Unfortunately, I thought it was important to check out the recent Democratic Presidential Debate. The donkeys debated Sunday night, purportedly about their policy positions on contemporary issues of contention, to the point of making me question my supposed civic duty to watch the drivel. I majored in Political Science because I enjoyed U.S. politics, and now here I am questioning the
But there were some exceptional highlights from every candidate there, including:
O'Bama - "I don't expect to do anything but complement the other candidates here on how similar we all are." (paraphrased)
Clinton - "We had a balanced budget and surplus and we did that the old-fashioned way--limiting spending and increasing revenue." (Because, you know, limiting spending is something the Clinton administration was known for, and increasing revenue is something they can take credit for. Not to mention, we feels a little like she bites that involved first spouse critique harder than Eleanor Roosevelt. Has she been a member of a presidential administration that she isn't distancing herself from, nowadays.)
Richardson - "I can't hear questions, so I will simply talk about what I want to." (paraphrased)
Edwards - "I don't know if I know what a rich person is, but..." (You know, because, he's never been rich.)
Gavel - "I would give the president line item veto." Because we've never tried that, and it's probably constitutional.
Kucinich - "I would cancel NAFTA and the WTO." Because we can stop that globalization stuff, ya know.
Biden - "To be president, you must occasionally be practical." Which is why I supported a 700-mile fence. It's a practical solution. (paraphrase)
Dodd - answering what he would do to get rid earmarks, "I wouldn't put us in that kind of rigid straitjacket."
Gore - Didn't show up.
Who do I think won? Nobody. I couldn't find anyone I liked more than I had before the debate started. Losers? No doubt Richardson looks so much less worthy of my future support, based on his performance, because if debate questions discomfit him, what happens when he gets real questions? And cowboy boots? A little reminiscent of someone else we have in office.
Mike Gravel loses before I ever knew his name. Why introduce yourself, to the biggest audience you've ever seen, as an unlikeable and completely arrogant nut? Why? Obviously he had potential for good ideas and instead he shows up as the termagant, there to set things straight. Not how you accomplish anything productive.
Overall I agree with The Fix on the night's feel:
a question asking each candidate to name the biggest mistake they had made in the past several years, the night has a bit of an "Oprah" feel to it. We were half-expecting the question: "If you were an animal, what animal would you be?"Indeed. Cillizza further suggests that, "The format rewarded general policy pronouncements (end the war in Iraq, bring about universal healthcare) over specific proposals." I hadn't felt that way while watching, but I'll concede that it seems this way in retrospect. The only good debate to reward policy pronouncements is one that occurs in the printed media, which will not be well-read by the masses.
