Quick Links
Links
Site Links
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2003 07:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2003 07:50 PM
Democratic Debate: a Reaction
Okay, I know there's little likelihood that people are
going to swarm to my site to read MY reaction to tonight's Democratic debate,
but I'll write it anyway.
Okay, I know there's little likelihood that people are
going to swarm to my site to read MY reaction to tonight's Democratic debate,
but I'll write it anyway.
In all I was impressed by the Democratic Candidates. I was afraid that there would be a great amount of in-fighting and bickering, and I was glad to see that it was (mostly) not the case. I was surprised and impressed by some, disappointed and annoyed with others. The Candidates did a nice job of working together to point out when they felt Ted Koppel's questions were getting off-topic, like reactions to endorsements, polls, etc. It was hard to address 9 voices in 90 minutes and still try to get into any detail. But I think the debate served its purpose in illuminating what the candidates were like and what they were about.
Because of this last point, I would say that nobody "won or lost" the debate. Some could have done better, but all achieved their goals of getting their message across, and I think that's the most important thing.
Let me give a brief of what I thought of all the candidates:
John Edwards: Man is this guy a doofus! He has only one simple platform, and I think he stole it from Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Special Interests run this country. I'm an outsider so you can trust me. I'm the only man who will say 'no' to special interests." Dude! Do you have a position on anything or do you want me to vote for you just because you're a nice guy? And if you're a Senator, how does that make you qualify as an outsider?
Joe Lieberman: While I'm pissed off at people, let me rail against this guy. What a jerk! He is so obsessed about Howard Dean! Maybe one can excuse him due to the fact that Gore just shafted him. (Since he was Gore's running mate in the last election.) The more annoying thing is that he will say downright false things about other candidates' platforms and put words in their mouths. I've read analysts say this of him before, and I got to see it first-hand tonight. Personally I don't agree with his stance that the Iraq War is right, as is our occupation, and I think his tax cut ideas are moronic, but at least they set him apart. If you totally agree with his platform and you're not bothered with his apparent character, go ahead and vote for him.
Richard Gephardt: He will say these things that sound so good and so right, and you'll catch yourself nodding and going "hmmmm!" but afterwards you can't figure out if he said anything at all. He says broad generalizations and platitudes, but he gives no specifics. I think he's hoping that a "really nice, trustworthy, glowing demeanor" are enough to get his votes. He keeps saying "I'm the only one who can fix these problems" but never gives any details. This is the style that got George W (and Ronald) into office. The strange thing is that reading Hillary's autobiography, it sounds like he's actually pretty savvy to the workings of congress. Maybe that's what a "career politician" is.
John Kerry: Okay, time for a compliment. Kerry presented himself well, acted respectfully, didn't show neurotic tendencies, made good points and showed himself to be an all around good guy. His points were right on. I'm still a Dean supporter, but I could see myself rallying around this guy if he became the candidate.
Wesley Clark: Time for another compliment. I was seriously impressed with Clark. I believe that his insight and understanding of the Middle East dwarfs every other candidate. And as much as he is superior on foreign policy, he shows almost zilch in terms of domestic policy. A few interesting things to note: he's a Rhode's Scholar which at least places him in the "not a dumb 'good old boy'" category. He used to be a Republican until he fell at odds with his political party. I think he could capture the most Republican swing votes, but I don't think he knows how to work with congress and he doesn't have a good enough grasp on domestic issues.
Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich is articulate and doesn't say empty, vacant things. However, I consider his answers to be a bit silly and unrealistic. His only platform I came away with was "Give Iraq to the UN and pull all our troops out immediately." I'm sorry but that's just unrealistic and everybody knows that. Such a position would codify the Republican vote (and much of the Democrats) against us. He seems idealistic and unrealistic, and although I haven't read his website yet, I didn't come away with a belief that he really knows what he's talking about.
Carol Moseley Braun: I love this woman! There's no way that she's going to win, but she seems determined to make sure that her voice is heard. (And I think her voice represents some that aren't represented by the others.) I think since she doesn't have any illusions of becoming President, and that allowed her to stop worrying about making her statements into mini-commercials. She mentioned (along with Kerry) the importance of making sure the Democrats aren't divided. She sounds like a real healer. (No wonder she's an ambassador.) She was simply delightful to listen to, and I'm really happy to know she's in politics.
Al Sharpton: Now I understand what the analysts say: he's simply fun to have in a debate because he knows how to make colorful points. As much as I like his oratory skills (Reverend, go figure) and as much as--like Braun--he represents voices that deserve to be heard, I don't think he demonstrates much policy understanding, either foreign or domestic. Sorry Al!
Howard Dean: Since I'm a Dean supporter, I figured it would be fairest to put him last. I'm afraid I was a little disappointed with Dean, but only on a technical point: too often (like many others) he did not answer the questions directed at him and instead turned his time into Dean-commercials. He said some specific things about Iraq that I assume make sense (I don't know enough to evaluate his specifics.) but I'm a little worried that he's going to come across as incapable in foreign policy. This is why I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be unbeatable. Still, I'm annoyed that Dean didn't answer the questions.
Ted Koppel: Okay, he wasn't a contender, but he took part in shaping the debates. I agree with the candidates that he tried to go into "media interest" issues about campaign speculation. I salute the candidates for keeping Ted on track. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
C-SPAN callers after the debate: Another collection of idiots. Can anyone call in with a salient point to be made about the topic in hand? (In this case, the debate.) Sadly, hearing their thoughts stole my hope in a reasonable American Public, and I wonder if we're doomed!
Well, that's about it. I generally think Dean, Clark or Kerry could lead a decent race against George W. I think a Dean/Clark ticket (or Dean/Gore) would be optimal. Howard needs to brush up his foreign affairs debating skills and make sure he doesn't appear to dodge issues. And in general, I think we all need to pull together once this is over, put aside hard feelings and work together to win in 2004.
