The only other thing I want to say about tonight's dual Democratic and Republican debates is about the "crossover episode" where the Republican and Democratic candidates were onstage together, shaking hands. What an interesting moment. They weren't just being cordial and perfunctory. They were having legitimate conversations with each other. Is it too much to hope that the winner will recruit from that group, within and without their own parties, to fill high-level positions?
(Yes, I've been stealing a friend's copy of "Team of Rivals." Is it that obvious?) Also, the president who will take the oath of office on January 20th, 2009 needs to appoint Mike Gravel as our first Secretary of Being Hilarious.
I'm going to give Hillary a compliment on one point. She had to defend herself against a poorly-phrased Charlie question about how she's not likable enough. (What a dumb and insulting thing to say, "Why don't people like you more?") She responded well, by saying "That hurts my feelings," and I think she's right to say so. I met the woman once, and she really was quite likable and friendly. I don't think she's a bad person and if it were between her and any of the Republicans, I'd vote for her. I just don't think she's the best Democrat available, that's all.
Did anybody notice that during that moment, Ron Paul wasn't doing too much gladhanding? I'm still holding out hope that he can play the spoiler in any close election, running as an independent, and pull a Nader on the Republican Party. That would be pretty exciting.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Change!
The two candidates I like the least in this debate have been quite thoroughly tag-teamed by the four candidates I like the most. Apparently taking a cue from the Huckabee-McCain playbook, John Edwards and Barack Obama re-enacted the Iceman-Maverick dogfight from Top Gun and drove Hillary Clinton out of her sanguine, I'm-a-sure-thing demeanor. They forced her into a caricature of herself, damn near screeching about how she's been effecting change for the last 35 years. When this thing is over, Edwards is going shake hands with Obama and yell, "You can be my wingman any time!"
Let me just say that I don't agree with ABC's decision to exclude Kucinich and Gravel. It doesn't speak well, in a democracy where airtime is the lifeblood of a candidate, to exclude those considered "marginal." Their finish in one primary or their level of funding shouldn't determine whether or not the public is permitted to hear their message. Mainly, I am upset that I've been denied another gut-busting episode of the Mike Gravel Show.
And she deserved the attack, too. Accusing Obama of switching positions on Iraq (which was abundantly untrue) reeked of the hyper-simplistic, telegenic attack politics of the 2004 Bush campaign. Remember the "flip-flop" crap?
I just think that predicating the entire 2008 election on the amorphous term "change" might not be entirely advisable. Isn't that why we vote for political candidates? We want to change something about the status quo? Nobody ever won an election based on "stay the course" (or at least, on that alone- Reagan won on a lot of other points, and Bush 41 lost on it.)
Obama has gotten a little flustered in some cases too, but he looks like he chugged a Valium milkshake compared to Hillary. The only thing on which I disagree with him, is his knot choice for his necktie. It's just done wrong. He needs to be tying a full Windsor knot, not some mangled half-Windsor. Maybe that can be his next joint project with Edwards, who's sporting a perfect example of the Windsor.
Excellent hair and tie-knot aside, I'd like to point out that I'd take Edwards and Richardson ahead of Clinton. I don't think Richardson would be a bad choice, but for me, Edwards' anti-corporate agenda makes him a good choice. What bothers me is his trial-attorney past and some of the shenanigans he used during his ambulance-chasing days.
And Bill Richardson needs to stop pounding on the table. I don't think he realizes how obnoxious it is, and how loudly it's reverberating in his microphone. Maybe he can look over at Hillary and pound on the table with a shoe yelling about how he'll bury her.
Is Facebook still sponsoring this? My head is spinning. This just in: the New York Times and eBay will be hosting an online auction, where candidates will bid on five minutes of uninterrupted airtime. (Except for Mitt Romney, who will be forced to bid with Monopoly money.)
Let me just say that I don't agree with ABC's decision to exclude Kucinich and Gravel. It doesn't speak well, in a democracy where airtime is the lifeblood of a candidate, to exclude those considered "marginal." Their finish in one primary or their level of funding shouldn't determine whether or not the public is permitted to hear their message. Mainly, I am upset that I've been denied another gut-busting episode of the Mike Gravel Show.
And she deserved the attack, too. Accusing Obama of switching positions on Iraq (which was abundantly untrue) reeked of the hyper-simplistic, telegenic attack politics of the 2004 Bush campaign. Remember the "flip-flop" crap?
I just think that predicating the entire 2008 election on the amorphous term "change" might not be entirely advisable. Isn't that why we vote for political candidates? We want to change something about the status quo? Nobody ever won an election based on "stay the course" (or at least, on that alone- Reagan won on a lot of other points, and Bush 41 lost on it.)
Obama has gotten a little flustered in some cases too, but he looks like he chugged a Valium milkshake compared to Hillary. The only thing on which I disagree with him, is his knot choice for his necktie. It's just done wrong. He needs to be tying a full Windsor knot, not some mangled half-Windsor. Maybe that can be his next joint project with Edwards, who's sporting a perfect example of the Windsor.
