Democrats in Phila: Best Moments: Obama & Planet Earth, Edwards & Hillary Doubletalk

Two best moments in the Democratic debate in Philadelphia tonight, just concluded a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

1. John Edwards was by the far the best he's been in this campaign, and by far the most effective on the stage tonight, in taking on Hillary Clinton. He refused to back down down from his press release headline that Hillary Clinton double-talked, and gave ample examples - the most telling of which was her inexcusable vote for a bill that empowers the Bush administration to start going down a path that could well lead to war with Iraq. Others on the stage, including Obama, was not as clear or as passionate as was Edwards on this point.

2. But Obama had a moment when he was given a question near the end about whether he believed in life on other planets. He answered that he didn't know, but he did know that there was life here on Earth, and we needed to do more to take care of that. Fine answer - and I say this even as committed science fiction author...

Biden continues to impress with his toughness (especially on Giuliani tonight, and I give Kucinich credit for saying, yes, he once saw a UFO (even though I've seen no really convincing evidence myself). And Mike Gravel should have been there (MSNBC ruled him too low in the the polls and finances received to participate - bad move).

I thought this was the best Democratic so far, and I'm looking forward to more.

Dems Debate in Dartmouth: Gravel Proud to Stick Credit Card Cos, Kucinich Lower Voting Age to 16, Edwards Shines

You gotta love Mike Gravel. Asked by Tim Russert how he could run for President and be trusted with the nation's fiscal responsibility, when he ran up a big unpaid debt, Gravel proudly shot back - hey, look who got stuck with that debt, I stuck the credit card companies with a $90,000 debt, and they deserved it!

Second best point from an underdog - or maybe it was the best - came from Kucinich, who said he not only favored lowered the drinking age to 18, but the voting age to 16. I seriously support such a lowering of the voting age - I've been saying for years that it should be lowered to 14 - an age at which, according cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget, people have completely adult reasoning processes, and have had them for at least two years.

Among the top tier Democrats, I thought John Edwards did splendidly tonight. He comes across as the most human - the least political - and made some points against Hillary and Obama on stopping the business as usual in Washington. I especially liked Edwards' solution to the social security crisis: rather than raising the cap (it's currently $97,000+), create a window, in which income earners won't pay social security tax above the current cap, until they reach a much higher level of income.(I actually most favor Ron Paul's solution of letting people below a certain age opt of social security - but Edwards' is at least an innovative solution, which doesn't punish people in the upper middle class).

Hillary was good tonight, Barack was not. He was often indistinguishable from Hillary, and he lacked Edwards' passion. Edwards could be set to become the main Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Joan Baez Sings "With God On Our Side" in 1966: Suggested Campaign Song for 2007-8

Joan Baez's 1966 performance of Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side"...

I don't know how you can not be moved to tears by this song and Baez's performance. She has the voice of angel. And Dylan's words are the most powerful refutation of war as a moral instrument ever written.

Dylan first performed the song at Town Hall in New York City, April 12, 1963. Joan Baez took him by the hand and out on the stage of the Newport Folk Festival for an extraordinary performance of the song on July 25, 1963. You can see a clip from it in Martin Scorsese's 2005 No Direction Home bio-documentary of Dylan.

Here in 2007, the hope expressed at the end of the song that, "If God is on our side, He'll stop the next war," remains unfulfilled.

Ron Paul, the only one of the Republicans, and Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to a degree any of the other Democrats, could make that happen if elected President. They could stop this unconstitutional war, started in lies.

Ron Paul could use this song as a campaign song. So could Dennis Kucinich. I hope one of them does.

The lyrics are here.

See also Joan Baez Sings Dylan, Lennon, Earle, and Speaks Obama at New York Town Hall Concert

Democrats Debate in Chicago -Hillary: "I'm Your Girl!"

Bravo to Hillary Clinton for breaking through our pc linguistic constraints, and making it ok for people to say "girl" again in public discourse about adults!

Here's how it happened in the Democratic Presidential debate in Chicago on MSNBC earlier tonight, which I caught on rerun -

1. As I expected, I missed the kind of YouTube questions from the last Democratic debate. The questions in tonight's debate were ok - the best came from AFL-CIO union members - but the questions asked by moderator Keith Olbermann had no surprises. I'm flatly predicting we'll be seeing fewer and fewer of these "old time" debate formats as the campaigns progress.

2. But Hillary and Obama each had excellent moments:

a - Hillary said that, if you want a candidate who won't attack other Democrats, but will concentrate Democratic fire on the right wing, then- "I'm your girl!" A liberating master stroke! With that phrase, Hillary showed she's comfortable with her gender, not bound by stereotypes of the recent past (in which "girl" was unacceptable as a phrase to describe any woman), and ready to lead. It may take more than linguistics to win this election, but that moment was a galvanizing, linguistic triumph for Hillary Clinton, and may actually help liberate our culture from some of its "politically correct" shackles.

b - Barack Obama was also had one of his best moments when he held to his position about going into Pakistan if need be to fight terrorism and get bin Laden. It's all hypothetical, of course, but Obama demonstrated in that moment that he was not a Washington insider (like Dodd and Hillary) who would be bound by conventional wisdom.

