Democratic Presidential debate
My Al Gore film post has gotten 145 comments already, on _scientists_.
Just finished watching the Democratic Presidential debate. Go to CNN, click on "More Video," and pick Part 1 of the 4-part debate to watch it.
I liked Edwards the best. He was the best listener. He actually tried to stick on topic and, several times, he came back after Wolf Blitzer had veered off course and answered the original question. I wish everyone would do that!
He was the best educator. He kept trying to clearly show the public his differences with Clinton and Obama, while Clinton kept saying they were more alike than different. True, but I need more info if I'm trying to decide.
My opinion of Hillary dropped after this debate. While I didn't like Wolf Blitzer's questioning that much, I felt she needed to answer those "hypotheticals" she kept refusing to answer. Bush did the same thing. I mean, the whole debate is about a hypothetical---"What would you do if President?" Also, I disliked that she doesn't consider her vote to give Bush the power to use force in Iraq a mistake. I understand her explanation, but it seems naive to me for her to trust Bush at that time.
Plus, we all know someone else who has trouble admitting mistakes---Bush!
Obama and Biden did well too. I was impressed by Obama's obvious leadership and diplomatic qualities, and I liked Biden's inside knowledge and aggressiveness about solving these problems.
I support Edward's and Clinton's plans to make getting health insurance a mandatory thing (I think?), like getting car insurance, instead of Obama's voluntary plan---which would still leave millions of people uncovered. The mandatory plan is what Gov. Schwarzenegger has been pushing for here in California. I think it would help spread the massive cost to insurance companies and allow them to lower premiums.
Overall, I was very happy with our candidates! We have some wonderful, sincere, smart leaders on our side, and I'd be happy with any one of Edwards, Obama, or Clinton being elected. I liked Clinton's pragmatism, but I'm worried about her support for the war in the past and about her ability to compromise perhaps too easily.
Mike Gravel sounded like a grumpy man in a bar, ranting at all the other candidates but without many concrete solutions. Kucinich is too far left for me---impractical. Richardson also sounded practical, since he's actually balanced budgets as governor. Governors usually sound more concrete when they run for President, exactly because of this.
This post sums up why I liked Edwards the most tonight. He's also the most plugged into what many Democratic bloggers think, like those on Daily Kos or The Huffington Post, who are mostly against Hillary for her prior war support:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/3/191047/8849
What do YOU think? I would really appreciate your comments. You've all been too silent.
Just finished watching the Democratic Presidential debate. Go to CNN, click on "More Video," and pick Part 1 of the 4-part debate to watch it.
I liked Edwards the best. He was the best listener. He actually tried to stick on topic and, several times, he came back after Wolf Blitzer had veered off course and answered the original question. I wish everyone would do that!
He was the best educator. He kept trying to clearly show the public his differences with Clinton and Obama, while Clinton kept saying they were more alike than different. True, but I need more info if I'm trying to decide.
My opinion of Hillary dropped after this debate. While I didn't like Wolf Blitzer's questioning that much, I felt she needed to answer those "hypotheticals" she kept refusing to answer. Bush did the same thing. I mean, the whole debate is about a hypothetical---"What would you do if President?" Also, I disliked that she doesn't consider her vote to give Bush the power to use force in Iraq a mistake. I understand her explanation, but it seems naive to me for her to trust Bush at that time.
Plus, we all know someone else who has trouble admitting mistakes---Bush!
Obama and Biden did well too. I was impressed by Obama's obvious leadership and diplomatic qualities, and I liked Biden's inside knowledge and aggressiveness about solving these problems.
I support Edward's and Clinton's plans to make getting health insurance a mandatory thing (I think?), like getting car insurance, instead of Obama's voluntary plan---which would still leave millions of people uncovered. The mandatory plan is what Gov. Schwarzenegger has been pushing for here in California. I think it would help spread the massive cost to insurance companies and allow them to lower premiums.
Overall, I was very happy with our candidates! We have some wonderful, sincere, smart leaders on our side, and I'd be happy with any one of Edwards, Obama, or Clinton being elected. I liked Clinton's pragmatism, but I'm worried about her support for the war in the past and about her ability to compromise perhaps too easily.
Mike Gravel sounded like a grumpy man in a bar, ranting at all the other candidates but without many concrete solutions. Kucinich is too far left for me---impractical. Richardson also sounded practical, since he's actually balanced budgets as governor. Governors usually sound more concrete when they run for President, exactly because of this.
This post sums up why I liked Edwards the most tonight. He's also the most plugged into what many Democratic bloggers think, like those on Daily Kos or The Huffington Post, who are mostly against Hillary for her prior war support:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/3/191047/8849
What do YOU think? I would really appreciate your comments. You've all been too silent.