I remember Biden's one word answer where he resisted the temptation to explain himself when there was silence.

I remember Mike Gravel making audacious statements that sounded true.

I remember Dennis Kucinich being the only one stating that he was the only one ready to impeach Dick Cheney, even though the other seven probably were in favor of it.

I remember John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson not seeming to have ready answers, which today means to me that they trusted themselves to answer on their feet.

I remember being impressed with all eight of the participants but feel that perhaps only Mike Gravel didn't sound "presidential" enough. (On the other, George W. Bush still doesn't sound presidential enough to me.)

I remember being impressed by Hillary Clinton.

The one person who stood out the most to me was Dennis Kucinich. I think Joan is right; Mike Gravel really helped him sound more credible by making sound-bite statements that supported Dennis's positions.

that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted to authorize the President to use force. I guess it begs the question just what did she know back then. Some Senators knew quite a bit and had the courage to vote against the war. Kind of hard to believe that Hillary did not know then what she knows now. But hey, now she is running for president and I suspect that she like most of the candidates, would prefer that we all not have a clear recall of past votes and speeches given.

"Truth, when not sought after, rarely comes to light."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

It's almost astonishing to hear someone tell the truth. Why is it that CNN has not invited Gravel to its debate?

I definitely am most interested in Kucinich and Gravel. Hillary and Obama can go far, far away and stay there.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." --- William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

I want to hear more from Mike Gravel.

Or are we going define our entire country and the next 100 years of history in terms of Iraq. I must want to know that way I can ignore all that other shit.

It reminded me of CNN's Bernard Shaw's "What if Kitty Dukakis was raped?" question in the 1988 presidential debate -- and the Democrats didn't do much better with their answers than Michael Dukakis did.

This shit shouldn't happen. Questions have answers. Every question has an answer, otherwise you're full of shit.

Dukakis should have replied by first getting angry. (I guess he was a stone-face. whatever.) Then answer the question head-on with all the anger as if his wife really got raped. Talk about how you'd like to kill him with your bare hands. Get graphic, talk about weapons, mutilation maybe even. That'll get the conservatives listening, and it's honest. No smiling.

Then pause. Look down. Anger changes to sadness. Say into the microphone, somewhat meekly, "But that won't get Kitty back. None of that will get my Kitty back."

Pause.

"And that won't stop the next woman from getting raped and murdered." THEN you go into your sales pitch about the death penalty.

Message: death penalty is what you feel is going to be a solution. But it isn't.

That's what Dukakis should have said.

I was working and recording it in my office, so I listened to the whole thing, but didn't watch the candidates except for an occasional turn to see what/who.

Without seeing his excellent political poster face, Barack Obama sounded shallow, callow, and a man with much intelligence but no gravitas.

Hillary's voice will undo her -- unalloyed by practiced facial expressions, it was as grating and annoying as fingernails on blackboard... I came close to expecting her to say "And your little dog too" -- despite her claims/headlines today that her "southern accent" will stand her in good stead. She SOUNDS harsh and cold and emotionless... makes Dukakis sound like Dr Phil...

Mike Gravel is the white version of 2004's Rev Sharpton -- the one with no hope to win, but who hangs in and says the things you might want to hear but that none of the others would dare to say, even if they thought them. Coming from an important and refreshing, if sometimes irrelevant (to the issue at hand) point of view. Overdone, but that's because -- perhaps -- he needed to be introduced and to introduce himself.

He calls things by their rightful name -- i.e., soldiers died in vain, war was lost from the day we went in -- and as was observed by John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester, a brilliant but much MUCH more vile man than even as portrayed by Johnny Depp in "Libertine" --- "Any man who calls things by their rightful name will surely be hanged."

Gravel's barbs were quite welcome to me, since all the others were taking themselves WAAAY too seriously --- gravitas, guys, not self-pomp.

For starters, even Mick Jagger wouldn't expect anyone to care if the Stones did an 18 month long tour... we will come to despise these people before too long. I predict John Edwards may well be the big winner when the big Tuesdays come around.

Maybe the pundits in the media should look up the word. "debate"

I dont' really think you can call this "question and answer" session last night a debate. There has not been a good presendential debate in this country since the Nixon -Kennedy debates.

If you realy want a debate you need to submit relevant questions on national issues, prepared ahead of time, and presented to the candidates before the Debate. Of course with this many candidates in the race you cannot have a decent debate.

The trivial question about the $400 haircut has no relevance to national leadership or issues.

Ah for the good old days when of handpicked the candidates when final decsions were actually made at the conventions.