So far, he has 12 minutes v. 8 for John Edwards, 10 for Hillary and even less for the others.

I don't see why it is necessary to give him extra time.

He needs to be more polished.  He need to think faster on his feet.

Duck -N- Dodge

Even George Bush came up with excuses not to meet with Foreign Leaders.

COWARDS of a feather , flock together!

He looked inexperienced and naive.

As the framing from Politico shows - glad we are lifting them up! - Clinton's answer on meeting with leaders of the so-called rogue states is strong in terms of the way the exchange will play out in the media cycle.  This is why I indicated that she scored well on the question even though I do not much appreciate or agree with her answer.  She took a question ripe for big elements that must debated and reduced it to a small-bore question about meeting process while taking potshots at tin-pot dictators.

Tragically, in American political culture it is almost always a cost-free exercise politically to downplay diplomacy, or assert all "options are on the table" and we could go on.  There is no price for displaying as a political matter that your "first instinct" is to bomb or say no or distrust, etc.  Now, every politician ritualistically says at some point toward the end of their macho rant that, "of course force is only a last resort", and other meaningless ritualistic phrases.  In no arena is the political discourse as stulted, propagandistic, and ritualistic as it is about foreign policy and defense.

It is a dangerous dynamic that sets a political expectation that pushes otherwise sensible, cautious leaders, to rush to demonstrate 'toughness', makes achieving support for diplomacy and international governance much harder, sustains a core narrative that, on balance, helps the GOPers (they are "tough" we are always have to demonstrate we are "tough"), and is an element in the social and political processes that sustain a bloated military and aggressive overseas posture.  I have no doubt that Clinton will consider a range of options in any actual crisis situation.  But I do see her willingness to take this line as indicative of her comfort level with the foreign policy consensus, both at the level of its substance and in the various tropes and ideologies that keep it going.  I do not pretend to know whether this is by conviction or calculation.

My opinion is that - substantively - her answer was wrong.  The point of the question was about how the candidate's viewed the role of the US in the world.

It was not a technical question about constructing a timeline to a meeting.  How much preparatory work? How high should officials in first contact be? Which points should be on the agenda? Six months, one year?  How do we avoid their "propagandizing" the meeting?

No.

The question as I took it, and obviously this is me looking for information I care about in questions, was: "given the 'my way or the highway catastrophe' that has been the Bush administration, are you willing to meet with and engage diplomatically with...."?

Translated: "Are you willing to commit, promise, to work with our enemies in a way the Bush administration has refused to do?"

It is a given that planning is required for such meetings and the question called for more than 'Let me prove to you I understand these meetings require planning'.

So the answer I would have liked and that would have a) demonstrated an understanding of the larger context of the question and b) an understanding of the need to reorient American foreign policy would have been:

"No, Anderson I can't promise anything other than that I do think America needs to make a change in how we engage with the world.  The Bush doctrine of refusing to talk and explore diplomacy while pushing, always pushing, with military force as the first option must be abandoned for our own good and for the good of the world.  So, no Anderson, I don't know when I would meet them but I am willing to meet anytime anyplace with any leader to make this world safer".

Except for beginning with "yes" that is, at its core, the answer Obama gave and it is at least on the right track.

Instead, the answer we got in essence was:

"No, Anderson I won't promise to meet with them because [implicitly insert litany of alleged abuses against all those bad guys] and by making promises we would show ourselves as weak and give those thugs a propaganda coup.  Besides, Anderson, without seeing in front of me the blueprint for the meeting and a working draft agreement, I think it would be premature to even talk about considering meeting with those thugs".

Obviously I am presenting a caricature for argumentative purposes, but one that I think is defensible and captures the essence of her response, whatever it is she might "really" believe or do as President.

I disagree, but we are both biased.  I do think he did well though... and I think he had the best candidate video.

nIXON GOT NEARLY A 100,000 TROOPS OUT OF vIETNAM HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE.

Biden was dead on.

1) You don't bring 150,000 men, women and equipment home overnight.

2) If you leave the Embassy you need to leave more that 100 or 150 Marines to protect it.  More like 30,000.

I would certainly trust Binden on this issue than an armchair general sitting behind computer screen.

"we got out of viet nam faster"

Given that withdrawal was gradually accomplished over several years, and it even took 2 years to pull all the troops out after the N.Vietnam non-offensive aggrement, how can you come on here and claim that the withdrawal was accomplished in less than 2 months?

I don't disagree that we should start the withdrawal tomorrow. But claiming that we can get all of the troops out within 6 months without any residual forces for at least a few months after that simply betrays a lack of understanding of basic military operations.

You apparently have no military planning experience. This debate took place at the Citadel, a military college. Biden is VERY familiar with this subject, much more than any other candidate. And he is right. Just because you happen to believe that all we need to do is wave a magic wand and all of the troops will just come right out of Iraq safely in two months doesn't make it so.

He reminds me of Dick Cheney in his demeanor.

Thought it interesting that Obama supports nuclear power, given the amount he has received from Exelon--from their executives, employees, and PAC.

posting from a board, oh brother, indeed

do not make up a policy

in their ads -- and Edwards's ad was a class above the rest, showing both the range of issues and a sense of humor plus the right amount of combativeness.

Obama's was just a lot of people looking up in adoration and reminded me of his comment "to know me is to love me".  This isn't a personality/beauty contest, this is the race to lead the free world.

That was dangerous of him. Not because of Hillary, but there are so many things people can take from that given that Edwards is a MAN , who is giving FASHION critique on a WOMANS CLOTHING. Think about it.

He took the train ;-)