Excellent hair and tie-knot aside, I'd like to point out that I'd take Edwards and Richardson ahead of Clinton. I don't think Richardson would be a bad choice, but for me, Edwards' anti-corporate agenda makes him a good choice. What bothers me is his trial-attorney past and some of the shenanigans he used during his ambulance-chasing days.
And Bill Richardson needs to stop pounding on the table. I don't think he realizes how obnoxious it is, and how loudly it's reverberating in his microphone. Maybe he can look over at Hillary and pound on the table with a shoe yelling about how he'll bury her.
Is Facebook still sponsoring this? My head is spinning. This just in: the New York Times and eBay will be hosting an online auction, where candidates will bid on five minutes of uninterrupted airtime. (Except for Mitt Romney, who will be forced to bid with Monopoly money.)
Facebook Sponsors Debates?
I'm watching the WMUR/ABC/Facebook debate right now, and I'm more than a little surprised to learn that Facebook has taken an active role in politics. I mean, I understand the YouTube participation in the CNN debates. A candidate having a "YouTube moment" became a political catchphrase after the George Allen "macaca" scandal, but Facebook?
I don't know, it just sounds weird to me. Maybe college students are playing drinking games while watching the debates (I did it in my day) and then posting boozy pictures of it on Facebook. Who knows. I'm just waiting for the NBC/GMail debates, where candidates will GChat snarky messages about what everyone else is wearing to Brian Williams.
Speaking of snarky messages, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are clearly making good on their threats to gang up on Romney. Romney mentioned his positions and Huckabee jumped in to say, "Which ones?" to laughter. And when Romney characterized himself as the candidate of change, John McCain said that he agreed with that to more laughter, obviously pointing to Romney's inconsistent positions. Romney got defensive and hurt, and spent most of the night this way.
If you hadn't heard of these threats, the New York Times quoted Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins as declaring that he and the McCain campaign were "going to see if we can't take out Romney." This is exactly what needs to happen. Mitt Romney is electable, telegenic, financially loaded, and the worst possible candidate for the Democratic nominee to have to battle. If McCain (too old and too liberal on immigration) and Huckabee (way too Christian and populist) are the big winners in New Hampshire, the Republican base is gonna stay home.
And if you want to keep the fired-up Democratic base home, the best thing you can do is convince them that the old Clinton administration is coming back. Hillary did a great job of that after Iowa, with a tableau that included Wesley Clark (I think) and Madeleine Albright as well as ol' Bill himself. A lot of Clinton supporters (some of whom have posted responses on my site) have claimed that she's the only one who can take on the Republican attack machine. And they're right- only Hillary Clinton can stand up to the Republican attacks of George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. The problem is that it's 2008. We have bigger battles to fight than the ones of the late '90s.
Okay, the Democrats are talking now. I'm going back to the TV.
I don't know, it just sounds weird to me. Maybe college students are playing drinking games while watching the debates (I did it in my day) and then posting boozy pictures of it on Facebook. Who knows. I'm just waiting for the NBC/GMail debates, where candidates will GChat snarky messages about what everyone else is wearing to Brian Williams.
Speaking of snarky messages, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are clearly making good on their threats to gang up on Romney. Romney mentioned his positions and Huckabee jumped in to say, "Which ones?" to laughter. And when Romney characterized himself as the candidate of change, John McCain said that he agreed with that to more laughter, obviously pointing to Romney's inconsistent positions. Romney got defensive and hurt, and spent most of the night this way.
If you hadn't heard of these threats, the New York Times quoted Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins as declaring that he and the McCain campaign were "going to see if we can't take out Romney." This is exactly what needs to happen. Mitt Romney is electable, telegenic, financially loaded, and the worst possible candidate for the Democratic nominee to have to battle. If McCain (too old and too liberal on immigration) and Huckabee (way too Christian and populist) are the big winners in New Hampshire, the Republican base is gonna stay home.
And if you want to keep the fired-up Democratic base home, the best thing you can do is convince them that the old Clinton administration is coming back. Hillary did a great job of that after Iowa, with a tableau that included Wesley Clark (I think) and Madeleine Albright as well as ol' Bill himself. A lot of Clinton supporters (some of whom have posted responses on my site) have claimed that she's the only one who can take on the Republican attack machine. And they're right- only Hillary Clinton can stand up to the Republican attacks of George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. The problem is that it's 2008. We have bigger battles to fight than the ones of the late '90s.
Okay, the Democrats are talking now. I'm going back to the TV.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
I Am So Happy
I just can't express how excited and happy I am for the direction this country's taking tonight. Seeing Obama win, and make an eminently Presidential victory speech on TV, led to screeching and cheering at my house. And the selection of an eminently defeatable Mike Huckabee by Iowa voters led to my house's moderate Republican admitting that he would rather vote for tonight's blue option than the red.
This is the first night that I've felt legitimately hopeful about the direction of American politics in a really long time.
This is the first night that I've felt legitimately hopeful about the direction of American politics in a really long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)