Even though I don't own a TV, it occurred to me this evening to see if I could watch the Democratic debate in Nevada live online at CNN's website. While I'm not sure what clips CNN will post after the fact, I'm glad that I got the opportunity to watch it live. I hate having to pick through the things networks deem newsworthy to post on their sites - or worse, reading transcripts. That's one thing that has me a little bummed about the fact that I'll be out of the country and in a place with spotty internet next year - I won't be able to follow the 2008 election as closely as I would like. But, at least I can keep tabs on what's going on now.
As far as tonight's debate, I'm not sure that I can name a winner. I can, however give you some of my thoughts:
Dennis Kucinich is a weird little man. While I do agree with most of what he has to say, he's simply a weird little man. With pointy ears. And whom the moderators and other candidates tend to ignore. Like when moderator Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates about Pakistan - except Kucinich. His response was to wave his arms and shout "Hellllooooooo?!" and yet he was still ignored. He was even ignored when he began chanting "Impeach him now! Impeach him now!"
Then we have Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. My problem with them is that they look SO MUCH ALIKE, I seriously cannot tell them apart. They're both older white dudes with white hair. I would type that they seem to have the same positions on most issues... but I'm just not sure. They haven't done anything to differentiate one from the other in my book.
Richardson came off well, and had strong answers. He's obviously a really smart, sensible fellow who would probably do a pretty decent job as president. But he seems more like a behind-the-scenes-get-things-done kind of guy to me, and I suspect that might make him seem un-presidential to many others. Also, he makes some fantastically amusing quizzical facial expressions, which I rather suspect mirrored the ones on my face the other night at that poetry reading.
Now, ya'll know I love Obama (I even have an Obama sign in my front window). He's such an incredible orator when he has a prepared speech (think his 2004 convention keynote speech, among numerous others. He had an incredible one that I heard on NPR the other day, but hell if I can remember where he was giving it...), but he's not *quite* as stellar when he goes unscripted. Nonetheless, I'm still rooting for him as my candidate of choice. His answer on the issue of alternative energy sources was very JFK-esque: I'm running for President because I think we can do it. Live, it was totally reminiscent of Kennedy's we choose to go to the moon speech. Also, watching Obama and Hillary go toe to toe on issues of health care, taxing the super-rich and fixing social security were certainly the high points of a debate that was, at times, dull.
Edwards has a really cute smile. I'd never noticed before. He had really strong answers on issues of trade, Iran, the Patriot Act and torture... but I remembered that because I wrote it down as he was answering. Nothing he said really stuck with me. (Also, can someone seriously tell me what has happened to this country that torture is an issue on which people have opinions other than that it is heinous and should be illegal?)
I didn't see the previous debate, but I know that the news afterwards was that Hillary didn't perform as well as she should have. This was followed up by the debate over was she or was she not playing the gender card. Well, she's a politician, and she's smooth and she covered for that EXCELLENTLY with her answer to whether or not she was playing the gender card... It brought tears to my eyes. Literally. Even though I'm pretty certain she had that pre-scripted. She gave good answers, and came out looking like a strong leader - and like a strong politician. It's that strong politician part of her that makes me wary. That, and the fact that she doesn't seem to understand that people who make over $97k/yr ARE NOT MIDDLE CLASS. And she apparently voted to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Um, no. (Although Obama didn't even bother to show up for that vote, the punk.)
And who the hell thought it was a good idea to let the final question of the debate be some lame UNLV student asking Hillary if she prefered diamonds or pearls? Stupid, stupid question.
12 comments:
I haven't been following the debates as closely as I should, but thanks for the re-cap.
I like Obama, but I don't think he's ready. I don't think this is his year. I hope running now doesn't kill his chances because I think in 2016, he'd be a fantastic president. Clinton's my pick, but maybe living in DC helped me understand to look past the overly political facade.
I worry about Dems. Really. We're not known for running good campaigns. Clinton the first won 'cause he's got charisma oozing out his every pore--his campaign was ok. His wife seems to have a better machine working for her, which is good because she needs it badly, but I don't know if our country can handle a "nontraditional" candidate right now (meaning woman or minority).
I'd love to say we could, but I think there are too many people who were too easily convinced the last presidential election was about gay marriage (for christsakes, there was a farking war happening--but oh my god men want to be faithful to each other and we can't allow that!)for me to have much faith in the general populous. That and they still think Kerry is upper class elite and Bush (Texas millionare golden boy) comes "from the people."
Dammit, Dems. Play like your Republican brethern and hire some good PR to do your dirty campaigning for you. You know everyone's going to lie anyhow, why not lie for the greater good?
Sorry about the long ramblings. I miss talking politics more than I thought, apparently!
I watched tonight too. Once again I felt Biden was the person I would trust the most overall right now. I think he should trim the back of his hair close to his neck. His hair does bother me even though it should have nothing to do with this.
I thought Dodd did much better than last time.
I feel the same as you do about Richardson.
I also like Obama. I don't think he is as ready to be president as Biden but he is my second choice.
Edwards I thought was weak or doesn't really care enough. When he talks I just see a lawyer. Not that that's bad.
