youtube debates, keeping my attention rapt
i just got around to watching the cnn-youtube democratic presidential debates and was very impressed with everyone on stage. surprisingly so, actually. i really appreciated the firebrands, gravel and biden. those are two candidates who have more experience than almost anyone else in US politics, have their own thoughts, speak their mind honestly, and don't take any shit from anderson cooper. they actually seemed angry at some points during the debate, which was very welcome to my eyes and ears. biden even mentioned wellstone once, which was great, and his response on question 37 regarding gun control was perfect. i wish gravel got more airtime. he's charismatic, funny, and has such an impressive background spanning over three decades including filibustering to end the draft and also working to have the pentagon papers released- these facts i gathered from his website.
on the other side of the table, there were obama, clinton, and richardson, who often seemed like unemotional automatons, although i really liked that richardson stated that he would put his support behind the arts in public schools. obama and clinton answered the questions well, but their personalities seemed strained and plastic at times. and i don't like how much obama says "uh..." kucinich and edwards had good moments as well. i appreciate kucinich's "strength through peace" approach to diplomacy, and edwards is so positive and honest. his history of standing up for the underdog is very attractive, as is his haircut.
as much as i appreciate all the candidates' viewpoints and feel that several of them could be a good president, the similarities between candidates are so considerable that the issue comes down to who is electable for reasons which, unfortunately, have little to do with policy and more to do with personality, character, and who is "likable" to republicans, hilary coming in dead last in the last category. (she is so clever, experienced, and funny, though. it's too bad she's been cast as such a republican nemesis.) i think the issues are too grave and the consequences could be too dire for me not to evaluate a candidate to some extent based on my opinion of how electable they are.
i think an obama-edwards ticket would be superb, though i really disagree with edwards on his support for biofuels and resistance to nuclear power. how/where could we grow the crops used for biofuels? vertical farming? nice try, jeff.
here is the link to the debates in case you haven't seen them:
6 comments:
also i like how much of a bitch biden is. example: his final comments on question 38 regarding kucinich's hot, young wife.
I agree with most of what you said. I think Hillary is so smart, and it is just such a shame she has so much baggage. I also love Kucinich, bless his unelectable heart, but in this debate he didn't impress me as much as he usually does. I like that Edwards was respectful of the other candidates-it seemed like he was positioning himself for another VP bid. Overall I feel like these Dem debates have been more substantive than the typical ones, and that we are actually seeing some differences. Also, I appreciate that Edwards was the first to actually put forward a plan for Universal Healthcare. Speaking of Edwards though, his stance on gay marriage kind of sucks.
There's a pretty good article today in the Times re some letters H. Clinton wrote in college. I.e., she seems like a real person in the letters, and very smart.
Jamon, what about nuclear waste disposal? Here's a problem commonly cited:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/08/08/stang/
i liked gravel's comment, too. that's exactly what i'm talking about- how careful obama, clinton, and edwards are about everything they say to the point of diluting their statements to near neutrality. another example is when they were asked whether their kids went to public or private schools. they all wished they could say 'public!! public!!' but said things like, 'private... but just because it's a couple blocks away from our house.' none of them could dare say, 'private, because it offered my child better opportunities than public schooling, and i could afford it.'
i left a post with some comments on nuclear energy, but the website mike listed has a pretty well-informed discussion going on in its comments. it's too bad that people say things like, 'if only you were educated, you'd see ...' that is such a non-starter.
there is such a debate because we'll be compromising one thing or another no matter what choice we make or don't make in the next few years. one change that would make the situation much less complex is reducing our per-person energy consumption through driving less and using more energy efficient devices at home and work it's a very complex problem that makes it difficult to identify the most important criteria. mine happen to be greenhouse gas emissions and feasibility of meeting energy demands. other than coal, nuclear is the only energy source that can currently meet our demands, and it also doesn't contribute any greenhouse gases.
Post a Comment