Sunday, June 03, 2007

Presidential Debate II

In the blogosphere I reside in, John Edwards is not the front runner and definitely did not win tonight's debate. The folks at Daily Kos are all for him. I wasn't wild about him when he ran for VP and I don't see much to recommend. Oh yes, he has "good ideas" and "progressive values" -- but can he hit the ground running and take care of all the major problems if elected president? I don't see much evidence of practical experience in his resume. He was in government for one term as a US Senator. Before that he made lots of money as a lawyer, and was evidently effective at using emotional manipulation in making his jury summations. Good thing I was never on one of his juries, as he has yet to move me in any discernible way. Wikipedia has a lengthy overview of Edward's career in law as well as in politics.

Barack Obama was sounding better to me tonight, until the moment of the hypothetical question: Would you order the slaughter of Bin Laden if you knew he could be taken out and you only had twenty minutes to get it done? Obama would "take him out," while Dennis Kucinich very properly said he should be put on trial for his crimes.

But Hillary Clinton trumped everybody with her refusal to answer all the leading hypothetical questions. She comes across as the one who knows how to get things done. Although I'm glad that Mike Gravel and Kucinich are continuing to ask the tough questions, at the end of the race, I do expect Hillary to take it all and I'll be glad to vote for her.

2 comments:

violababy said...

Excellent comments on the debate last night. I thought Hilary did very well--she doesn't allow any of her male contenders to talk her down--and there were moments when all appeared to be listening just to her--especially when she told Wolf Blitzer essentially to shut up!
Interesting is your research on Gravel. But as you say, he serves a purpose.

Village Green said...

Wolf Blitzer was the most annoying person on that stage! Hey debate stagers! How about asking one question at a time and allowing EACH of the candidates a shot at it? Enough with the hypotheticals and the raise your hand if you believe in this or that kind of tactic. I guess I shouldn't be shocked that television inevitably dumbs things down, however I'd much rather have someone half way intelligent hosted the these performances. Most members of the audience ask far more thoughtful questions than Blitzer did.