I wasn't crazy enough to wake up for the debate, but I did watch the rerun on C-Span. The thing I noticed most was the number of times they cut to Elizabeth Kucinich in the audience. I think she might have actually gotten more face time than her husband, the candidate. Certainly her legs got more attention from ABC than Dennis's new plan to nationalize the banking industry in the face of the subprime mortgage crisis. I guess ABC didn't want MSNBC to corner the market on blatant sexism.
George Stephanopoulos mostly stayed out of the way of the candidates, but seemed to deliberately steer the conversation to either Obama or Clinton, trying desperately to get them to attack each other or to at least get the other candidates to attack them. He succeeded in at least getting nearly all the post-debate coverage to focus on the two of them, but I guess he is an old Clinton hand so what do you expect.
The actual issue discussion for the debate was pretty good. While nailing the big three down on just how many troops they would leave in Iraq has been difficult, we did get an idea of who has given the topic much thought in terms of logistics (Biden, Clinton, Richardson: A lot; Obama, Edwards: Not much). No one gave any indication of their residual force goals, leaving Richardson as still the only serious candidate who really wants to bring home all the troops.
Merit pay for education was discussed with candidates coming down in no particularly predictable way, other than me remembering Obama's answer as the one that seemed the most reasonable. He doesn't want to impose it on teachers, but thinks that it is a good idea if they can be convinced to buy in. Everyone else just talks about paying teachers more, which would be nice of course but didn't answer the question and is generally more of a state issue anyway.
Aside from some blah blahing about Nuclear hypotheticals where Clinton got caught attacking Obama for something she herself had advocated just months before, there wasn't much else of substance discussed at the debate. Clinton, Obama, and Kucinich all had pretty good laugh lines, and Richardson avoided looking like a homeless man brought on stage for sport, which qualifies as a debate “win” for him. Mike Gravel, on the other hand, might actually be a homeless man masquerading as a candidate. Someone should look into this.
4 Comments
Hummm? The only candidate
You said the following: “No one gave any indication of their residual force goals, leaving Richardson as still the only serious candidate who really wants to bring home all the troops.”
Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio, with over 40 years in public service and the 2nd time running for the office of President, current Chair of the Oversight Committee is not a serious candidate? He is the only one who has written legislation to bring home ALL THE TROOPS with HR 1234. Please check your facts! Dennis Kucinich also won the ABC Debate AND the ABC POLL and is in the top tier with the AFL-CIO Debate POLL also.
anitastewart Wed 22 Aug 3:31 PM
Serious Candidate
I stand by my post. Here’s why.
simon-stevenson Wed 22 Aug 8:13 PM
Richardson avoided looking like a homeless person
Very funny and actually spot on. He looks like a homeless person on that stage because he’d been more comfortable as a Republican, a libertarian. His policies are well to the corporation center right. He proposes a balanced budget when our nation is in danger of collapsing. He chided Democrats for taxing people. He was a big pro NAFTA guy and I haven’t heard him say much about unions. And this Iraq deal. It’s all bluster. But as I said before, he should run with Ron Paul on the Republican ticket. He had a shot at that one. But leave the farmer labor party alone, thank you,
feral-cat Fri 24 Aug 4:28 PM
Sorry about the grammar gaffes
He’d BE more comfortable as a Republican.
He’d HAVE a shot at that one.
feral-cat Fri 24 Aug 4:46 PM