ABC News / Facebook Debates

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Billary talks about 35 years of change and then turns around and answers half her ing questions with politikspeak, basically not giving an answer. She would be a ing disaster for our country.

[AFBlue]

Billary talks about 35 years of change and then turns around and answers half her ing questions with politikspeak, basically not giving an answer. She would be a ing disaster for our country.

I actually thought Hillary killed tonight and responded well to a double-team from the Edwards/Obama camp.

She squashed the idea that "change" and "experience" had to be mutually exclusive. As she said, she's running to be the first woman president of the United States and that's a BIG change.

I think she raises a very good point about Obama, Edwards, and any other candidate that lacks a serious voting record. It is a legitimate concern.

Yes, of course she went into the political mode on the last question, but she was right....the democrats were actually responding to the serious questions and mostly focusing on the issues (except for the outburst by Obama/Edwards), while the republicans seemed content to take potshots at eachother and dance around most of the issues.

I think this was a strong night for Hillary and Edwards. Both seemed passionate and invigorated and both made very solid points. Obama seemed to lack the "thunder" that he had in Iowa, except when he said that words can effect change.

[AFBlue]

Paul was flat whatever. He gave everyone a cons utional lecture, that had more meat in it than anything those other canidates said......and as for serious consideration..........the only reason there is a lack of serious consideration. is because the media, and corperations and money have stifled his campaign.

here is my impressions

Ron Paul......authentic.
Romney's biggest supporter are the Pharmaceutical Companies.
the rest are all bought and paid and all want amnesty.


Can't we try and vote for the guy who is genuine and not anymore puppets.

Ron Paul was like a petulant child that wanted to interrupt a conversation between parents to talk about his lost toy. He was a one-trick pony.

While I didn't like all the infighting between the other candidates, at least they were willing to talk to the issues at hand rather than bring everything back to Iraq and blame the current problems on the money being spent for that cause.

[AFBlue]

After the first hour, here are my impressions....

Romney is an intelligent guy with decent ideas....too bad he's a Mormon and will never win.

McCain, when allowed to speak has done well as has Giuliani.

Paul has fallen flat on his face. He keeps bringing everything back to Iraq and he won't warrant serious consideration if he continues to do so.

Huckabee has been "eh" and Thompson has been up and down.

After the entire two-hour portion of the Republican debate here were my thoughts....

I feel for Romney, though I'm sure his negative attack ads prompted much of what he received in the debate. He was attacked on nearly every position and most of the time the potshots were "below the belt" types having little to do with his policy.

Having said that, he did plenty of attacking on his own directed mainly towards John McCain on immigration. Speaking of McCain on immigration, I thought he handled the attacks well and was set on his position. It's certainly going to be a point where you either agree with him (and Giuliani) about not immediately deporting all illegals or with Romney (and Huck...and apparently Thompson) that says deport them all.

I think the guy that benefitted most from all the mud-slinging was Rudy Giuliani, because he was active in the debate and was barely ever the focus of any attack. He was able to deliver lucid points and his positions on the issues basically uninterrupted by snide remarks or quick retorts.

I think Thompson and Huckabee both stayed mostly out of the fray as well, but Thompson is probably showing signs of life too late for it to matter and Huckabee was FAR FAR too quiet.

Overall, too much in-fighting that could damage the Republican image for those independent and moderate Republican voters. I hope McCain isn't hurt too bad, because he will be counting on the independent vote to carry him over Romney in a few days.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

She squashed the idea that "change" and "experience" had to be mutually exclusive. As she said, she's running to be the first woman president of the United States and that's a BIG change.

Voting Osama bin Laden into office would be a first and a change as well, doesn't mean it's a great idea for the future of the country.

[AFBlue]

Voting Osama bin Laden into office would be a first and a change as well, doesn't mean it's a great idea for the future of the country.

Bad analogy....

She was saying that she was ALSO a candidate of change and stating that she would become the first woman President was just evidence of that change.

