Tuesday, June 05, 2007

The Debates, part II

Through the magic of Youtube, I watched the debates (search for democratic debates (or debate, not sure) and then on the left side of the screen sort by date added). What a different picture I saw! Speaking abilities and/or good/bad acting skills seem to convey something completely different than mere words. Following are briefer impressions based on the video:

Gravel: Sad, not pathetic. He is so right on most things, and seems so frustrated. No chance, but I feel for him.

Richardson: Frighteningly awful. Talking points only, and could not for one second answer any of the questions.

Dodd: Much better than I had thought. But I will never forget his refusal to accept the reality of blowback while on Bill Maher's show.

Biden: Wow. He was screaming, "While we talk, 50,000 more people are going to die!" about Darfur. Passion. Candor. Not so much with me on every issue like Kucinich, but I like him.

Kucinich: Wonderful. Better than 4 years ago. He will hopefully pull the Democrats with a chance a little to the left.

Clinton: Presidential, but horribly arrogant. Her laughing was grating on my brain. Not quite as evasive as I had thought. She might actually have a chance with the Republicans.

Edwards: Not quite as powerful as I had thought, but he was good. He helped himself. But his attack was dulled by Kucinich's attack. His, "let's get real about this" was almost funny when Kucinich attacked all of them.

Obama: I completely changed my mind on him after seeing him speak. He was not grandiose. He does not have the greatest lines. But dear lord, is he aware of the complexity of the issues. He is actually speaking about reality, rather than spewing feel-good crap like Hillary. He's the smartest one up there (except for maybe Biden) and most importantly, something that came accross again and again: he's practical. He's not going to pander to the right like Clinton. He pushes all the right buttons, to prove to the morons (those that listen only for keywords) that he "supports the troops", that he's religious and that's he's strong on defense, but he is not pandering. I was too blinded by his keyword-dropping while reading the transcripts, that I did not recognize it as only a necessity of the situation.

Gravel, Richardson and Dodd are useless for various reasons. Kucinich is a perfect foil for the front-runners, but he's impractical and he has no chance. I would like to see the other FOUR considered as the front-runners: Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think there are two groups, the leaders who know they can't be on the offensive (Clinton and Obama) and the second tier, who have to be on the offensive (Biden and Edwards). I like Biden and Obama far more than their (according to my tier-system) counterparts Clinton and Edwards. I like all of them more than Clinton. I think that in reality only Hillary and Barack have a chance to get the nomination and that Barack has a far better chance of winning against the Republicans than Hillary.

So, as of right now, practically, I want Obama (I know it's a drastic change). Less practically, but with a small chance, I want Biden. And theoretically I want Kucinich.

I still want Gore, but I'm not as depressed about the field of candidates as after reading their statements.

God help us all tonight with the fascist nutjobs spouting their rhetoric on the other side tonight at 4pm pacific time.

No comments: