Hazel and I watched the democratic debate last night. At two hours, I was ready for them to end but I did find them interesting and worthwhile to watch. The debate was spirited at times and provided some opportunity to see how the candidates differed.
This morning I went to a CNN site providing analysts scorecard of the debate. I think they are wrong. The analyst view the debates from an entirely different perspective then the average viewer. They have a "history" with the candidates and accordingly rate on the basis of this previous knowledge and on conjecture as to how the average viewer sees them. For example, to say that Clinton won the debate because she didn't put her foot in her mouth IS WRONG! If the question had been whether the debate changed their status, okay. But Clinton did not shine last night.
For me, it was the first time I saw some of these people represent their positions. I liked Richardson (at least he promoted his record in very favorable light) in the debate even though I reject his Iraq position. Mike Gravel? Well I hope he stays around to throw water on the other candidates. Sometimes he even said something worthwhile but as a serious presidential candidate - no way. It was like one of those group settings where one individual consistently says things out of sync, the others politely pause and then resume their discourse as though he had said nothing.
I think Edwards gained some points, Obama showed substantial grasp of issues, Clinton had a face lift, Biden surprised me and will get further scrutiny from me. He was a little too forceful at moments but had good comments, Dodd - not impressed, Kucinich - please no!
Course I'm a republican so might not vote for any of them. Frankly, I want to vote for the person that I think can best lead the country. It's unlikely Ill agree with all of their platform. I just want competence.
The big surprise? That the debates weren't canceled for a "Going to Jail" party for Paris Hilton. Don't we have our priorities here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I love how you throw the fact that Hillary had a facelift in the middle of your analysis. Sexist! :)
I too watched the debate and was struck by how easy it would be to be a democrat. I can be for everything. Universal healthcare...for it. Universal preschool...for it. How do we pay for it? Just let tax cuts go away...mind you that isn't a tax increase. Universal prescription coverage...for it. Lowering of gas prices...for it. Where is the nuance? Just because oil companies make a profit doesn't mean there is collusion (although one of the candidates was smart enough to mention vertical integration for the profits...albeit he still thought there was collusion and price fixing of a commodity that US oil companies control about 4% of world production). Furthermore, how do you lower gas prices without raising the demand of fossil fuels; at least Gravel had the gonads to say he wasn’t for lower gas prices because he had environmental concerns. I guess it’s easy to be consistent when you have no chance of winning.
Moi? Sexist? How can you infer that, I even married a woman!
Hey, these guys are going to pay for all the health care by eliminating the tax cut on those nasty rich Americans.
Be interesting to compare estimated coast of the health care program compared to money received from the abolished tax cut.
And, before jumping on Universal Health Care, better check out how it has affected Canadians. Maybe I better schedule an illness now so I get treatment by 2012.
Oil companies make obscene profits (thats what the media called them). I think price controls are in order - I rmember when gas cost $.35 a gallon (and even less). Now that seems like a reasonable number to me.
Post a Comment