I think that's Debatable
Jul. 24th, 2007 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
batskeetsI've been trying to post this all day, but LJ died. That makes me a sad panda. :p
Stupidly enough, I had the thought of asking y'all if anyone else out there was having problems with LJ... but then I remembered that, duh, if LJ isn't working, I obviously can't use it to poll the audience.
Yeah, I'm really on top of things. And it's only Tuesday. -_-;
So anyway, we sat down and watched the YouTube/CNN debates last night, and I definitely have some thoughts on it:
--First of all, is there not an option to just watch the whole thing in a single clip? All we could find was a list of clips that showed the debates one question at a time, and it was a tad bit annoying.
--It's pretty shocking that the global warming issue was barely touched on at all, compared to the issues that were discussed. Jeez, one of the questions even brought up freaking AL GORE, and they *STILL* managed to say almost nothing about environmental issues! Couldn't they have thrown out one of the fluffier questions to make more room for our planetary concerns?
--I expected that he'd do all right at it, because I had a decent opinion of him already, but Anderson Cooper did well as moderator. He kept things moving, and was well focused on getting the candidates to answer the questions directly. Also, he *totally* won points for his, "how many candidates came to the debate in a private jet," question. The response was priceless!
--Gravel is a cantankerous, opinionated old dude, and I kind of love him for it. He has balls, and he's proven that he can get things done in the face of huge amounts of opposition. He's not shy about standing by his statements and opinions, and his willingness to stand firm, even as a lone voice, is encouraging. I can see where it'd rub some folks the wrong way, though, so I don't know if that quality will help his campaign much, even though it probably should.
--Biden's feelings on the war will likely hurt him a lot, and I'm not a huge fan of his, just going by my gut. But, I give him some credit for pointing out that, hey, we can't just wave a magic wand and take all the troops out of Iraq and make them instantly appear in their homes. It's not an excuse to drag out the war any longer than is necessary, but it also doesn't do any good to make promises that aren't logistically feasible.
--Edwards has a way about him that I'm not sure I like, because he's very much a politician, and I'm never really certain that he's being honest. He did give me some hope with the gay marriage question, though. Admitting to being against gay marriage was a refreshing bit of honesty from him. I also *really* liked that he made the important distinction between holding a personal belief, and allowing it to dictate policy.
--Hillary is similar to Edwards, in that I don't really believe that she's being honest with her words. She's worse than him, really, because she also doesn't feel like someone who has a strong or established platform of beliefs, which leads me to think that she's just being opportunistic. Edwards' words may be calculated, but he at least seems to believe in them and be more consistent with them. Hillary seemed more interested in making statements that would get the audience to cheer, rather than saying substantive things, and blegh, I haaate that. ;p
--Obama really seems like the guy to beat. I read an article on him recently, and they seemed to sum him up pretty well: he's the guy who says the truths you don't want to hear, but his idealism somehow makes you feel okay about it. He's clearly a smart guy who's playing hard in this campaign, but he manages to come across as more honest. The point that he's relatively young and inexperienced keeps coming up, but I'm thinking that may almost *help* him with the public... who better to bring about change than a young guy who thinks differently than his more "experienced" counterparts?
--Richardson just... really needs to work on the public persona. "Here's what I'd do," "This is what I'd do," "Here's what it is," etc. Yeah, it sounds silly, but his style of public speaking makes him sound very pedestrian, regardless of what he's actually saying.
--Kucinich strikes me as being SO NICE. Too nice for politics, it seems! He does have well-established beliefs, and a willingness to act on them, though--anybody who spearheads the effort to impeach Cheney can't be *that* bad--and I do believe he'd work hard and really try to follow through on his plans. I doubt he'd succeed, though, because he's just not taken seriously enough, and that's really too bad.
Anyhoo, it's late, so I'mma go run off now.
Stupidly enough, I had the thought of asking y'all if anyone else out there was having problems with LJ... but then I remembered that, duh, if LJ isn't working, I obviously can't use it to poll the audience.
