THOUGHTS ON THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
i just finished watching the democratic debate here in las vegas, from beginning to end and including the discussion on cnn afterwards and several thoughts i would like to share with you:
first of all, in the discussion afterwards on cnn, only three canidates were mentioned, clinton, obama and edwards with nary a word about any of the others. by doing this, tv determines who we should be voting for and consequently who will be the next president of the united states. now on that stage were bill richardson, chris dodd, and joe biden. dennis kucinich was there and while i like and respect him tremendously, dennis has no chance of getting the nomination. by the same token, dodd and biden are vastly qualified to be president. both has many years of public serice and command the respect of both sides of the aisle in congress and could form coalitions of republicans and democrats to come up with answers to the problems that we, as a country, face. by only putting up for discussion clinton, obama and edwards tv says these are your choices and they are not the only choices! not to say that clinton and the other two are not the front runners, they are, but they are thanks to the huge amounts of money they have raised and the tv ads that money allows them to put on the air and the almost exclusive coverage they recieve from the national press to the detriment of the others.
now having said all that, let me also say that senator clinton handled herself exceptionally well and, to use a sports analogy, the others never laid a glove on her. she comported herself with confidence and humor. she had the look and the demeanor of someone who knew what she was doing and had full confidence she would and could do it well.
the more i see john edwards, the more i don't want him as my canidate; there is just something about the man that rubs me wrong. obama looked inexperienced and a little in awe of just being there. debates are not his best format and, though he gives great speeches, he lacks the fire in the debates to sway the masses.
dodd was on top of his game and biden looked as though he knew his run was over.
i think the lineup should be; clinton, dodd, biden, obama and then edwards in that order. i think hillary clinton will just slaughter any republican in a debate, she is bright, well versed, well educated and knows what she knows. while many say that she will polarize the nation, guess what, we are already polarized! those that hate her would hate any democratic they would just hate her more but, then again, they weren't going to vote for any democrat. if she is elected she has the wheretofore to bring most of the people together especially those in congress. she also has the advantage of being married to the most popular democratic president since jfk and we all know that by voting for hillary we are also voting for bill and i, for one, would not mind having bill clinton back in the white house even if it is to be an unofficial advisor.
all in all, i came away now leaning towards clinton with dodd as my second choice but i thought all of them were very good for the most part and any one of them is better than any republican running with maybe the exception of john mc cain, whom i still respect but not as much as i used to since he has now cozied up to the religious right, which is, in my opinion, so far to the right as to be literally dangerous to our republic and to our freedoms and when john joined in with them he lost most of my respect. other than him, the rest of the republicans are a joke and have no ideas other than bomb iran and give tax breaks to the rich.
back to tv for a moment: wolf blitzer asked, as the first question, whether they supported "drivers licenses for illegal immigrants". which is a GOTCHA question and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE. DRIVERS LIS. ARE A STATE ISSUE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE D.L.s!!!! why ask that of someone running for federal office? jesus. there are a million issues facing the next president and that is not one of them.
so that is my take, my friends, for what it is worth which is nothing at all.
first of all, in the discussion afterwards on cnn, only three canidates were mentioned, clinton, obama and edwards with nary a word about any of the others. by doing this, tv determines who we should be voting for and consequently who will be the next president of the united states. now on that stage were bill richardson, chris dodd, and joe biden. dennis kucinich was there and while i like and respect him tremendously, dennis has no chance of getting the nomination. by the same token, dodd and biden are vastly qualified to be president. both has many years of public serice and command the respect of both sides of the aisle in congress and could form coalitions of republicans and democrats to come up with answers to the problems that we, as a country, face. by only putting up for discussion clinton, obama and edwards tv says these are your choices and they are not the only choices! not to say that clinton and the other two are not the front runners, they are, but they are thanks to the huge amounts of money they have raised and the tv ads that money allows them to put on the air and the almost exclusive coverage they recieve from the national press to the detriment of the others.
now having said all that, let me also say that senator clinton handled herself exceptionally well and, to use a sports analogy, the others never laid a glove on her. she comported herself with confidence and humor. she had the look and the demeanor of someone who knew what she was doing and had full confidence she would and could do it well.
the more i see john edwards, the more i don't want him as my canidate; there is just something about the man that rubs me wrong. obama looked inexperienced and a little in awe of just being there. debates are not his best format and, though he gives great speeches, he lacks the fire in the debates to sway the masses.
dodd was on top of his game and biden looked as though he knew his run was over.
i think the lineup should be; clinton, dodd, biden, obama and then edwards in that order. i think hillary clinton will just slaughter any republican in a debate, she is bright, well versed, well educated and knows what she knows. while many say that she will polarize the nation, guess what, we are already polarized! those that hate her would hate any democratic they would just hate her more but, then again, they weren't going to vote for any democrat. if she is elected she has the wheretofore to bring most of the people together especially those in congress. she also has the advantage of being married to the most popular democratic president since jfk and we all know that by voting for hillary we are also voting for bill and i, for one, would not mind having bill clinton back in the white house even if it is to be an unofficial advisor.
all in all, i came away now leaning towards clinton with dodd as my second choice but i thought all of them were very good for the most part and any one of them is better than any republican running with maybe the exception of john mc cain, whom i still respect but not as much as i used to since he has now cozied up to the religious right, which is, in my opinion, so far to the right as to be literally dangerous to our republic and to our freedoms and when john joined in with them he lost most of my respect. other than him, the rest of the republicans are a joke and have no ideas other than bomb iran and give tax breaks to the rich.
back to tv for a moment: wolf blitzer asked, as the first question, whether they supported "drivers licenses for illegal immigrants". which is a GOTCHA question and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE. DRIVERS LIS. ARE A STATE ISSUE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE D.L.s!!!! why ask that of someone running for federal office? jesus. there are a million issues facing the next president and that is not one of them.
so that is my take, my friends, for what it is worth which is nothing at all.
posted by Ron Shock | 7:38 PM
2 Comments:
What do you think about Ron Paul? He doesn't seem to fit your description of the other Republicans.
i have said before in this blog that i greatly admire ron paul and would vote for him if he were on ANY TICKET but he not going to be, the republicans don't even want him at the debates because he tells the truth about 9-11, which is that it was OUR OWN POLICIES that brought that disaster to our country. i don't even count him as a republican he is really a libertarian, which is what i am as well but a libertarian cannot win the 2008 election.
Post a Comment
<< Home