Dem Debate

I missed most of the Dem debate. I have no excuse; the truth is I napped through it. If you watched and have any comments, feel free to speak up.

6 thoughts on “Dem Debate

  1. I read where Obama took a shot at Edwards for his vote in authorizing the use of force in Iraq. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama to be morally condescending to a man who is courageous enough to admit that he was taken in and has since seen the error of his way. It shows a pettiness in Obama’s character. I sensed a tone of the “flip flop, flip flop” that was used so effectively by Bush and his horde of lemmings to discredit the ability to rethink a position.

  2. I watched the debate from start to finish. I didn’t see it the way it is reported in comment number 1. Although Obama, Edwards, and Richardson were clearly the most aggressive at trying to stress “differences” (except, of course, for Kucinich and Gravel, who are really on the outside looking in), all of them — Kucinich and Gravel included — were mutually respectful. My sense was that it was Edwards who was the most acid and the most political (although I don’t mean to paint him as some sort of assassin: he wasn’t).

    Obama was the most BillClintonesque. He dealt with the positions of others with intergrity and nuance: his characterization of differences was honest and not disparaging. And he was not “morally condescending” to anybody at any time. Edwards was more self-righteous about “admitting” he was “wrong” with the first war vote, as opposed to Hillary. She moved her “if I had known then” argument a bit closer to be saying the same thing. Gravel was the one who said that somebody who voted for the war wasn’t qualified to be president because of an inability to make a moral judgment.

    Biden and Dodd did much better than I expected them to. Biden staked out a particularly muscular approach to Darfur. It could be a situation like Kosovo (with diferent tactics, of course) where a very small amount of American blood can save a very large number of lives. Of course, that’s not something the country wants to hear right now; I thought it was gutsy to propose it.

    Personally, I’m for Richardson, but I don’t think he did that well in this debate.

  3. This debate was so much better than the last one because the candidates were a lot freer to speak to each other’s statements. Of course, Wolf did seem to intend to steer them to ‘mix it up’ with each other.

    I did not like the situation of some candidates getting lots more time than others.

    I used a simple standard to judge them: which candidate [s] would I want to listen to for a whole 4-year presidency? The only ones who passed my quirky little test were Richardson, Biden and Obama.

  4. As I said earlier, I refuse to watch any debate until 2008. I am still burned out on campaigning and elections. However, I judge all candidates by their wives; and, Elizabeth Edwards wins hands down. However, Michelle Obama is very likeable. But, I am in agreement with Eugene Robinson about wanting someone smarter than I as President. I also want the First Lady to be smarter than I.

  5. Hillary’s argument last night in defense of her vote to send us to Iraq was she THOUGHT Bush intended to rely on the future findings of the UN inspectors – before he invaded? whether he invaded? She didn’t say and nobody asked.

    Today, her operative, after much dissembling, said who can you trust if you can’t trust the president of the United States – in reference to Hillary’s vote, it was assumed. (No comment from me.) Did the authors of the Constitution believe that any person heading the Executive was trustable? What exactly is meant by ‘checks and balances’ then? Doesn’t mean a damn thing if a member of the Congress doesn’t put it into practice.

Comments are closed.