I was watching the Democratic candidates debate at the YearlyKos Convention (I wasn't there; it was streamed online), and of course, the question about lobbyist contributions came up. I was pleased with Hillary Clinton's response, because she was *gasp* honest! She said that yes, she would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists, because as some Democrats seem to forget, there are lobbyists for all sorts of causes, not just oil and military contractors.
She also said that she wouldn't promise to visit all 50 states in her campaign. While this isn't really anything to be proud of or to rally behind, it's refreshingly honest. For all the political calculation that Hillary has been accused of, she has not given the answers that Democrats want to hear; she has given honest answers. She'll take lobbyist money, she won't promise to visit all 50 states, she won't promise to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.
I'm still an Obama supporter, but I've been extremely impressed with Hillary lately. She isn't making empty promises just to get applause from a liberal crowd. I can really appreciate that.
Recently, after the Democrats participated in a CNN debate in which all of the questions were actually Youtube videos, our old pal Mitt Romney had a rather unpleasant reaction. He said, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," referring to this video:
The original title and theme of this post was going to be "On Mitt's Arrogance," because he thinks that the presidency is so elitist that it should be shielded from "silly" questions (although, the question was quite serious; it was simply asked in a silly way) from those least knowledgeable of people - voters. Indeed, composing questions ought to be left up to those hacks at CNN, right?
However, I think it goes deeper than that. Mitt isn't simply upset that presidential candidates are being asked questions by snowmen. He is upset that their being asked real, and quite possibly uncomfortable, questions. The Republican party is in shambles, and as we know, Youtube is a liberal haven:
So, those crazy liberals at Youtube and CNN are sure to be meaner to the Republicans. Indeed, conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt says, "If the G.O.P. candidates agree to this format, expect a series of cheap shots about all of the top-tier candidates." This may be true, Youtubers may very well send in loaded questions, but does this speak more to the bias of Youtube/CNN or the quality of the GOP's top-tier candidates? Let's face it, the Republican Party is weaker than it has been in many years, and the top-tier candidates all have numerable problems. Is pointing out these weaknesses a symptom of some sort of media bias? Or is it a symptom of a sickly Republican party, which needs to put forward candidates who can respond to these criticisms if it wants any chance at winning in '08?
I think it is the latter.
So, Mitt's annoyance at Youtube is really annoyance at his own party. He expects that the Youtube public will see the problems that his party and he have and will submit questions trying to make him explain those problems and how he or the party more broadly can deal with them. So, Mitt isn't anti-Youtube just because he is an elitist douche bag (but, to be fair, he is an elitist douche bag), he is anti-Youtube because he is afraid of answering unscripted questions from an angry public. He is afraid of doing the job of a presidential candidate: responding to the public about things that actually matter.
CNN held a debate tonight in which viewers submitted questions via Youtube. Of course, CNN got to choose which questions were asked, but still, it was revolutionary... or so CNN tells us.
My favorite point of this two-hour debate came right at the end. There was a ridiculously naïve question posed asking each candidate to say something good and something bad about the candidate to his or her left (it was naïve because Gravel was the only one to actually criticize the candidate to his left). The ever-classy turned to Dennis Kucinich and said, “the thing I like best about you is your wife.”
And I see why.
And she's British! I can’t explain how he wound up with her. Maybe they got stoned and spun into each other at the latest Phil Lesh concert.
On to some specific thoughts on each of the candidates. Mike Gravel. I'm torn about Gravel. He has some legitimate points, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he's really wasting our time. He seems to spend all of his time complaining about how little time he gets. Granted, this is a legitimate point. As Chris Dodd's "Talk Clock" shows, Gravel got the least amount of time in this debate:
And in an earlier June debate:
So, Gravel has a point, but shouldn't he be spending his time making other points besides how little time he gets? This sort of attitude antagonizes the moderator, as could be told when Anderson Cooper was much more willing to let other candidates speak past his call of "time."
To defend Gravel for a second: saying that soldiers in Vietnam died and that soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain is not un-American. Saying that they died in vain is not a criticism of the soldiers; it is a criticism of the policy. It isn't saying "You soldiers failed." It is saying "Your leaders failed." If someone thinks that a war is not worth fighting, then any soldier dying in that war is dying in vain. But, it doesn't sound nice.