In all I was impressed by the Democratic Candidates. I was afraid that there would be a great amount of in-fighting and bickering, and I was glad to see that it was (mostly) not the case. I was surprised and impressed by some, disappointed and annoyed with others. The Candidates did a nice job of working together to point out when they felt Ted Koppel's questions were getting off-topic, like reactions to endorsements, polls, etc. It was hard to address 9 voices in 90 minutes and still try to get into any detail. But I think the debate served its purpose in illuminating what the candidates were like and what they were about.
Because of this last point, I would say that nobody "won or lost" the debate. Some could have done better, but all achieved their goals of getting their message across, and I think that's the most important thing.
Let me give a brief of what I thought of all the candidates:
John Edwards: Man is this guy a doofus! He has only one simple platform, and I think he stole it from Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Special Interests run this country. I'm an outsider so you can trust me. I'm the only man who will say 'no' to special interests." Dude! Do you have a position on anything or do you want me to vote for you just because you're a nice guy? And if you're a Senator, how does that make you qualify as an outsider?
Joe Lieberman: While I'm pissed off at people, let me rail against this guy. What a jerk! He is so obsessed about Howard Dean! Maybe one can excuse him due to the fact that Gore just shafted him. (Since he was Gore's running mate in the last election.) The more annoying thing is that he will say downright false things about other candidates' platforms and put words in their mouths. I've read analysts say this of him before, and I got to see it first-hand tonight. Personally I don't agree with his stance that the Iraq War is right, as is our occupation, and I think his tax cut ideas are moronic, but at least they set him apart. If you totally agree with his platform and you're not bothered with his apparent character, go ahead and vote for him.
Richard Gephardt: He will say these things that sound so good and so right, and you'll catch yourself nodding and going "hmmmm!" but afterwards you can't figure out if he said anything at all. He says broad generalizations and platitudes, but he gives no specifics. I think he's hoping that a "really nice, trustworthy, glowing demeanor" are enough to get his votes. He keeps saying "I'm the only one who can fix these problems" but never gives any details. This is the style that got George W (and Ronald) into office. The strange thing is that reading Hillary's autobiography, it sounds like he's actually pretty savvy to the workings of congress. Maybe that's what a "career politician" is.
John Kerry: Okay, time for a compliment. Kerry presented himself well, acted respectfully, didn't show neurotic tendencies, made good points and showed himself to be an all around good guy. His points were right on. I'm still a Dean supporter, but I could see myself rallying around this guy if he became the candidate.
Wesley Clark: Time for another compliment. I was seriously impressed with Clark. I believe that his insight and understanding of the Middle East dwarfs every other candidate. And as much as he is superior on foreign policy, he shows almost zilch in terms of domestic policy. A few interesting things to note: he's a Rhode's Scholar which at least places him in the "not a dumb 'good old boy'" category. He used to be a Republican until he fell at odds with his political party. I think he could capture the most Republican swing votes, but I don't think he knows how to work with congress and he doesn't have a good enough grasp on domestic issues.
Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich is articulate and doesn't say empty, vacant things. However, I consider his answers to be a bit silly and unrealistic. His only platform I came away with was "Give Iraq to the UN and pull all our troops out immediately." I'm sorry but that's just unrealistic and everybody knows that. Such a position would codify the Republican vote (and much of the Democrats) against us. He seems idealistic and unrealistic, and although I haven't read his website yet, I didn't come away with a belief that he really knows what he's talking about.
Carol Moseley Braun: I love this woman! There's no way that she's going to win, but she seems determined to make sure that her voice is heard. (And I think her voice represents some that aren't represented by the others.) I think since she doesn't have any illusions of becoming President, and that allowed her to stop worrying about making her statements into mini-commercials. She mentioned (along with Kerry) the importance of making sure the Democrats aren't divided. She sounds like a real healer. (No wonder she's an ambassador.) She was simply delightful to listen to, and I'm really happy to know she's in politics.
Al Sharpton: Now I understand what the analysts say: he's simply fun to have in a debate because he knows how to make colorful points. As much as I like his oratory skills (Reverend, go figure) and as much as--like Braun--he represents voices that deserve to be heard, I don't think he demonstrates much policy understanding, either foreign or domestic. Sorry Al!
Howard Dean: Since I'm a Dean supporter, I figured it would be fairest to put him last. I'm afraid I was a little disappointed with Dean, but only on a technical point: too often (like many others) he did not answer the questions directed at him and instead turned his time into Dean-commercials. He said some specific things about Iraq that I assume make sense (I don't know enough to evaluate his specifics.) but I'm a little worried that he's going to come across as incapable in foreign policy. This is why I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be unbeatable. Still, I'm annoyed that Dean didn't answer the questions.
Ted Koppel: Okay, he wasn't a contender, but he took part in shaping the debates. I agree with the candidates that he tried to go into "media interest" issues about campaign speculation. I salute the candidates for keeping Ted on track. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
C-SPAN callers after the debate: Another collection of idiots. Can anyone call in with a salient point to be made about the topic in hand? (In this case, the debate.) Sadly, hearing their thoughts stole my hope in a reasonable American Public, and I wonder if we're doomed!
Well, that's about it. I generally think Dean, Clark or Kerry could lead a decent race against George W. I think a Dean/Clark ticket (or Dean/Gore) would be optimal. Howard needs to brush up his foreign affairs debating skills and make sure he doesn't appear to dodge issues. And in general, I think we all need to pull together once this is over, put aside hard feelings and work together to win in 2004.
Posted: Tue - December 9, 2003 at 07:50 PM