3. Edwards said some good things about health care, but he's not yet catching fire, of having really decisive moments as did Hillary and Obama above, and time is running short. Fot different reasons, he seems to be in the same difficult position as McCain.

4. Mike Gravel refused to fill out the AFL-CI0 questionnaire, and was not invited. Technically, then, Gravel's absence was his responsibility. But I'm still not happy about it. I don't support Gravel, I find his comments often rambling and less than coherent, but his powerful anti-war position deserves a presence on any Democratic debate stage. More of an effort should have been made to get him up there.

Overall, both the Democratic and Republican debates have been informative and even stimulating, and I'm looking forward to more.

Digg

First YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate!

The first YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate - this one with the the Democrats - just concluded. I said I would wait until I saw it, to say how much of a revolution it was. Having seen it, I think it was revolutionary indeed - and, in fact, as much a leap forward in the debates and democracy as the first Presidential debates on television in 1960.

I don't ever recall seeing a debate in either party with such a refreshing, humorous, frank, and incisive a series of questions. The people asking the questions in the YouTube videos were far more on the money than any panel of experts.

And the candidates rose to the occasion with honest and important answers.

Barack Obama, when asked about whether he is a legitimate African-American candidate - given his access to power - quipped, "Ask the New York cabbies!" (African-Americans unfortunately have a tougher time getting a cab to stop for them and pick them up than Caucasian New Yorkers - I'm Caucasian, I've lived in New York all of my life, and maybe this problem has gotten a little better but it still exists).

Hillary Clinton, responding to a question about the election of Bush in 2000, responded that, actually, Bush was not elected President.

John Edwards, on health care, gave an impassioned plea for the need for all Americans to have it - he did this even though he had exceeded his time, and Anderson Cooper was trying to cut him off.

Joe Biden answered a YouTube question about gun control, asked by someone who was armed with an automatic weapon which he called his "baby". Answered Biden: if that's your baby, you need help....

And that's just a sampler.

Even Anderson Cooper, who did seem to unfairly cut off the minor candidates - such as Mike Gravel - more than the major, was in fine form tonight. The final questioner asked each candidate to cite something liked and disliked about the candidate to the left. Kucinich quipped that they there was no one standing to his left on the stage (true). Cooper replied - we tried to find someone to your left but there was no one...

There's nothing like the fresh of democracy to energize a debate, and give people clearer choices. There was concern, before the debate, about CNN exercising too much control in choosing the YouTube questions to be shown - I don't see how the choices could have been any better.

I'm looking forward to the Republican rendition of this fine experiment - which will become the norm - in September.

but added July 28: Republicans Now Thumb Noses at YouTube as Well as Evolution

And here's a July 26, 2007 article in the Houston Chronicle - "Debate Praised as Fresh and Original", in which I and other media commentators rave about the success of this first YouTube debate...

Going to the Candidates' Debates...

That line of course comes from Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson," but from now on, it will also apply to Infinite Regress, where I'll be reviewing each and every Presidential debate on television...

Hey, it's television...

Later tonight, I'll be back with my review of the Third Republican Presidential debate on CNN. But now, here are my takes on the debates so far, from my postings on another one of blogs...

Second Democratic Debate (CNN): Edwards' Leap Forward - June 3, 2007

John Edwards was the clear winner in tonight's Democratic Presidential debate, with Barack Obama doing well, too.

Hillary Clinton commanded the last debate, establishing her creds on the issues and her Presidential style. She's was fine tonight, but gave us nothing in addition to her strong opening performance.

In contrast, Edwards was weak in the first debate. Tonight, he challenged both Clinton and Obama on not their vote against the recent war funding bill, which both voted against, but on their failure to lead a charge against it. It was a powerful, appealing moment for Edwards. At very least, it saved his campaign, and may have even propelled him into second place and ultimately better.

Obama was also not that vibrant in the first debate, and also much stronger tonight. But because he was neither as weak as Edwards in the opener, nor as dynamic as Edwards tonight, Obama had a good but not a great night. Still, he did what he needed to do - at very least stay in the top 3.

As for the rest, Gravel continued to provide comic relief - not because of what he said (which I mostly agree with) but because of his delivery - replete with unexpected volume modulations. Biden was not as funny as the first time, but still pretty strong, and I'm thinking he'll be a tough guy to beat for the VP nomination, if he wants it.

CNN's moderation - mainly from Wolf Blitzer - was ok.

But, like the other debates so far - still the lame show-of-hands gambit.

One of Obama's finest moments was when said to Hillary that he didn't like raising his hand. He's right. Candidates have mouths, with which they can speak and explain.

Let's save the hands for emphasis.


================================================

Second Republican Debate (Fox): Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani - May 15, 2007

You could have slept through the first 60 minutes of the 90-minute GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina tonight, broadcast on Fox, and not missed much - with the exception of Representative Ron Paul, who spoke cogently as always on the need for declarations of war - on the need for us to follow our own Constitution. For when we don't, as Ron Paul correctly pointed out, we get involved in wars with no clear conclusion.

