Today there was a debate between the Democratic Presidential candidates for 2008. The candidates vying for the DNC’s nomination that participated in this debate were: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel. Well, there’s definitely a lot to say about the candidates and the overall debate. I think the best performers so to speak, were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
I was surprised with the negativity in this debate, and I think most of it was directed towards Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, I think had to defend her record more than any other candidate, and hers is NOT the most controversial. Maybe that’s just politics, but many times other candidates were asked questions that I think prompted them to present themselves as alternate to Clinton as opposed to clearly identifying themselves as the best candidate. Stupid questions get asked in every debate. For example in 2004 Kerry was asked in a debate with George Bush, if he could in the camera, into the eyes of every Americans and “promise” not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200K. In today debate, one of these questions was why do Republicans supposedly put so much money (they do not!) into helping her campaign and hoping Clinton wins the nomination. These are stupid questions because the responses to these questions are known before they get asked. What was Kerry supposed to say on national TV; yes he would raise taxes on the poorest Americans? And Hillary was supposed to say Republicans publicly support her campaign because they like her platform? It’s nonsense. Yeah, negativity is part of campaigns, but still, that in my opinion is a sign of weakness. I think because of these attack questions, she did not have the most rehearsed answers as many voluntary polls from MSNBC, CNN, and FOX news websites. Despite this, I think Hillary Clinton showed a different side of herself, not the cold, calculated politician that the media and Republicans make her out to be. Her emphasis on change I think resonated with many viewers.
Second, I usually consider myself to be well informed, but I had no idea one of these guys was actually a candidate! Alaskan Mike Gravel served in the US Senate during the Vietnam War, and was primarily known for his efforts to remove American troops from that region. This guy was very interesting, I thought. Just due to the sheer fact that I had no idea who he was, I paid a lot of attention to him throughout the debate. His
Barack Obama also did well. His response to the question about the candidates’ biggest professional regrets really impressed me. He responded that at the time he was elected, the Terry Schiavo/right to die issue dominated the news. His regret was that along with other members of the House and Senate of both parties, he supported the effort to allow the government to intervene in a matter that should be decided privately by families. Most of the other candidates’ responses dealt with their initial support of the Iraq war (except in the case of Kucinich, who pointed out his consistent opposition to the war). Obama, I think showed himself as less of a fluff candidate, though I still think he lacks substance compared to the others, Clinton in particular.
The debate did not help or hurt anyone else, in my opinion. In my opinion, Edwards was never a front-runner, but many people consider him to be. After tonight he still isn’t a frontrunner. Kucinich is an interesting character; his opposition to Iraq from the beginning was pretty much the only thing he said. He also claimed that tonight’s debate is going to bring Americans to his campaign because they will see the importance of a near immediate withdrawal and impeachment of Cheney. That’s not going to happen. Completely irrelevant to the debate, but relevant to his campaign is his decision to hold a black tie fundraiser in Huntington Beach the same night Hillary Clinton held a black tie fundraiser with Bill Clinton at Ron Burkle’s Beverly Hills mansion, for a minimum $2000 per plate contribution, but Kucinich’s dinner was a $25 suggested contribution event. Chris Dodd was so boring to listen to, he was the opposite of Kucinich and Gravel-no emotion at all. Joe Biden is a brilliant statesman, but has no chance at the nomination. Tonight I like that he addressed the stupid Hillary question I discussed above. The last candidate, Bill Richardson’s defense of an earlier comment about why he was late to call for the resignation of Gonzales was weak. Richardson tried to say that Gonzales was trapped by an aggressive Bush agenda, and his being Hispanic was the reason for Richardson’s delay. I do not buy into this, and I hope others don’t believe it. Gonzales became AG maybe because he was qualified, but also because of his political affiliation, and probably past financial support for the Republican/conservative agenda (same reason RFK became AG in 1960, it happens).
I was surprised with the negativity in this debate, and I think most of it was directed towards Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, I think had to defend her record more than any other candidate, and hers is NOT the most controversial. Maybe that’s just politics, but many times other candidates were asked questions that I think prompted them to present themselves as alternate to Clinton as opposed to clearly identifying themselves as the best candidate. Stupid questions get asked in every debate. For example in 2004 Kerry was asked in a debate with George Bush, if he could in the camera, into the eyes of every Americans and “promise” not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200K. In today debate, one of these questions was why do Republicans supposedly put so much money (they do not!) into helping her campaign and hoping Clinton wins the nomination. These are stupid questions because the responses to these questions are known before they get asked. What was Kerry supposed to say on national TV; yes he would raise taxes on the poorest Americans? And Hillary was supposed to say Republicans publicly support her campaign because they like her platform? It’s nonsense. Yeah, negativity is part of campaigns, but still, that in my opinion is a sign of weakness. I think because of these attack questions, she did not have the most rehearsed answers as many voluntary polls from MSNBC, CNN, and FOX news websites. Despite this, I think Hillary Clinton showed a different side of herself, not the cold, calculated politician that the media and Republicans make her out to be. Her emphasis on change I think resonated with many viewers.
Second, I usually consider myself to be well informed, but I had no idea one of these guys was actually a candidate! Alaskan Mike Gravel served in the US Senate during the Vietnam War, and was primarily known for his efforts to remove American troops from that region. This guy was very interesting, I thought. Just due to the sheer fact that I had no idea who he was, I paid a lot of attention to him throughout the debate. His
Barack Obama also did well. His response to the question about the candidates’ biggest professional regrets really impressed me. He responded that at the time he was elected, the Terry Schiavo/right to die issue dominated the news. His regret was that along with other members of the House and Senate of both parties, he supported the effort to allow the government to intervene in a matter that should be decided privately by families. Most of the other candidates’ responses dealt with their initial support of the Iraq war (except in the case of Kucinich, who pointed out his consistent opposition to the war). Obama, I think showed himself as less of a fluff candidate, though I still think he lacks substance compared to the others, Clinton in particular.
The debate did not help or hurt anyone else, in my opinion. In my opinion, Edwards was never a front-runner, but many people consider him to be. After tonight he still isn’t a frontrunner. Kucinich is an interesting character; his opposition to Iraq from the beginning was pretty much the only thing he said. He also claimed that tonight’s debate is going to bring Americans to his campaign because they will see the importance of a near immediate withdrawal and impeachment of Cheney. That’s not going to happen. Completely irrelevant to the debate, but relevant to his campaign is his decision to hold a black tie fundraiser in Huntington Beach the same night Hillary Clinton held a black tie fundraiser with Bill Clinton at Ron Burkle’s Beverly Hills mansion, for a minimum $2000 per plate contribution, but Kucinich’s dinner was a $25 suggested contribution event. Chris Dodd was so boring to listen to, he was the opposite of Kucinich and Gravel-no emotion at all. Joe Biden is a brilliant statesman, but has no chance at the nomination. Tonight I like that he addressed the stupid Hillary question I discussed above. The last candidate, Bill Richardson’s defense of an earlier comment about why he was late to call for the resignation of Gonzales was weak. Richardson tried to say that Gonzales was trapped by an aggressive Bush agenda, and his being Hispanic was the reason for Richardson’s delay. I do not buy into this, and I hope others don’t believe it. Gonzales became AG maybe because he was qualified, but also because of his political affiliation, and probably past financial support for the Republican/conservative agenda (same reason RFK became AG in 1960, it happens).
No comments:
Post a Comment