CNN/YouTube Democratic Debates

[theatokos]

Did anyone else watch? I'm a sucker for this sort of thing. I love watching debates, and this one was less dull than most. The YouTube public questions helped a great deal - why can't political pundits and media people be as pointed and direct and sincere? It took the candidates a while to get into the spirit - less posturing and fewer sound bites, eventually more on topic answers.

I have been interested in Edwards and Richardson, almost entirely avoiding the Clinton/Obama train (although, three cheers for a serious female and "non-white" candidate!). Every time Obama speaks it's like America's dignity regains lost points. However, the man has almost no experience.... And neither does Edwards, really. But his policy is solid and is setting the agenda for both Clinton and Obama. After Bush, I want me some thought through policy in the White House!! Sadly, during the debate, he appeared sophomoric to Clinton and Obama's most-likely-to-succeed Senior attitudes. They both spoke clearly, comfortably, and frankly, Presidentially. Clinton's research and knowledge of issues, as well as her many, many years as First Lady and other political roles, clearly have given her perspective that so many other candidates lack.

And Richardson. He looked like a bloated fish out of water, the poor man. His ideas are great, his experience just what this country needs; alas, he is so bad at communicating that. And Kucinich. My ideas are probably closest to his and yet he is completely unelectable. And he's weird to boot.

I hate to say that I am leaning more toward Hillary after this debate. But I am. She was just down right Presidential, unfazed, eloquent, calm, knowledgeable. Even if her seemingly convenient middle-of-the-road actions and policy make me uneasy, she just might restore some dignity to our foreign relations and maybe get something done in the White House.

Anybody else have some thoughts?

Comments

My thoughts on the primary, let me show you them.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

I only got to see the tail end of the debate, and found it interesting but not entirely satisfying.

I'm liking Clinton more and more in this primary, too. I have my reservations about her politics--she and Bill are both more middle-of-the-road than I am, but I'm kind of a socialist, so most candidates are. And I distrust the Clinton's membership in the Old Guard of the Democratic party. But a moderate Dem candidate is a more electable candidate, and I think she knows that as well as anyone. I also think she could lead, and lead well; I don't have any doubts about her effectiveness, political savvy, or ability to handle the pressure. And her little scuffle with the Pentagon recently won her some rabble-rouser cred from me.

I like Obama as well, and he may be as electable as Clinton, but I have more doubts as to his readiness for the Presidency. I kind of wish he'd waited til 2012 to throw his hat in the ring, so he'd have more of a record in Congress to run on. Unlike a lot of liberals I know, I've never especially liked Edwards, but I think that's a personal thing on my part because I can't really put my finger on why (part of it's his Baptist background and stance on marriage rights, part of it's the inexperience, but mostly it's just visceral. His wife is my favorite thing about him.)

I still don't know who I'll vote for in the primaries, though. The question is who will appeal the most to independent/undecided voters--I think Dems are so sick and tired of the current situation that it's another case of ABB for us, except to the power of ten. It looks like we're going to get Clinton right now, maybe versus Giuliani (who plays the moderate, but I don't trust him even half as far as I could throw him.)

And I'm afraid it really boils down to whether this country is ready to elect a woman President (or a black President, for that matter.) I wish I was more confident of that, although I think it's very cool that these are our Dem frontrunners...we are the party of the future! But we need to get someone elected in the present....

Re: My thoughts on the primary, let me show you them.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Just about everything you say, I agree with here. There is something off-putting for me about Hillary, but saying it's her "ambitiousness" makes me feel like some skeezy good-ol-boy. Because a woman has every place to be ambitious, but there's something so... opportunistic about her and her politics; that's something I don't like in a politician at all. I'd rather not agree on everything but know that the politician was giving every issue thorough thought.

I fear another case of ABB, because that's just wrong. It didn't get us far last time - and was Kerry the best we could do? I think so much damage has been done under Bush that a mediocre Dem, while not doing more damage, wouldn't actually be able to do any repairing, and American needs to mended - not just in our attitudinal splintering but in our national and international relations and policies. I want some one who is smart, sees the big picture and has the clout and dignity to get things done. At this point, that person may only be Clinton.

We'll see.

[eelsalad.livejournal.com]

I really like this essay (http://www.alternet.org/story/48390/) on the topic of voting for Hillary. On the one hand, I feel like as a feminist, I should vote for the female candidate. But OTOH, I despise Hillary - she's a carpet-bagging, overly-ambitious, pro-war, moderate-for-the-votes kind of person, as far as I can tell. And to vote for her because of her sex instead of her policies seems the opposite of feminism to me.

So... yeah.

I don't watch the debates because as far as I can tell they're all spin and marketing. I am more interested in what the candidates have done and how they have voted than in what they promise to do. After all, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, and he's divided this country very, very deeply. (Though I admit more and more folks are uniting in their dislike of him, but that's not what he's trying to do.)

Meh. Generally speaking, anybody who can actually get elected president has a very small chance of being the kind of person I want to hold the office.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's m reaction to Clinton too: opportunist. I am trying to stay away from the Ambitious label, but I think it comes from a sexist place. However, she doesn't come across as straight up. Even though, she is whip smart and knows a lot about everything and has the experience to back it all up. And while I admire and agree with people like Kucinich more, he just is. not. electable. Maybe a vehement moderate is what we need?

So hard to tell.

Who are leaning toward? Anyone?

[eelsalad.livejournal.com]

Well, Obama resonates with me because we're both idealists, but it worries me that he has so little experience. Beyond that, the others seem mostly like bad photocopies of mediocre democrats of ages past. I really need to do the research to make up my mind, I've just been swamped with stuff.