She had been taking shots for being the "status quo" candidate, but in fact she has a long history of taking positions contrary to those of the Bush administration and the Republican party in general. She was saying that she IS a change from the current administration and one that has been proven/vetted as being such over a long time. Even Obama couldn't disagree with her on that.

Just saying, I thought she did a good job defending herself against attacks that she was a "status quo" candidate because of her experience.

[Mr. Peabody]

I actually thought Hillary killed tonight and responded well to a double-team from the Edwards/Obama camp.

...

I think this was a strong night for Hillary and Edwards. Both seemed passionate and invigorated and both made very solid points. Obama seemed to lack the "thunder" that he had in Iowa, except when he said that words can effect change.

I agree. I thought Hillary did well. I would rank the debate (1) HRC; (2) JE; (3) BO; (4) BR.

It seems that Hillary is catching some flak for her response to Edwards' charge about her being the "status quo." She raised her voice when responding and people a characterizing that moment as "angry." I disagree, I thought it was her 2nd best moment, with the first being her "That hurt my feelings" statement -- it showed the human side of her. We'll see if this performance can stop the Obama momentum.

I thought Edwards showed the passion that makes him a favorite of the activist part of the Democratic party. He had much more energy than Obama and did a good job of describing his positions on the issues. Plus, I thought his defense of Obama and swipe at Hillary reinforced the notion of who the "change" candidates are in the election.

I am an Obama supporter, but he didn't really "mix it up" as much as I wanted him to, especially in response to Hillary's attacks. I can only assume that his campaign made the decision to debate as a front runner, but I wish he would have responded more. Other than that, I thought he did well. He didn't make any mistakes and handled the foreign policy questions well.

I like Bill Richardson, but I was really watching the debate for the other three and he took up a lot of time. Did you all know that he was Secretary of Energy and made executive decisions as a governor?

[AFBlue]

I agree. I thought Hillary did well. I would rank the debate (1) HRC; (2) JE; (3) BO; (4) BR.

It seems that Hillary is catching some flak for her response to Edwards' charge about her being the "status quo." She raised her voice when responding and people a characterizing that moment as "angry." I disagree, I thought it was her 2nd best moment, with the first being her "That hurt my feelings" statement -- it showed the human side of her. We'll see if this performance can stop the Obama momentum.

I thought Edwards showed the passion that makes him a favorite of the activist part of the Democratic party. He had much more energy than Obama and did a good job of describing his positions on the issues. Plus, I thought his defense of Obama and swipe at Hillary reinforced the notion of who the "change" candidates are in the election.

I am an Obama supporter, but he didn't really "mix it up" as much as I wanted him to, especially in response to Hillary's attacks. I can only assume that his campaign made the decision to debate as a front runner, but I wish he would have responded more. Other than that, I thought he did well. He didn't make any mistakes and handled the foreign policy questions well.

I like Bill Richardson, but I was really watching the debate for the other three and he took up a lot of time. Did you all know that he was Secretary of Energy and made executive decisions as a governor?

Very good breakdown, and I agree with you on the Hillary response. Yes it was empassioned and strong, but to characterize it as angry would be wrong in my opinion.

I actually would put Obama in last place in your rankings behind Richardson for one reason....

Richardson SINGLE-HANDEDLY stopped the debate from spiraling out of control into a Obama/Edwards v. Hillary royal rumble with his comment about hostage negotiations and a follow-on about staying positive. I thought that earned him the right to speak and when he did, I thought he was strong. It's too bad he won't warrant more consideration for the vote, but each of the other three are very good candidates.

I wish I could say the same thing on the other side...seing as how I'm a registered Republican.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

She had been taking shots for being the "status quo" candidate, but in fact she has a long history of taking positions contrary to those of the Bush administration and the Republican party in general. She was saying that she IS a change from the current administration and one that has been proven/vetted as being such over a long time. Even Obama couldn't disagree with her on that.

Just because she disagrees with Bush doesn't mean she's a great candidate for president. People don't seem to get that you're going to get the same type of leadership out of anyone who has been in D.C. for a long time. It'll be more of the good ol' boy you saw out of W., it's just that the pockets being lined will be democratic instead of republican.