Chris Dodd. I wouldn't say Dodd hurt himself (after all, he's been hurting pretty badly as it is), but he didn't help himself either. From waffling on gay marriage (not providing a sincere reason for refusing to go beyond civil unions) to simply sounding like a lecturing old man (approaching Gravel-esque, even), Dodd simply did not seem strong.
John Edwards. I thought it was funny that Edwards said that he did not like Hillary Clinton's jacket. Overall, I think he performed okay. Just okay. He seemed awfully caught off-guard on the gay marriage issue, but his response did sound sincere, unlike Dodd's. He said, rather convincingly, that he has personally wrestled with the issue, but that his religion should not dictate American law. Fair enough. He needs to drop the "son of a mill worker" thing. We heard it in 2004, and it obviously didn't work. It seems unbelievably phony these days. However, he did have a very good "Youtube-style" campaign video (every campaign had to provide such a video):
Hillary Clinton. As front-runner, Hillary generally played it safe, and tried to downplay differences between the candidates, calling the Democrats "united" (sparking a "We are not united!" from Mike Gravel), and saying that any of the candidates would make a great President. However, she still managed to impress me. I think she is getting a lot better at not seeming stone-cold. She spoke with force tonight, but seemed human and passionate. Policy-wise, there was some waffling, like her refusal to say that she would meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama said that he would meet with them as President, Clinton basically said that she would not meet with them without appropriate planning. Well, yeah. Appropriate planning was assumed! But, I am beginning to change my feelings about Hillary. I think she would make a great President.
Barack Obama. I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to gain ground on Clinton without attacking her - besides stressing that he was against the war from the beginning, that is. I don't think saying that he has always been against the war is going to do much these days. It may help him slightly, but people want to move forward, and he will have to show why his Iraq strategy is better than Clinton's. He had some good attacks on special interests (as did Edwards and others, for that matter), but that is not truly setting him apart. I think he's going to have to try to sell himself as a "Washington outsider," to turn his inexperience into a good thing.
Bill Richardson. Richardson is the so-called "resume candidate." He has had an amazing career in American and international politics, but he simply does not have the ability to really connect with TV viewers. He seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, which is a real shame, because he has some great ideas (e.g. sacking No Child Left Behind) and would make a great President.
Joe Biden. I think ol' Joe actually helped himself this time around. I think his humor actually struck a chord this time instead of just making him sound like a sleazeball. And he came across as an authority on foreign affairs (particularly Iraq). Still, he has no chance of breaking out of the bottom tier.
Dennis Kucinich. He sounded like he as hosting an infomercial. It was obnoxious. He kept repeating, "Text peace, 73223" throughout the debate. Apparently these text messages will be sent to President Bush and this will bring the boys back home.
You may be asking yourself "Who is Gilmore?" And hey, that's exactly the reason he just dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for President. See the Times.
Gilmore wasn't the first to go, though. Remember back when Tom Vilsack was vying for the Democratic nod? Ah, those were the days. Even though Vilsack's decision to step down didn't create a domino effect, causing other presidential hopefuls to realize how much time and money they're wasting while embarrassing themselves and their families in the process, I wonder what effect Gilmore's will have. I mean, how long are Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson and Mike Huckabee and Joe Biden going to stick around? (I leave out notables like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel because they're either there "providing a voice that isn't being heard" or fucking insane).
It is my most sincere hope that Gilmore's decision will cause other candidates to evaluate themselves and say "Hey, you know what? I'm wasting everyone's time here. What a tool I am!" Because honestly, debates can mean something. They don't have to be Chris Matthews looking like a Border Collie being outrun by the sheep he is trying to round up. They can provide useful insights into the candidates' thought processes, and more importantly, their policy proposals. But, as it is now, they look like Brit Hume leading a game of Seven-Up with a class of kindergarteners. It's downright pitiful, and it doesn't have to be that way. If some of these clowns would just realize that their own vain pride is not enough to win an election, this election process might take an important step toward being taken somewhat seriously.
Andrew Sullivan agrees that McCain won the debate. But he isn't too happy with what passes for foreign policy these days:
very little nuance, very little subtlety, almost no fresh thinking. Conservatism now means simply projecting something called "strength" rather than articulating something called strategy. On the question of thinking through the lessons of Iraq, they seemed frozen. On the question of Iran, they never seemed to include any understanding of what constraints Iraq has placed on us. Just bomb them and kill them and we'll "win". That was about as sophisticated as it got (with the modest exception of McCjavascript:void(0) Publishain's endorsement of Petraeus). And these people seem more aware of the Islamist threat than the Democrats. That's the state of the country and those entrusted with its defense.