And then the debate took an unexpected turn.

Ron Paul, again discussing the need for adhering to our own Constitution, added a point which is really separate from the Constitutional issue. It is true that our Founding Fathers urged a non-interventionist policy, but that was a general attitude, not by any means an explicit part of the Constitution. Dr. Paul subscribes to that policy, and said so. And he then offered the view that we were attacked on September 11 because we did not follow that policy - in particular, because we had been bombing Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani broke in and vigorously objected that this was not the reason we were attacked - we were attacked because Islamic extremists hate our way of life. Giuliani called upon Paul to retract his statement. Paul stood his ground.

Giuliani asked for more time to respond to Paul on this point. Wendell Goler - who was asking the questions at this point - refused, and went on instead to ask John McCain about the Confederate flag flying in South Carolina....

And so ended what was easily the most significant few minutes in this debate, and in fact of both Republican debates thus far.

Where do the Republicans stand now?

1. I think Ron Paul hurt his cause. The error of our involvement in Iraq need not be pinned to a general non-interventionist policy. It is enough to say the American people were misled about WMD, and we went to war illegally, without the required Declaration of War. Saying that the attacks on New York and Washington, and what happened in Pennsylvania, were all provoked by our policy is wrong, and offensive. (It's ok to be offensive, it's even admirable, if what you are saying is true. Wrong and offensive is not a place you want to be.)

2. Rudy Giuliani was able to come out swinging on this point. He doesn't own 911 as a campaign issue, but he certainly is associated with New York City and its response. He couldn't have asked for a better opportunity, and made the most of it. He cut a far clearer image than he did last week.

3. And as for the rest of the Republicans ... no surprises, no great moments, no gaffes, no raising of hands about not believing in evolution....

And one last point, about how Fox moderated this debate: There were other candidates on the stage who wanted to say something about the Giuliani-Paul exchange. Next time, don't be so rigid and wedded to your schedule. Let the candidates speak - that's what the American people want.

Unexpected, unregulated moments. That's what the best of debates are about.

=============================

First Republican Debate (MSNBC): The Top Three Are Still in the Lead - But Three Others Don't Believe in Evolution! - May 3, 2007

And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC tonight, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.

Except - I just have to say - did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn't Giuliani or McCain and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (Matt Caverill notes in a comment to this post that a site has identified the three as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles - I thought for a second I was watching The Tudors, except that is more entertaining...

But as for the rest of the debate: the three frontrunners - Giuliani, McCain, and Romney (currently in the descending order in the polls) - did fine. There were no real upsets there. Giuliani could have been a little more dynamic, and perhaps lost a bit of ground to McCain. Mitt Romney certainly looked and sounded the best, in terms of the Democratic JFK standard. But if I had to pick a winner, I'd say McCain by a hair over Giuliani, with Romney very impressive.

My admiration for the constitutionality of Ron Paul has been stated often in this blog, and it was a pleasure to hear him talk about need for declarations of war tonight, and the importance he places on freedom of expression. But he's not a dynamic speaker, and I think the best we can hope for regarding Dr. Paul is that whoever is next President of the United States appoint Ron Paul to some important cabinet position where he can remind us, more effectively than as Congressman, of the need for our goverment to follow the Constitution.

And a last point about the media, and in particular its presentation of this debate: although I like Chris Matthews as an interviewer on his Hardball show, I was annoyed with the way he cut off so many of the candidates' answers. The American people would have been better served by a debate that ran a few minutes longer, in which every candidate was allowed to have a little more say.

=============================================

First Democratic Debate (MSNBC): Hillary Commands - April 26, 2007

Debates in politics always strike me as paradoxical. On the one hand, everyone knows that what a candidate says in a debate has little to do with actual performance in office. On the other hand, it does provide us, the voters, with a sense of who the candidate is. And, often, this sense comes less from what the candidate says and more from how the candidate says it.

By that criterion, I'd say Hillary was the clear victor in tonight's Democratic debate on MSNBC. She seemed comfortable, clear, and in control. Not that anyone else seemed out of control - with the exception of former Senator Gravel - but Hillary Clinton projected the most Presidential tone.

Barack Obama and John Edwards were ok, but not as assured and incisive as Hillary. Since Hilary is the front-runner, this is not good news for either man.

As for the rest, Joe Biden gets creds for the best one-word answer - "Yes" - in response to a question about whether he could keep his verbosity in check. And his praise of Hillary may have won him a place on the ticket as VP, if Hilllary gets the nomination.

It's still early days, and a lot can go right or wrong for any of the candidates. But Hillary came across as cogent and even dynamic in a tough field tonight, in which a misstep could have boosted the prospects of Obama or Edwards. If she keeps this up, she'll be hard to beat in the primaries next February.

Later debates...

June 6, 2007: Third Republican Debate: Romney's Null Set

and see also Something New: Supporting the Best Candidates in Both Parties