game is the way this country needs to go in the future. I also think that Hillary was disingenuous to the point of deceitfulness about Obama's health care plan and his remarks about Reagan. I would rather she have dealt with the substance of Obama's ideas than tried to play "gotcha!" It just made me lose a lot of respect for her.

John Edwards put in a strong performance. Being poor, I sympathize with a lot of his message on poverty, but I also feel a little... used? I mean, the poorest of the poor, the folks sleeping on grates and under bridges, make up such a tiny fraction of the American populace -- what about the other 99.9+%? That's what a president really has to deal with on a daily basis, and I just didn't hear enough of that from him. The caricature of Edwards is that he can't stop saying "my daddy worked in a mill" and playing the poverty card. I needed to see him move beyond that caricature tonight, and i didn't.

[AGirl]

5. The poorest of the poor are right down there with the transgender people.

They won't watch out for us. We only have ourselves, always have been, always will be.