First of all, watch the entire debate here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
And a transcript here.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5ZTDzKdJOc[/youtube]
The candidates were asked if they would go after Bin Laden even if it meant some civilian casualties. Notice that all candidates raise their hands (except Kucinich) and then realize that maybe they made a mistake… Biden is the first to mention that maybe there is some gray area. Then a chorus of people agree in a quick attempt to cover themselves. Chris Dodd sheepishly tries to make it look like he wasn’t raising his hand, but just scratching the back of his head.
John Edwards made the point that part of his foreign policy would be to provide 100 million children around the world with free US-style education. Don’t be suprised, senator, if they turn that down.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MMtNNAYJB[/youtube]
Domestic Policy
The democrats had one common theme in this area – complete ignorance of economic law. There were constant promises to create goods and services by fiat – especially in health care. See specifically how Obama is more interested in attacking profit than he is about solving the issue. No mention about how it’s profits that encouraged those companies to provide insurance in the first place. I don’t think out next president should be so ignorant on basic economics.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgPFJnV76c[/youtube]
Dennis Kucinich showed a lot of shrewdness and courage to say outright: “What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they’re talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge. They’re talking about continuing a for-profit health care system.” Now, the man is an open socialist, but he is calling it like it is: all the republican and democratic solutions for universal health care simply grant the insurance companies a monopoly. At least Kucinich, while I think he’s wrong, is 100% honest about the facts here.
Coverage
CNN’s coverage has been one of extremes – some useful and innovative, others just plain annoying.
Among things annoying:
- the amount of time given to mainline candidates was terribly unfair. It seemed like every question had to feature a response from Obama, Clinton and Edwards – while Gravel and Kucinich were ignored. Specifically, after Clinton bragged about her husband balancing the budget, Gravel made the weighty accusation that it was done by raiding social security. The conversation just moved on as though it didn’t happen.
- The camera angles also were a little over the top. Occasionally they used a camera angle that reminded me of one at a rock concert -shaking, out of focus and definitely not giving me any useful visual information. They should have just blacked out the camera instead.
At time there was anarchy because there didn’t seem to be any time limits or formal means by which candidates were selected to answer questions. It basically seemed like a talk-show with Wolf Blitzer.
Useful:
- Finally there were calls to stop the applause. I was really impressed with Wolf Blitzer asking the crowd over and over to stop it.
- Moderator discretion was also generally well done – mostly used to make candidates actually answer questions.
Overall
This debate was a little more insightful than the others. People will claim there was more mud flung among the top-tier, but that really was just at the beginning. In fact, I couldn’t help but notice how many times Edwards would throw praise at Obama – probably looking to lock up a place on the ticket. Like all the others so far, I am very thankful that these debates have featured the lower-tier candidates. Gravel and Kucinich in this debate were willing to throw out ideas and challenges that would never be address by other candidates who need to play it safe. The media may like it because it’s good for ratings. I like it because it’s good for voters.
You may also be interested in:
It seems early for these presidential debates. I wonder if one of the parties will see an eventual nominee that hasn’t announced yet. I think alot of people will get tired of these candidates before any voting gets done.
“Raise your hands if you agree with….”
“Raise your hands if you disagree with…”
“All in favor raise your hands…”
Was that necessary? Especially when you ask questions that can’t be answered by “yes or no, raise your hands” questions. I felt trapped in a kindergarten when the teacher asked who likes apple juice more than orange juice. My brain actually hurt watching these debates.
Yesterday I spent some time reading the reactions to the debate on Hillary Clinton’s campaign website. Naturally, her supporters think she came out on top. I can’t entirely disagree–she showed great leadership when she took charge and criticized Wolf Blitzer for asking stupid hypothetical questions. Clinton’s supporters particularly disliked how Edwards took every opportunity to attack the other candidates, especially Clinton.
I found that interesting. Back in 2004, John Edwards played the nice guy role, and generally refused to be very critical of the other candidates. The nice guy role got him the vice presidential nomination, but really put him out of the running for president. This time around it appears he won’t be content to run on someone else’s ticket. (At least not Hillary Clinton’s. He seemed deferential enough to Obama.)