Letters to the Editor
-
My Two Cents
I thought that Obama did what he needed to do, avoid a mistake.
I thought that John Edwards had his best debate to date. (Disclaimer: I'm a big Edwards supporter.) He was passionate, he was emotional, and he was convincing. But I thought that in making the case that this was a two way race between the two candidates for change versus Hillary as a defender of the status quo, he make it stick. He did a great job of positioning himself as the alternative to Obama. he can move into second in N.H. remains to be seen, but if he can, it's a huge victory for him and a tremendous blow to HRC. Edwards is undermanned and both of his opponent have enough money to burn a wet mule. But if he can pull this off and come in second in N.H., he'll take the "come back kid" title away from Bill Clinton.
Hillary did nothing to distinguish herself tonight. She needed to attach Obama and make some thing stick. She attacked weakly and her attack ended up blowing up in her face. She needed a big win and got only a competent performance.
-
Where do I sign up?
Both Senators Obama and Edwards closely held my attention tonight. I was ready to sign up for changing America to the country we knew it could and should be. I think actually that Edwards and Obama would make a nice ticket. They each have special gifts to add.
I do hope that some black and some white people will loose their knee jerk racism over this as hopefully, Obama continues his successful quest. If whites are happy to stand at the voting machine and put our trust in a black man to guide a country we hold dear, then I think it is time for black people to let go of some of their hatred and mistrust of us. I know some of us suck but then some black folks are nothing to write home about either. Let this be the beginning of the end of racism too! Wouldn't that be amazing!
-
Very similar to my view
This was the first debate that I and my partner have watched in this political season. Afterward, we discussed it.
Since I pay way more attention to politics than he does, I gave him my analysis which was very close to yours. HRC didn't "kill" herself, but it seemed like she couldn't decide if her emphasis was to be "agent of change" or "36 years experience".
I think she came off pretty badly though when she attacked Obama for his deeds not completely matching his words. (Pot meet kettle) Of course, she knows full well that being in the Senate calls for votes on bills that don't entirely match a person's agenda and that seemed to be a bit disingenuous of her. I also realized that Clinton starts to attack, the timber and tone of her voice rises in a very unsettling manner. She needs to learn to drop her voice a 1/2 step or maybe even a full step down in tonality. It would be much easier to listen then.
One of the funniest responses Obama gave Clinton was when she quoted an AP article and attributed a quote from one of her ground troops to him. He said something along the lines of "Don't put your people's words into my mouth." He was much wittier than she was.
Surprisingly, none of the candidates called Clinton on her own votes in the Senate and the different words on the campaign trail.
But I hooted when Obama and Edwards ganged up on Clinton. She seemed quite taken aback by it and really had nothing to say.
Richardson seemed to be intelligent and came across very well, except in his emphasizing his Foreign Policy Experience. While I know it is important, I saw him as running for Secretary of State not as president.
I'm at the point where I realize the Clinton and Richardson seem oblivious to the atmosphere of this primary season. Clinton's needs to pull out Bill's old sign "It's the economy, stupid!" while adding signs such as affordable health care and the environment. The feeling among my group of friends is very similar to what we felt in '92 which I looked at a "change" election.
Overall, it really was an entertaining debate with refreshingly solid questions and very little snide nastiness (though a bit for variety). I also enjoyed the format of not having red lights stopping it. It seemed much more like a conversation between the candidates and moderators than a "debate." I didn't watch the Republican debate before (watched something I had DVR'd earlier in the week) but I did find it most intriguing to see which Republican candidates hugged which Democratic candidates as they passed.
[snark]Of course, the real question I should be asking is which candidate would I like to have beer with?[end snark] I'd have a drink with any of the four and probably would find the conversation fascinating and educational. With Clinton I think it would be a Cosmopolitan (a drink fad that is fading) or some type of vodka-shiver-martini, Richardson probably an import beer-Sapporo, Edwards an obscure microbrew lager, and Obama a Goose Island Winter Lager (since we both live in Chicago and can get it on tap).
-
Pretty much nails it
Though I thought Hillary Clinton, after her non-attack attacks on Obama, recovered nicely in the second half. Edwards too seemed Petty in his opening attacks on Clinton, but recovered when making his own case. Maybe they're is something to all the bad press negativity has been getting.
Obama needs to watch out, lest he become a sort of Zelig; the nice guy who is always around being nice. But for now, the moment seems his...
-
A "donnybrook"?
That term smacks of the silly hyperbole CNN and other MSM sources have used to describe previous Clinton-Obama differences of opinion. The Daily Show has justly skewered this kind of cheesy sensationalizing. Let's be real: this was a spirited discussion, livelier and more personal that the previous often tedious "debates," largely because of the reduced number of candidates and the more appealing format.