[inconvertible]

Just because she disagrees with Bush doesn't mean she's a great candidate for president. People don't seem to get that you're going to get the same type of leadership out of anyone who has been in D.C. for a long time. It'll be more of the good ol' boy you saw out of W., it's just that the pockets being lined will be democratic instead of republican.

true.

[JoeChalupa]

For me Hillary didn't do that well. She keeps saying 35 years of experience but many aren't buying that. Being first lady doesn't give you Commander-in-Chief experience. I admire her record though but experience doesn't always mean you are the best for the job.
Even in the corporate world you'll see people with much more experience get passed over for someone who is younger and has fresh ideas.
Obama and Edwards did well and it was Hillary, IMO, who came off as upset and angry and it is a direct effect from her poor showing in Iowa.
But I do still think the nomination is hers to lose and if she doesn't take NH look for the gloves to come off which, IMO, will just make her look desparate and there are enough people already put off by the attack tactics of politics which could end up hurting her more than it helps.

Richardson simply isn't getting his message across and it sucks 'cause he is VERY presidential and one intelligent man.

Romney got hammered in the Republican debate but I think he did quite well considering the atmosphere he was in.
McCain, who stil is my favorite republican, did well and Rudy..what is up with those sudden "big eye" moments...also did okay but he has an uphill battle to climb. Putting all his eggs in the 9/11 basket may not be enough.

And the Osama bin laden jokes are pathetic and just show the ignorance of some people.

[JoeChalupa]

Mixing it up is not Obama's style and I did think Hillary came across as being angry and upset. Yeah, Richardson did jump in at the right time but it only helped Hillary and not himself. But if he thinks an election is not going to be about bickering or arguing one's message then he is sadly mistaken. It is what it is. Debates or backing up your view points can and does come across as bickering sometimes.

[kyleo]

If last night's ranting from Hillary is what we can look forward to as she slips in NH and then in SC, she'll be toast by Super Tuesday. Mark Penn has killed her campaign - you can't run around as the in bant candidate for almost a year and then start proclaiming you're the candidate for change. Not only will people not buy it, but you look disingenuous and desperate. Obama may have this wrapped up more quickly than anyone ever suspected.

[xrayzebra]

I wish they had brought up the same subjects with both groups.
Then we could have a good comparison of how the two parties
stand.

All the dimm-0-craps were ask about social issues. And they
gave the same old answers. And change, what change are
any of the dimms offering? I heard nothing new.

Pull out of Iraq and give everyone "free" medical care.

As far as Edwards is concerned, echos of Huey Long.
I will fight for the little man. I have done it all my life,
and got rich doing it. Look at me......

Speaking of "change" the Dimms must have used that
word at least a thousand times last night.

The pubs did a fairly reasonable job. Ron did have a good
answer for the oil prices, but no solution.

McCain, well he was McCain. I have little respect for the man,
he changes positions like I change my socks, daily.

Thompson, most level headed person there. But I don't think
he stands a chance.

Romney more than likely the most knowledgeable guy to run
a country. Successful in business and government. And I
think if we are going to have national health he would be the
man to get it started, at least on the right foot. God help us
though if it does come about, national health.

Mr. G. I respect the man immensely. He did a heck of a job
in NYC at 9/11. If he had stayed Mayor the WTC would have
been rebuilt already. Look what happens when you get a
bunch of Libs in charge. Just a hole in the ground. But they
do shine lights, their heart is in the right place.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Whether they would change their opinion on the surge is a social issue?

Going into Pakistan after bin Laden is a social issue?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Ray,

I can appreciate that you didn't actually watch the debate, but don't make assumptions about something you didn't watch... it's much easier to call you out that way -- not that it's been too hard otherwise.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

GIBSON: So let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today, and, somewhat to my surprise, has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is nuclear terrorism.

And for some background, here's ABC's Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN ROSS, ABC CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country, much as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught.

And after six years of trying, the United States has yet to capture the man who says it is his religious duty to get nuclear weapons: Osama bin Laden.

