On a recent post, Randy Ewart observes:
I think someone on a previous thread wrote something about a presidential debate being held in SC somewhere…
Yeah, I heard about that, too. And fortunately, I think our newsroom has pretty well covered the bases of what can be said about it in advance.
For my part, I have little to say about it beforehand, and I’m sort of concerned I won’t have much to say about it after the fact. These cattle-call debates, which allow each candidate to spit out a soundbite or two, are pretty much useless. In that amount of time, with that many people, there is no realistic hope of reaching an informed decision based on anything meaningful. These formats are of little use until you get down to two or three candidates, and frequently that doesn’t work, either.
Basically, it’s a show, and I don’t have high expectations.
But what do y’all think?
Related Posts
Brad, I’m with you on this one. I don’t have great expectations for this type of debate format but perhaps it can provide some general insight into the positions of each candidate.
Right now I’m leaning toward Obama but I could easily be swayed. He seems to have the best combination of charisma and correctness on the issues. He may be a bit inexperienced though.
I like Hillary’s health care ideas. Events over the last 10 years have nothing but confirm to me how correct her position was on that. The current system is failing the American people big time. But Hillary is wishy-washy on the Iraq war.
Edwards has come clean on his Iraq mistake but has some explaining to do about his big house (yes that does bother me some in light of the peak oil/global warming issues).
Joe Biden is bright and experienced but he’s just plain dull and comes across as someone who likes to hear himself talk.
I like Dodd but he seems such a long shot.
Kucinich comes across as a Harry Stassen type, always campaigning.
The others I have not opinion on. Since I’m so undecided perhaps this debate will be somewhat useful. But it’s early and probably not that important.
Eight people in a “debate” is a joke.
However, this event illustrates my ultimate problem with campaign finance reform: what system will winnow out “non-starters” like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich early?
(Folks might argue that this debate IS early but, practically, there should be no more than three choices presented to primary voters.)
With the current system, it’s a race for the candidate to sell his/her soul to monied special interests.
Even with the financial bar set pretty high for primary competitors, candidates with little or no chance in a general election clog up the works.
We had a brief discussion about this at this morning’s meeting. Someone referred to it as a personality contest.
Well, if it’s a personality contest, Obama wins.
If it’s a “who hates the war the most and has been against it the longest” contest, Dennis Kucinich wins.
Personally, I think it’s worth watching to see whether Joe Biden’s head explodes from having to be so brief.
But that’s about all you can get from it — the explosion, the gaffe, the embarrassment that somebody can’t live down.
Not much substance, though.
“Not much substance, though.”
Sort of like the State editorial page.
(Just kidding Brad, I couldn’t resist.)
“Right now I’m leaning toward Obama but I could easily be swayed. He seems to have the best combination of charisma and correctness on the issues. He may be a bit inexperienced though.”
Bud,
At my age, this inexperience is the appeal. I’m so sick of career politicians. If he even seems to have some backbone and can form a complete sentence, I think it can work. I think.
The primary process has ruined things. It depends upon spending lots of money (good for newspapers, radio and TV) to sell mostly disinterested people on voting for candidates based on feelings. The marketing starts earlier and earlier.
Go back to local caucuses, electing delegates to state conventions, then to national conventions. That is the only way an outsider has a chance, which is why the two-party elites got rid of it.
Well I think the debate was more interesting than a stream of soundbites. Kucinich was NOT the biggest anti-war guy, the “potted plant” was!! Sadly, it was kind of American Idolish with him. The duel between Obama and Kucinich at the end made for a strong finish I thought.
Did anyone else see Edwards’ stumbling through his response to “who’s your moral leader?” as a big blow to what moral standing he might have had with his two Americas posturing? Ask me that question and I spout out 3 names before the question is finished. It took him 20 seconds to even think to say Jesus. At least he didn’t say Vidal Sassoon.
Bud, I appreciated hearing dialogue from those in power directed towards helping the poor and not building up our bank accounts. I thought Hilary performed the best, but I don’t see the substance in her. I’m an Obama guy. No one else inspires me.
What about Richardson? At this point, I think he and Biden did the best, but I need to go back over it.
I liked that Dennis the Menace understands the way he screwed up, firing the police chief when he became mayor.
I also like the dose of reality served up to the biggest Bush haters when no would go along with his impeachment-of-Cheney idea…
I thought Kucinich and Gravel were the only real breaths of truth the in whole debate – and bboth have the actions and experience to back it up – along with Richardson. If people just want business as usual with no change, go for Obama, triangulating Hillary, foot in mouth Biden, etc., but if Americans truly want a change in the way things “work” (and we clearly don’t), then I don’t know why people wouldn’t look at Kucinich – who has been consistenly right, and worked long and hard to understand the full scope and the big picture behind the actions of political maneouvering.
But hey, an American economy is a war economy with people only pretending to ask questions, so there you have it.
I only got to watch the first half of the debate but it was good. The candidates for the most part acquited themselves well. The leaders seemed a bit cautious but that’s ok at this point. I look for Obama to come out with some concrete policy issues in the near future. As pointed out by others on this thread he’s been a bit too general in discussing issues. Look for that to change soon.
One point did stand out for me: That was Richardson’s confession that he considered Alberto Gonzales’ ethnicity in his thought process regarding the judge scandal was very disappointing. But at least he was honest about it.
Here’s reminder of what the 2008 election is about. This is a news clip showing how the current administration failed to secure Afghanistan before launching it’s misadventure in Iraq. Any of the Democratic candidates will be far better than what we have now:
Reuters
April 26, 2007 at 8:50 AM EDT
SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan — A Taliban video of a 12-year-old boy beheading a man accused of spying has angered many Afghans, drawing condemnation from tribal and religious leaders.
Last year was the bloodiest since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001, and many security analysts expect this year to be worse, with the Taliban and other militant groups bolstered by money from another record opium crop.
I think Biden did the best, but Gravel was definitely the most entertaining. I felt like Obama was severely limited by the format; I guess that applies to all the candidates, but I really think he would do well in an actual debate.
It really grated on me that Richardson kept running over the moderator’s cues, especially since I didn’t feel like he had anything important to say.
Edwards was the only clear loser in my opinion. The “who’s your moral leader” question really seemed to stump him.
The only candidate who actually debated was former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. He aggressively addressed the issues and has a style that I feel most Americans can relate to. Otherwise it was a Q&A session for the other candidates which I felt was a waist of time. I hope they do better in the next debate. In my opinion Mike Gravel won the debate and deserves far more recognition as a viable presidential candidate than any of the other potential presidential candidates on the stage. Mr. Gravel “brought it”. I was impressed.
The only candidate who actually debated was former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. He aggressively addressed the issues and has a style that I feel most Americans can relate to. Otherwise it was a Q&A session for the other candidates which I felt was a waist of time. I hope they do better in the next debate. In my opinion Mike Gravel won the debate and deserves far more recognition as a viable presidential candidate than any of the other potential presidential candidates on the stage. Mr. Gravel “brought it”. I was impressed.