Having just watched the majority of the YouTube debate (and on the heels of earlier debates/forums, my other observations) - and following Pat's lead.
Obama: I'll say what I've said before - I'll trade off a few specifics for an articulate, inspirational speaker that is right on in a general sense, if I believe he can and will surround himself with and work with people that are brilliant experts.
Clinton: My appreciation for her growing by the appearance. She is carrying herself in a very presidential manner (in a good way). Forceful & in command, articulate and specific, and personable.
Edwards: Talk. Show. Host. I find his passionate support for many issues a little disengenuous, considering he's a latecomer to about half the parades. I also have trouble believing he'd show much moxie when the Republican Attack Machine gets under way.
Richardson: ouch. I think I like where he's coming from, but I end up being so embarassed halfway through most of his fumbling answers that I wish he'd just stop. He's well thought out on issues he dealt with as Governor, but he gets asked a question about Darfur or North Korea, and he acts like he just woke up from a nap.
Biden: Trying to win points with anger. Americans (and I) don't want that.
Dodd: Separating himself from Biden, at least. But entrenched and utterly, utterly unelectable.
Kucinitch: He may be a liberal's wet dream, but don't let this guy fool you. He's "playing politics" just like everyone else. Trying to cast the same, wide accusational net over all the other candidates in a manner that is often spurious.
Gravael(sp?): He says some things that other candidates would never dare to say, and that are probably right on: soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, end the War on Drugs, etc. In some senses, he may be 100 years ahead of his time. In most other senses, though, he's insane. Batshit.
A good thing, I suppose, that the two most electable candidates are the front runners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I didn't watch this one, though from what I've read it was an interesting format and it pretty much went the way of the rest of the debates.
Your descriptions are exactly as I've witnessed the previous debates.
NPR reported on the YouTube debate this morning. I tire a little of the permeation of all things youtubey, particuarly when constiuents are dressing up like the snowman to ask about environmental policy. Also when someone performs a song about how they are being taxed for everything. It's a little too much of that "Aint That America" vibe.
Obama and Clinton - it will be interesting to see them down the stretch
I watched it as well and thought that some of the people asking questions were idiots.
I agree with what Dan wrote on each candidate. You got a lot of face time with the front runners and a little dash of the other guys.
If I had to vote for one of these folks TODAY it would probably be Obama.
You and I are as one.
And nice to hear from you!
Back from the wilds...
Glad to see Clog representin' on the Dem side of the ledger rather than some fictional ideal candidate.
I would agree with Stephen & TClog - the attempt to include "quirky" entries really reflected badly on Americans in general, I think.
No wonder other countries (as well as the candidates themselves) don't take the bulk of Americans very seriously.
The other thing is - the biggest failing of these events is always the inability of the moderator to get the candidates to stray from a preprepared script (e.g. the lack of tough, followup questions). When you're asked a question from YouTube, there's REALLY no followup.
Post a Comment