And in the last 18 months, U.S. officials say his Al Qaida has regrouped using safe havens along the Pakistani border to train and dispatch hundreds of new recruits.

ROSS: And just as troubling, amidst all the turmoil in Pakistan, the influence of bin Laden continues to grow there, a country with many nuclear weapons.

Charlie?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GIBSON: Brian Ross there.

Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaida has been recons uted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan.

And so my general question is, how aggressively would you go after Al Qaida leadership there?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

GIBSON: I want to go to another question. And it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city.

GIBSON: I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years.

Some estimates are higher. Graham Allison (ph), at Harvard, says it's over 50 percent.

Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind. And I want to put them to you here.

On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

GIBSON: I'm going to move on to our third subject before I run out of time. And I want to turn to Iraq.

We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked. So from background, our man in Baghdad for ABC, Terry McCarthy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TERRY MCCARTHY, ABC BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: It has been a tough 12 months in Iraq, with more U.S. troops killed than in any previous year of the war. But overall, the addition of an extra 30,000 troops has helped to reduce violence substantially. Civilian killings are down 65 percent in the last six months. U.S. deaths are down from 126 in May to 23 in December.

MCCARTHY: General Petraeus has repeatedly said the solution in Iraq must be political, not military. So far, political progress has been frustratingly slow.

But a year ago, many Americans, and the Iraqis, too, thought the country was a lost cause. Today, with improved security, life is returning to the streets of Baghdad.

Nobody yet says the war is over. But Iraqis are finally able to hope that things might be getting better.

Charlie?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GIBSON: So, I want to ask all of you: Are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

If you'd like Ray, I can just post the entire transcript so that you can keep up with the rest of us who actually watched.

[xrayzebra]

Ray,

I can appreciate that you didn't actually watch the debate, but don't make assumptions about something you didn't watch... it's much easier to call you out that way -- not that it's been too hard otherwise.

I watched them, also, switching over to the Jax/Pitt game
too. (damn 240 pound QB, can you believe that)

Yeah you are correct, but I guess their answer were so
vague they just didn't register. About the question
about going into Pakistan to go after someone who set
off an atomic weapon, it only required one of two possible
answers. Yes or No. But they wanted to play ring
around the rosy. And you have to admit most of their
"debate" centered on social issues. IMO.
Oh, and change, don't want to leave that out.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

But I do still think the nomination is hers to lose and if she doesn't take NH look for the gloves to come off which, IMO, will just make her look desparate and there are enough people already put off by the attack tactics of politics which could end up hurting her more than it helps.

I think she's about to go hardcore negative against Obama, and like you I suspect it will only alienate people against her even more and paint her as a pathetic and desperate candidate.

Richardson simply isn't getting his message across and it sucks 'cause he is VERY presidential and one intelligent man.

Last night was probably the most impressed I have been with Richardson. But in the big picture he hasn't driven anything home with those in his party.

The thing that sucks to me is that I only see two candidates (Fred Thompson and Romney) who are against some or all forms of amnesty for illegals. All the rest are lining up to give away everything to illegals (Medicare, SS, amnesty) for the sake of a few votes.

This country is largely ed.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Um, no Ray, I don't have to admit that the debate was mostly on social issues because it wasn't.

[xrayzebra]

Um, no Ray, I don't have to admit that the debate was mostly on social issues because it wasn't.

Your right, you don't have to admit anything at all. But I
still say it was more about social issues than anything else.
Oh, did you forget the little Tax evasion thing they
discussed. Going to cut taxes for the middle class and tax
those mean old rich people. And the audience reaction
to people who make 200 grand a year. They thought
that was rich mans earnings. And all the good old
dimms song and dance about helping all those poor
people who got that way because the rich just keep
getting richer and richer and the poor, poorer and poorer,
more lies.

One of the moderators got it right. The "rich" small
business people are going to take it in the chops and
the dimms could care less.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I didn't say there weren't social issues, I said it wasn't all or mostly social issues like you claimed.