I'm sure that's very exciting, but which of the eight candidates said they'd torture people, and which did not? Did any say whether they'd approve of an attorney general who would torture people? Seriously, a chart would be more informative than this article.
A question about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening in the Dartmouth auditorium. And expressions of support only from former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich.
I'm sure that's true, but what else did those candidates say that drew applause?
The opening question of the two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others - the war in Iraq.
Why didn't it dominate this article?
With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.
Exactly what they'll have to do as the general election approaches. Have you seen any polls in the past couple of years, Beth?
Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops.'' That's roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January 2009. Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. "I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq,'' he said.
Now this must be the part where we find out what one or two of the missing candidates said, since it differed so much more dramatically from this hairsplitting bunch of bought-and-paid-for war mongers. Guess again:
Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.
Oh, well, if they're gonna be fightin tarrism I reckon it's OK then. Is she plagiarizing Bush?
Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort. Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing. Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about,'' said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president.''
Let me guess: he reads the Associated Press? You would have absolutely no idea from this article that almost every candidate going into this debate had refused to take the option of launching an illegal and aggressive war, even a nuclear war, on Iran off the table. Biden has pushed for diplomacy, but you wouldn't even learn that from this article. Kucinich has gone further, pushing for sanity and the rule of law.
How many weapons has that ever sold?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).