Watching the entire Democratic debate
An hour and a half gone by, hard to believe it's still going.
They have _all_ done an outstanding job. Any of them is a plausible choice for president. This is going to be interesting because, since they are all a little different in their answers, what they would do, that the interesting thing may not be the candidates at all. The interesting thing, I'm thinking, is going to be the voters. What, or which candidate, do the voters want more?
I think Hillary carried the first half of the debate, but it was equal after that, or the others came to the forefront. Hillary definitely was a target of some quips, and at least one cheap shot, by other candidates. Obama trying to imply that the Clinton's record was poor over healthcare (Hillary just said she's proud of her husband's record in rebuttal).
The weird thing is the one person I'd probably want to kick out from my list after watching this is Obama, and it's because of his answer to whether he put his kids into public school (in Chicago). He said he didn't put them in public education only because he believes the differences in public education inequality are unfair. For me that's a major red-flag little dance, so he's definitely off my list.
Richardson gave a surprisingly powerful performance. Even Biden took me by surprise. Kucinich and the others did extremely well also, but they got fewer questions asked.
Eww, the first analyst just said that Hillary surprisingly beat out Obama, head-to-head, or something like that (I thought so, too). The focus group of 24 voted for Obama, then Biden, then Edwards. Okay, another group had Hillary over Obama.
Edwards seems to have done well by those focus groups. His style seems to be to try and not resort to partisan tricks and let the others take each other out, or at least I get that vibe from him to some extent. They all stepped up well, though.
Hillary striked me as the most presidential, but so what, to some extent, it will depend on the voters. I liker her performance a lot.
Other opines: I would say Richardson was very vigorous on Domestic issues, but is realistically probably too weak on defense, as is Kucinich, and that is probably Richardson's Achilles heel, IMHO, and for Kucinich, he just doesn't have time to refine his answers for a realistic response.
That's the thing, some of the lesser candidates, you can expect won't get enough play. I'd say Biden, Edwards, and Hillary are clearly in the race, the front-runners (becauase I'm ignoring Obama, basically).
Let's face it (or just I will), it seems to me it's gonna come down to Edwards or Hillary. Hillary can easily upstage Edwards. But do you like Edwards pretty-boy looks more than you hate Hillary for being a woman (and vice-versa), that is the question. haha.
Last comment before I shut up. You know Edwards will get some Republican votes, if he wins the party ticket, (as would Obama), but Hillary could have a tougher time getting Republican votes - unless she can pull of that 'but I'm a woman like 50% of you all' thing. Do you think she can, or will households' male hubby tell his wife how to vote? ;-P
ah the art of conversation
what are you reading for?
July 24th, 2007 6:03am
It won't be the husband telling the wife how to vote. A lot of women, especially those who make up the conservative base, won't vote for a woman. They view the presidency like the priesthood--the exclusive domain of men. You could run a Republican male who publicly advocated kicking puppies and they'd vote for him over a democratic woman, especially Hillary Clinton. They view her as the anti-Christ.
Just for reference, the gun nut they had was a local boy. Clio is just north of me. And he isn't an aberation.
I think Obama won in opinion polls and I liked Biden (wont win) but had some interesting, well informed responses.
Gravel was the reddit favorite and of course he was crazy. "Follow the money, follow the money". It seems like Kucinich should be the reddit favorite, he seems to make a little bit more sense.
Please. 7 debates? What the hell is that going to accomplish, except to exhaust the voters?
All I really want is a few position papers, is that so hard? Why are they treating these exhausting talk-fests as so critical?
And while I find watching the Democrats tedious (and I am myself a Democrat) the Republican debates with all that posturing I find actually painful.
I suppose it's "air time", and everybody need to get "air time". I just don't think treating the election like a horse-race is in anybody's best interest.
July 24th, 2007 10:01am
Do you think they are all more capable than what we have now. And I am assuming a president and vice president are going to be on stage in these debates.
If you look at the top-tier, from all the debates:
Kucinich (probably not, seems like a one issue president)
McCain (no way)
The ones with no are those that I could never see as president.
Why no on Edwards?
July 24th, 2007 10:12am
"Why no on Edwards?"
I have a list of reasons, I will give at a later date. They mainly stem around his lawyer background, and some religious stuff I think he
All and all not a bad guy there are just some small things that I dont think he would make the greatest president (but then again, who is to say the others are perfect)
And I like Kucinich, but I think he will drive the US crazy. We need someone a little bit more moderate.
Edwards, religious stuff? First I've heard of it.
So what if he was a lawyer. At least he was a lawyer for the people instead of the corporations. And he's working hard to eliminate poverty in this country (despite the expensive haircuts).
I tend to trust candidates who weren't born rich. Edwards is one of those. And his wife is intelligent and sensible, which says a lot about him too.
July 24th, 2007 10:19am
Edwards, religious stuff? First I've heard of it. And this coming from someone who professed to "love" Bush and Cheney at one time (sure hope you were kidding about that, Bot).
So what if he was a lawyer? At least he was a lawyer for the people instead of the corporations. And he's working hard to eliminate poverty in this country (despite the expensive haircuts).
I tend to trust candidates a bit when they weren't born rich. Edwards is one of those. And his wife is intelligent and sensible, which says a lot about him too.
