I still can't figure why Richardson is such a poor debater...

His answers were kind of rambling, not really on point all the time, and he was constantly being cut off for going too long...and the adolescent in me couldn't help but notice he used the word condom and penetration in the same sentence...

The guy is brilliant...I just don't get it...

because experience-wise he is exceptional.

Vice President, but he is not doing well in these events.

Do you remember?

the more disturbing issue for him is he can't seem to get through a debate without making an ass of himself at least once.

trying to talk to people, not just throw a few punch lines.

We have to decide what a debate will be about. Even if this debate was better because it did not talk about hair cuts and other stupid subjects like that, this was still not a very satisfying debate, as those who had all their talking points allr ready were doing better than those who were actually trying to answer the questions.

which he was obviously not expecting at all; his answer was virtually unintelligible and ended with him mumbling about a needles program...it was bad.

is a problem (not necessarily African American). I understood the answer completely without any problem, and he was one of the few who answered the question, talking about PREVENTION. Some answered neatly, but stupidly, stopping at their healthcare plan: may be we can do something BEFORE people are infected?

It all depends what these debates are about. If these guys have only to answer again and again using their stump speech, the debates are useless. If you expect that they ACTUALLY answer the questions that are asked, debates are useful, but people are to try to understand what is said, and not to stop at the one who speaks the best because he never varies his answers.

What's clear to me is Richardson doesn't formulate his responses as crisply as one would expect from a politican of his experience. I haven't watched him enough to know if this is just Bill or if he's got some upside here.

Richardson seems to be selling experience and concrete plans. As for his vision of what the country should be, I hear nothing from him. If he could start weaving some broader themes into his answers (and/or his campaign) he might do better.

And he brought it up but AFAIK I don't think he ever
said the word "exchange". If you want to do that you should
say "needle exchange" or "needle collection" etc he never said
that, he just kept saying needle's etc. I'm sorry but he was
horrible on that question. I know what he was getting at and
it was right but there is a reason his response was met by
absolute dead silence in the audience. It was a horrible piece
of public speaking.
Scott

Lines like that will get you in trouble.

thats the phrase
"we need more needles" thats trouble and a presidential
candidate should be able to do better than that.

Frankly, some of these guys seem unable to get out of their stump speeches. Richardson was one of the few who seemed to be speaking from his heart.

Talking of not being on point, I have to congratulate Hillary. She was the only one to answer on point to the question concerning white dropouts being more employed than African American highschool graduates. All of them ranted on education at one level or another (including Biden who started to talk about how mothers spoke to their kids :wtf:).

Hillary was the only one to mention the elephant in the room: RACISM. Black kids, even more educated than white kids, are not on the same plane field as them. Amazing than all the other ones rushed on Head Start and college education (did they not listen to the question)?

maybe its like a great stand up comedian vs a great comedic writer.
He is certainly uber qualified, very smart and has an impressive record.
It reminds me of an HBO special with Seinfeld and Gary Shandling, they referred
to a "stand up muscle" that has to be crafted and developed or naturally
gifted. Seinfeld himself stated during his show's run he wrote great material
but couldn't hack it on the stage, had to work back into it with great
effort. Richardson just appears to be ill suited to debates, its a shame
he may have broad appeal but it just doesn't come across in these debates,
obviously just my take
Scott