Yeah, I'm really on top of things. And it's only Tuesday. -_-;
So anyway, we sat down and watched the YouTube/CNN debates last night, and I definitely have some thoughts on it:
--First of all, is there not an option to just watch the whole thing in a single clip? All we could find was a list of clips that showed the debates one question at a time, and it was a tad bit annoying.
--It's pretty shocking that the global warming issue was barely touched on at all, compared to the issues that were discussed. Jeez, one of the questions even brought up freaking AL GORE, and they *STILL* managed to say almost nothing about environmental issues! Couldn't they have thrown out one of the fluffier questions to make more room for our planetary concerns?
--I expected that he'd do all right at it, because I had a decent opinion of him already, but Anderson Cooper did well as moderator. He kept things moving, and was well focused on getting the candidates to answer the questions directly. Also, he *totally* won points for his, "how many candidates came to the debate in a private jet," question. The response was priceless!
--Gravel is a cantankerous, opinionated old dude, and I kind of love him for it. He has balls, and he's proven that he can get things done in the face of huge amounts of opposition. He's not shy about standing by his statements and opinions, and his willingness to stand firm, even as a lone voice, is encouraging. I can see where it'd rub some folks the wrong way, though, so I don't know if that quality will help his campaign much, even though it probably should.
--Biden's feelings on the war will likely hurt him a lot, and I'm not a huge fan of his, just going by my gut. But, I give him some credit for pointing out that, hey, we can't just wave a magic wand and take all the troops out of Iraq and make them instantly appear in their homes. It's not an excuse to drag out the war any longer than is necessary, but it also doesn't do any good to make promises that aren't logistically feasible.
--Edwards has a way about him that I'm not sure I like, because he's very much a politician, and I'm never really certain that he's being honest. He did give me some hope with the gay marriage question, though. Admitting to being against gay marriage was a refreshing bit of honesty from him. I also *really* liked that he made the important distinction between holding a personal belief, and allowing it to dictate policy.
--Hillary is similar to Edwards, in that I don't really believe that she's being honest with her words. She's worse than him, really, because she also doesn't feel like someone who has a strong or established platform of beliefs, which leads me to think that she's just being opportunistic. Edwards' words may be calculated, but he at least seems to believe in them and be more consistent with them. Hillary seemed more interested in making statements that would get the audience to cheer, rather than saying substantive things, and blegh, I haaate that. ;p
--Obama really seems like the guy to beat. I read an article on him recently, and they seemed to sum him up pretty well: he's the guy who says the truths you don't want to hear, but his idealism somehow makes you feel okay about it. He's clearly a smart guy who's playing hard in this campaign, but he manages to come across as more honest. The point that he's relatively young and inexperienced keeps coming up, but I'm thinking that may almost *help* him with the public... who better to bring about change than a young guy who thinks differently than his more "experienced" counterparts?
--Richardson just... really needs to work on the public persona. "Here's what I'd do," "This is what I'd do," "Here's what it is," etc. Yeah, it sounds silly, but his style of public speaking makes him sound very pedestrian, regardless of what he's actually saying.
--Kucinich strikes me as being SO NICE. Too nice for politics, it seems! He does have well-established beliefs, and a willingness to act on them, though--anybody who spearheads the effort to impeach Cheney can't be *that* bad--and I do believe he'd work hard and really try to follow through on his plans. I doubt he'd succeed, though, because he's just not taken seriously enough, and that's really too bad.
Anyhoo, it's late, so I'mma go run off now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 07:42 pm (UTC)Yeah, it's early for the campaign to even be as hot as it is, so hitting on the big issues is probably a lot to ask. Still, IMO the environmental issue is urgent enough that it *should* be talked about, even at this stage.
I do believe I'll be gunning for Obama vs. Ron Paul. (fingers crossed!) Gravel vs. Paul would also be fun, but highly unlikely.