Tonight I'd rank them on performance,
1 Biden
2 Richardson
3 Clinton
4 Obama
5 Dodd
6 Edwards
7 Kucinich
But if I base it on issues,
1 Biden
2 Obama
3 Dodd
4 Richardson
5 Edwards
6 Clinton
7 Kucinich
I thought the last question to Hillary was trying to emulate the boxers or briefs question to Bill Clinton. I can admire the attempt. You've got this one moment to make history with a question like that, but I don't think she pulled it off. I guess time will tell.
So, does she like diamonds or pearls?
Hil definitely seems like the biggest "politician" running for president. That is to say, she's most willing to do or say anything to win. She'd drop Bill in a heartbeat if she thought it'd help her. In fact, I'm convinced that's why they're still together after his infidelity. She knew that a divorced ex-first lady would never win votes, and even then was preparing for a run at the White House.
My choice would be Obama, because he seems to be the democratic candidate who is least corrupted by Washington. I really hope he can get the nomination.
My overall choice would probably be Ron Paul though - the most principled and consistent man in Washington. Too bad he doesn't have a chance.
I'm with you Jane....over $97k you can easily keep paying ss - you probably don't even notice it gone from you pay. I'm suprised at Hillary on that one.
Obama represents change and a different generation. And it is the people that are put in the key positions that end up making the difference. I also get the feeling Obama would listen and not rush to judgment.
Aunt Mary
Maybe she meant 97K for the household? I would argue that that is middle class. I saw online the other day that the average starting salary for a teacher is around 50K this days. So, 97K would be the salary of two married teachers.
Melissa
Yes, $97k per household is middle class and that’s coming from a person in the middle of the US, Kansas City. If both work and have kids, a quarter of your income is going to child care and by the time you pay off all household expenses, it leaves a family a little extra to save. We are well above that but with more money come more expenses, so it is the proverbial rat race I am in. Anyway, I saw snippets of the debate and while I love Obama and his views, he is a little too green for my taste. And while my Korean background/paternalistic views are going haywire for supporting Hillary, I just love her total political package/experience. Just my opinion. I think the US needs to shake things up a bit and I think she is just the person to do this.
Steve/KC Reader
First off, in 2006, the median annual household income according to the U.S. Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201. This is the actual “middle” of middle-class.
Secondly, all the candidates are among the rich and elite. The average (middle-class) Tom, Dick, and Mary's interests will not be served by any of the millionaires running for the presidency. So, we are left to vote for who people who no longer (if they ever did) shop at Wal-mart, drive used cars, or live paycheck to paycheck worrying about rising food, gas, and clothing prices every single day of their lives. The absence of honest middle-class choices is abhorrent in today's political landscape.
Then, there is the American public—well informed geniuses that we all are. I think Tibor Machan puts it into words better than I can. From Tibor's article, ”Good arguments aren't enough anymore.”
"Most Americans these days have irrational expectations of public policies and, thus, send irrational politicians to govern the country at all levels of government, it is clearly not enough to approach them sensibly, rationally.
The public is becoming captive to the entitlement mentality and the governmental habit by developing their own wish lists.
Now, when citizens of a country have such an attitude towards politics--seeing their government as Santa Claus--then the policies that they will welcome from their candidates and representatives will be anything but rational. The federal government is not only ill-equipped to fulfill the Christmas wishes of the citizenry, but it lacks the resources to do so.
By now, the debt of the country is immense and the way nearly everything is funded is by coercively imposed credit, to be paid by the yet-unborn citizens of the country whose "participation" even violates the principle of "no taxation without representation."
Hundreds of other examples of citizenship insanity could be cited to show that good arguments simply are ignored by millions who insist on trying to get blood out of a turnip, who insist not only on extorting funds from their fellow citizens, but also on trying to extort funds that simply cannot be found. Like all those folks flocking to Las Vegas in the conviction that they will come away lucky, the bulk of the public now is hoping for the impossible.
You can advance great arguments showing what is rational and sensible in public affairs, but when the public cares nothing about being rational, it will be a futile exercise, plain and simple"--this piece was edited for brevity.
Wow! Can he put some words on paper. I just wish he had some answers on who I should vote for. Used to look like Obama, but now I'm leaning more towards Ron Paul. That's the great thing about the United States, it's my prerogative to vote for anyone I want to.
I checked the transcript, and they weren't referring to households making $97k/yr, but individuals. Now, I certainly agree that in a single-income household consisting of two adults and one or more children, $97k/yr is middle class. I do think that if they were to implement a tax on individuls making more than $97k/yr they should take into consideration how many people are dependent on that income before taxing it.
Hillary said she liked both Diamonds and pearls. Same answer Bill gave about underwear.
I guess the $97,000 income 'feels' middle class to those whose expectations have risen along with their income. If they were willing to live in a $29,000 house and drive a 10 year old car, they might find they could live comfortably on under $40,000, and save half of that for retirement! (And even buy 'huge tracts of land'. OK, they might have to move to Waycross to do that.)
John from daejeon has some great points, but I believe in Christmas, and my Christmas wish is for peace, and a bonus would be a leader that understands the constitution.
So I think Obama will get my vote if I get that chance.
Post a Comment