My wife an I watched the debate together last night. Mrs. Basso has quite different political views than I- she voted for Gore, etc. tonight though, we were perfectly in sync: -Kerry: He started strong, but faded somewhat as the night went on. did nothing to hurt himself, but I thought he could've used the occasion to put some distance between himself and the rest of the pack and that didn't really happen. Still, after Iowa and last night, clearly the man to beat. -Dean: He may have temporarily staunched the bleeding from the "I have a Scream" speech, but he seemed largely irrelevant take away the anger and passion and what's left? repealing all of bush's tax cuts hardly seems a winning issue. thought the part where he admitted he thought Iraq had WMDs prewar was interesting. -Edwards: Extremely facile, but ultimately seems a bit callow. did nothing that made him stand out, but he's certaily quick on his feet. i was left with the impression he'd be the ideal #2 on a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Such a ticket would make a nice contrast with Bush/Cheney and give the country a very interesting choice come november. the difference in style between Cheney and Edwards would make for an interesting debate. -Clark: wow, this guy is really creepy. i thought he had the worst night of the bunch. even Kucinich came across as more on the ball than clark. and clark really blew it in my opinion by not distancing himself from the "bush as deserter" charge. as a commentator said afterwards, when "presented with the conspiracy koolaide, clark is drawn inexhorably towards the cup." reminisent of the Dean Saudi comment from last month. -Liebermann: he really impressed us both, and although there wasn't really a "winner" he made by far the strongest impression. his impassioned defense of the war in iraq stood in stark contrast to the rest of the group's wishy-washy defense of their own often contradictory positions. the anti-dean, and proud of it, he went along way towards convincing me i could vote for him. still can't see him getting the nomination, but by far his best performance in the spotlight. loved his sense of humor too. ...and someone needs to brief Al Sharpton on the role of the Federal Reserve Board in setting monetary policy. in his defense, it does appear he's heard the name Alan Greenspan somewhere...
John Edwards did nothing but dodge questions all night. He is not a straight-shooter at all. Typical trial lawyer. When pressed about gay marriages and abortion, he immediately launched into a speech about what else -- poverty. Completely dodged the question, and then dodged it yet again when Brit Hume called him out for it. More platitudes and cliches from Edwards instead of addressing the issues. What does he have to hide? Why does he try to deceive us by changing the subject? Again, typical trial lawyer.
That's weak. I hate it -- HATE IT -- when politicians avoid answering a question because they don't want to ostracize some voting bloc. Avoiding the question shows more about their principles than their answer would.
For those who did not see the debate ... Edwards made the point that the Republicans are forcing the agenda. Abortion and gay "marriages" are wedge issues that Republicans use to divide the voters. These issues are not the Democrats most important issues. Essentially Edwards "wedged" back with the increase in poverty during Bush's term.
I think that Clark will have a hard time dodging his "Republican" past. One of those things that will hurt him in the Democratic primaries but help him in the general election. At this time, the best Clark can hope for is a VP nod.
I didn't see it, and admit to being a tad biased, but the reports i read said that Clark's dealing with this issue, with a joke, was one of the evening's better moments, and went over very well.
I watched the first hour off and on. Didn't see anything that made me sit up and pay more attention except for the Sharpton answer that Basso covered. I don't see any movement coming out of the debate.... it was a placeholder.
Kerry is getting a free ride on his war vote. I think the other candidates saw what happening to Gephardt is Iowa after he ran all of those negative ads against Dean, which in effect brought them both down. Kerry keeps saying with a straight face that he has expected GWB to do a better job of making war with Iraq. Kerry needs to be asked why he thought this, since GWB had already been attacking France and Germany as old, irrelevant Europe and kept reiterating "you are either with us or against us". Given the diplomatic damage that GWB had done and was continuing to do, expecting GWB to "kiss and make up" with the UN and/or NATO was highly unlikely. When Kerry voted to give GWB a blank check for the Iraq War, he knew better.
all the candidates, with the possible exception of libermann (i don't remember his position on this) want to UN-ize the Iraq war, and give the UN a large say-so in U.S. security issues. W made clear in the SOTU that he'd consult, but wouldn't ask any country (read france) for a permission slip when it comes to matter of US security. the democratic position on this is just naive, and is a non-starter for me. as to the "blank check" issue, it was an $87b check. i don't get the point in objecting. we were there at the time of the request so voting no seems like a pointless exercise in shutting the door after the cow has left the barn...
I was impressed with Dean in the this debate. He had no melt down moments. The NH polls, that I have seen on MSNBC the last two nights on Hardball, show Dean holding steady at 24% and second place. All the while, Chris Matthews keeps showing the Dean Scream vid with each and every new guest and asking for a take. Matthews keeps making it sound like Dean's support has slipped into the single digits.
Seems to me like the far left-wing activists are the ones pushing gay marriage onto the rest of the country and that any actions by the conservatives are simply reactions to that.
Assuming, of course, that it is pre-ordained that not allowing people to marry because of their persuasion or gender is the natural state of things. Was the removal of slavery 'pushed' onto the rest of the country? In a literal sense, yes, as is true here.
Assuming, of course, that it is reasonable to parallel the wrongs of slavery with the 'wrongs' of disallowing gays to marry.
I've been thinking a lot about gay marriage. I don't know for sure...but I have the distinct impression that if the church leaders tried to talk to Jesus about this, he'd put his head down and say something like, "what's the divorce rate in this country, again? and what's the divorce rate in the church? tell ya what..you guys work on that, first, and then we'll talk about gay marriage." notice, i don't think he's pat homosexual unions on the back...i think the Bible is pretty clear in that regard. but at the same time, he would, i think, use it as an opportunity to seize on a much bigger problem..the abandonment of marriage by heterosexuals.
I hope that you are not this naive. Gay marriage is a wedge issue that the far right are going to use to drive voters away from the Democrats this next election cycle. The only time the Democratic candidates talk about gay marriage is in the debates, when directly asked. It is not part of any of their agendas or stump speeches that I have heard. Most answer that the gay marriage question with "it is a state's issue". I suspect the idiots who ask this question are really looking to generate more head line news from a "bad" answer than than to further the political discussion on gay marriages.
Max, I like what you're trying to say here, but the Bible is also pretty clear on slavery, astronomy and pre-marital sex too, but we haven't let that be the basis for our legal practices for some time in those areas...
You know, No Worries, there are Democrats out there that are actually hearing the candidates answers to these questions. I know this is hard for you to accept. There are people who's lives and belief systems are directly impacted by this very salient issue. It is much more than a 'wedge issue' as the liberals term it. It is a core issue that is very important to many people.