With regards to the Islamist threat, just substitute "are absolutely obsessed with and scared witless by" in the place of "seem more aware of" and I agree 100%.
Below, DC noted that Rudy Giuliani was the loser of last night's debate. To be honest, I didn't catch the whole debate, but I did see at least one interesting moment that I think supports this conclusion.
Chris Matthews asked each candidate how he would be different from George W. Bush. While most candidates qualified their criticisms with veils of praise for our president, Giuliani made no criticism whatsoever. He basically said that history will remember Bush as one of the greats for starting to War on Terror.
He's gone too far. He doesn't know how to walk the fine line of sticking to his true opinions and trying to please the conservative base. As DC said, he continues to speak out in support of abortion rights, but at the same time, he refuses to criticize President Bush when given a golden opportunity to do so in a nationally televised debate. Did he think that conservatives would be happy with him because he had nothing bad to say about Bush? I tend to have little faith in conservatives (or at least in the brand represented by Bush loyalists), but I think they can see through such nonsense. Giuliani needs to work out his positions more. He's trying to conservatize himself in some areas (and is going too far), but he's remaining a moderate in others. Sorry, Rudolph: Republican primary voters won't have it both ways.
If you're bored with coverage of the Republican primary debate, you can check out what happened at yesterday's debate between the two remaining French presidential candidates, Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, here, here, and here.
Unlike the Democratic debate, I think this was a debate with clear winners and losers. One winner was John McCain, who turned in a vigorous performance, got the most laughs of the night, and delivered a forceful response to questions about his age. On Iraq he did about as well as he could, given that he’s defending an escalation of the war. He managed to distance himself from Bush by criticizing the mismanagement of the war. He also stood out by slamming pork barrel spending and vowing to clean spending bill, saving special criticism for cost overruns in military bills. (My only question: who exactly is going to “follow us home” from Iraq? The Shiites? The Sunnis? Al Qaeda? I think it’s clear that even if we pull out that neither the Shiites nor the Sunni militias would tolerate an al Qaeda mini-state in Iraq.) Nonetheless, a strong performance overall from the senator from Arizona.
The other winner was Mitt Romney. He just seemed presidential. As a Massachusetts native, I’m not a huge Romney fan. He ran for governor as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate, and then flip-flopped to set up his run for president. But I will say this: he certainly is competent and charismatic, and it showed on stage. He did a great job defending the Massachusetts health care plan.
The big loser was Giuliani. His defense of a woman’s right to choose stuck out like a sore thumb in the Republican field. Props to him for not completely flip-flopping like Romney, but it’s going to hurt him. His more moderate positions might be an advantage in the general election but they sure aren’t here.
As for everyone else: Ron Paul did a good job representing the paleoconservative wing of the party. Tom Tancredo managed to differentiate himself on immigration without frothing at the mouth like he usually does. (Although I’m a little disturbed by how completely he conflates American and Israeli interests. I’m all for supporting an ally, but still… ). Tommy Thompson did a decent job, but how exactly does he think he’s going to implement his partition plan for Iraq? The Iraqis don’t want it, and last time I checked we handed control of the government back to them. None of the other candidates really stood out.
Overall, the level of the debate was higher than I expected, but I don't think the party-line conservatism supported by most of the candidates stands a chance against the Democrats come 2008.
DC is an international relations major at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania. He also has a laptop and a Blogger account. If that doesn't qualify him to offer an eclectic mix of commentary on foreign policy and American politics, then clearly he has misunderstood the internet.
Fz studies American politics and political theory (and not much else) at Ursinus. His love for these fields (and anything related to the Supreme Court, for that matter) is exceeded only by his quick wit, his undying hunger for a good game of Scattergories, and his inexplicable affection for Joe Lieberman.
Sarge is to this blog as Lewis Black is to the Daily Show. You won't see him that often, but when you do, it's always worth the wait.
GJ is the Kato Kaelin of this blogging team. Allowed to speak twice a month, he'll entertain you with his criticism of politicians spending money on glass museums and peanut sheds.
