Thoughts on the Democratic Presidential Debate
I wish I had the time to write something lengthy and substantive the debate, but I have a paper due tomorrow, so I’ll just record some thoughts. (Oh, and I missed the first 30 minutes because, like I just said: paper due.)
I have to say, Hilary Clinton is really impressive. Obama and Edwards look really desperate next to her, and their focus on contrasting themselves with her isn’t coming off well. I find Richardson’s leap to her defense really interesting; I’m not sure how I feel about it, but it certainly made him stand out. (And it seemed to me that everyone was referring to everyone by first name until Richardson criticized Edwards and Obama for their attacks on “Senator Clinton.” Then everyone switched to title and last name. Very interesting.)
I think Richardson and Hilary have the best demeanor up there. Edwards looks like he’s trying too hard, Obama just isn’t clicking, Chris Dodd sounds really good, and Joe Biden is apparently running as the “funny one.” Oh, hi, Congressman Kucinich!
Clinton on Social Security: “Fiscal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, fiscal responsibility.” What does that mean, anyway? But sheesh, Tim Russert is really, really irritating. Why does he try to keep nailing her? Why isn’t he going after anyone else in the same way?
Hey, Dodd comes out for a carbon tax. Cool. ‘Course, now I don’t seem to agree with him on immigration.
Edwards and Obama are pissing me off with their last-minute jabs at Clinton. Equating nuance with inconsistency seems willfully ignorant. On the other hand, Kucinich is making a strong play for the alien abductee vote.
Before tonight, I’d been saying that my preferred candidate was Edwards, but now I’m not so sure. I guess I need to find out more about Dodd. And I’ll say this: I disagree with Hilary on just about everything of substance, but she does look mighty presidential up there.
Popularity: 4% [?]
I feel similarly about Dodd and was reminded recently that he announced his candidacy on the Don Imus show.
As for Clinton, I read something yesterday or today, I think on Kos, about how people don’t seem to hate her as much as the media made them think they hated her. How people see her and are like, “What did I hate about her?” How her perceived electoral problems (bringing down down ticket races in red states) might not be as big an issue because candidates are hearing “I used to hate Clinton, but now…”
I really do think the majority of public opinion about her is framed by a media portrayal. Her campaign could be the most perfectly run campaign ever, and she, the most perfect candidate ever. This isn’t an endorsement so much as an echoing of what’s being said currently, that Obama and John Edwards aren’t going to make much hay in this primary waiting for her to slip up. It’s not going to happen.
If Obama wants to make this a race, he’ll need to lead on issues relevant to his potential voters, namely Iraq and Iran, health insurance, and the economy, not by making an issue of social security and pandering to faith voters by embracing a homophobic bigot.
I spend a lot of time defending Clinton among my peers. Not necessarily because I feel like she would be the best president for this country (though 8 years of Bill as lead diplomat might just start to repair our image in the world), but because I get sick when I think of what the media did to Gore. Perhaps if the 2 candidates in 2000 were scrutinized equally the last 8 years of nightmare might not have happened.
fascinating. as frish and i are TV-less, we’ve been missing all sorts of important things. i have not seen the debates and sadly have only seen clips of them on stewart. sooo, your comments were interesting. thank you.
Funny, I’d say I liked Clinton slightly less after this debate. I’m not sure who I like, now that Colbert is out of the running.
When you only get 6 minutes to Hillary’s 30, courtesey of the media who has decided that the Democratic Party should make history rather than wise decisions, sometimes you have to be the funny one.