July 24th, 2007 10:21am
Sorry about the double post!
July 24th, 2007 10:21am
"Edwards, religious stuff? First I've heard of it. And this coming from someone who professed to "love" Bush and Cheney at one time (sure hope you were kidding about that, Bot). "
Of course I was, I said that 15 times.
Honestly, I wish Bush and Cheney could serve three terms. We really need more of that.
"War on Terror", woot.
Sorry for hijacking the thread. Someone will start another one by the end of the day on this I am sure.
At this point, Democrats don't want somebody "perfect". They want somebody electable.
That means relatively middle of the road policies. A focus on the budget, getting out of Iraq. A focus on making education affordable.
We need to let the Bush tax-cuts expire. We need to prevent another ideological conservative from getting on the Supreme Court. We need to get out of Iraq without starting a wider mid-east war. We need a Democrat in the White House, to prevent more Republican adventurism.
All other concerns pale in comparison to these. I don't think Hilary is electable (woman, and Clinton) or Obama (he's black -- remember the Red-Blue divide?). Edwards is the best of the bunch as far as I can tell.
But we certainly don't need another year and a half of debates and discussion and confusion to cloud that issue. But that's what we're going to get.
It's possible the Democrats may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They've done it before (with Al Gore, for instance)
July 24th, 2007 10:30am
Interesting, so the GOP will try to stay away from the debate and manenuever to watch as Democrat fatigue sets in.
I agree that the candidates seem to be pretty good this year. (helly, they have been running for 8 years, etc for Obama, Gravel)
It is funny, the GOP are completely f**ked so all they really have is political positioning (try to win by default again). They have nothing. They should be very concerned about this upcoming youtube debate, the people are pissed.
This 2-year election cycle is insane. Absolutely insane.
It's just a marathon to make sure that whoever wins the election is the one with the most money, which guarantees that the person will be on the side of big money and not on the side of the people. Not to mention how much money the TV stations will make on all the ads.
July 24th, 2007 10:38am
how do you think Hillary did?
Didn't watch the debates, sorry. This whole game is just that, a game, and I'm not paying attention to the hype.
I prefer to learn about the candidates true positions by reading things they've written, examining their voting records, and so on. This debate stuff is just bullshit that they spout to impress the voters.
July 24th, 2007 10:47am
I haven't watched the debate; hopefully I'll get a chance later. But from what I know of the candidates, I really, really like Kucinich. I live in Kuchinich-land and he is enthusiastically re-elected every two years.
the great purple
July 24th, 2007 10:51am
First thing I did when I woke up is unplug my television.
The debate did show interesting sides to the candidates, like on Nuclear energy, who would talk with Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc.
I say vote for who you want. If someone tickled your fancy, vote for that person. It doesn't matter to me because I'm categorically voting for the Dem next election. The Repubs won as far as partial-birth abortion ban, but every Repub seems to just lead us to war and then plays golf for 4-8 yrs., and takes the harmless fun out of serving in the military.
I am supposed to want all that just so that they can stack the Supreme Court with the right judges on the abortion issue?
I figure the country needs a breather from wars come 2009, that's the only thing that's obvious, and I think by now I know what I'm getting from a Republican president. The Repubs will probably put out a strong candidate, but who wants more of this? I kind of think Iraq has f'd the Repubs for winning the next election.
Amongst the Dems, Kucinich seemed to get the only fiscal question, would he raise taxes, and he said no. I believe he even said he would repeal a tax among the top %, and I didn't understand if he made some kind of verbal accident, or what there. I'm thinking he meant to say repeal a tax-cut on the rich. But his position was basically that not being in Iraq will save money and pay for a lot things (seems).
One person was upset that they didn't talk about immigration.
Kucinich may even be the most interesting choice because he seems to be the most motivated, core value (lives in the house he grew up in) and seems the least likely to go flat, idealogically, on taking a stand on things, should he be elected.
Time to stop worrying about who is electable and who isn't, may as well figure that any Dem will win the presidency, and if not then the American people really do deserve what they get. Like astronomical national debt and a falling dollar.
Yeah, LorB, that's how we got Al Gore. The Democrats must ALWAYS worry about who's electable. It's the Republicans who'll unite lock-step behind their candidate.
Now, perhaps it IS a little early at this point to be making pronouncements about who's electable. But I'M not the one who set the debate schedule so early.
July 24th, 2007 12:30pm
Kucinich seems to be the sanest candidate, which is probably about all you can ask for. Obama is starting to believe his own hype and is gradually getting bought off, and Hilary sold out long ago.
Unfortunately, that makes him a non-viable candidate. He is easily killed by the media.
July 24th, 2007 12:39pm
Kucinich seems to me the most likeable choice. Obama to me seems like a front, not that he isn't genuine, but that he strikes as a Dem candidate that you'd crank out of a vending machine, or a computer model.
That said, I think the question that is going to decide the candidate is which one understands the most, soonest, that you need to leave a screening force inside of Iraq. Yes, we need to withdraw troops, reserves and inactive reserves, IMHO, but leave the pro, signed-on for lifers over there if they want and don't give up that region or they may never trust us again - we must have some guys who know what they are doing over there, by now. 'I'm f'in outta there', is not a legit answer to the Iraq question, IMHO, although we all like hearing it. A small force, but some force nevertheless.