Who has done better in the debates so far? Clark or Dean?

[TrueAmerican]

[TrueAmerican]

1. General Clark

Hands down the winner.

[Bucky]

4. Nah. I'm supporting Clark. But, no. Dean's a bit better, Kerry's the best

Clark has not done well in the debates. Neither has Dean, but Clark has done worse. It's not his forte. I'll say that he's doing bettter, but he's coming off as too cerebral, making nuanced distinctions no one cares about. Dean gets pissy some times, but he gets his point across. In the first couple of debates Clark was just clunky, making me question whether he's the candidate I'd want to put up against Bush.

The best debaters are Kerry (by a long shot), followed by Gephardt and Kucinich. Sharpton's the best spontaneous responder, which could count for loads in a debate with Bush, but he has the advantage of not having to worry about anyone taking him seriously. Kerry has been remarkably agile in handling curve balls and responding effectively on the spot when his opponents slip up.

[Gringo]

2. I think Dean by a nose, but Clark's done well enough

I'd like to see him show a bit more passion, and show that he is able to think unconventionally.

[Padraig18]

3. Tie.

They've both done well.

[LSK]

5. less attention on clark

Because everyone is attacking Dean, Clark has not been very visible in the debates I have seen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Though I'm partisan

For Clark, but I voted tie. I think both men are often powerful speakers, but the 9 person debate format has not played to either's strengths. Dean's passion either gets overly accented or too muted in compensation. Clark is a teacher who wants to lay the ground work for thoughtful answers and runs out of time. Both men are great candidates and have the potential for being strong and effective leaders for reasons that are not highlighted in a 9 person debate set up. A two person debate format is so different from what we have seen lately that it is hard to project who would do better in it. I honestly think Clark would though, because he is quite capable of passion, and he would have enough time to present his thoughts in a strong coherent manner, the way I have seen him perform at Town Hall Meetings..

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Neither. In the debates, Al Sharpton leaves them all in the dust

Whichever candidate, if any, you support, there is no getting around the fact that Sharpton has sliced them all for sandwiches in the debates.

Kerry has good oratory skills, but he does not have Sharpton's brain, and the rest come across as just too desperate.

In fairness, the only thing the debates show is who is smart and who is good at thinking on their feet, neither of which is necessary quality for a politician.

[PFaithful]

9. About Sharpton

He is a joke candidate, a clown, a fool, a jester and will never get elected. Has nothing to do with his race mind you. Colin Powell, on the other hand, could have been a serious candidate.

[Bucky]

10. Hmmm, now why would you mention Powell in a discussion about Sharpton?

Certainly you aren't just lumping all the black guys into one category, are you?

[PFaithful]

8. Dean comes off as

being honest and admits when he is unaware of some issue. As much as I hate, vehemently, all doctors, I will back him for his character and political positions. He reminds me of RFK.

[Bucky]

11. Lieberman in the debates

I noticed that Joe Lieberman is the one who spends the most time badmouthing his opponents in the debates. He's gotta know that's a big turn off to undecided voters. Gephardt, Dean, and lately Kerry have taken to doing this too.

Hey candidates! Let us minions do the attacking. Yall guys need to act presi-freakin-dential!