Let's figure out how to give Tancredo a wedgie.I just saw the rerun (missed the first parts, however, but caught a few youtubes).
HILLARY CAN FIGHT BACK SOME (AND SO CAN YOU!)
This is the first "debate" that AS hasn't declared a "winner", so I'll assume it was Hillary in his calculus and that he just cannot admit it.
The questions and questioning was terrible. Miserable. Almost 70% came off as designed to elucidate ... nothing of interest, just possible material for the Republican campaign. (CNN has some stunningly right-wing moments, I think).
At the same time, the candidates can see these questions coming (like R. v. Wade) and ought to come up with more, I think.
Hillary was the only one, I thought, consistently wrapping up her responses with an attack on the Republicans, although Joe had a good point about the stupid phrase "this Administration".
OBAMA SHOULD PICK A FIGHT WITH GIULIANI AND WIN
At this point, I'm thinking (and I'm certainly no qualified campaign consultant), the best thing Barack can do is pick a major fight with Giuliani, now, and win it in the press. (I'm not sure why he hasn't sooner).
Chris Dodd's spanish was nice relief from George Bush's backwards efforts (but that'll scare a lot of Republican voters).
I like Edwards because he doesn't back down, but my first impression is that he shouldn't have backed down too far. For instance, if Hilliary thinks that Edward's concerns are akin to the GOP playbook, then we need to see her handle those. If she intends to dismiss them, that might be something to know (as we recall, Kerry got in trouble ignoring his troubles for too long, possibly).
Obama could have found a one-liner to defend his "Politics of Hope" from the Clinton machine. If I can think of how to write them, why can't he?
In any case, I'm still undecided, which is surprising to me. Perhaps it is possible to over think it... Still, these "debates" don't do much to vet the candidates. "30 second answers" and Blitzer talking over anything that looks like a solid exchange in order for ... whatever, just doesn't do it.
Somebody could have attacked the GOP's stool (pun intended), instead of talking about "triangulation" - or have switched the phrase to mean three-legged stool:
