Friday, January 23, 2004
An encouraging night for America... and Me.
It was all-politics, all-night last night.
After the results in Iowa, and Deans "yee ha!" the butt of all the late night talk shows and the TV media making such a big deal out of it, I was starting to scratch my head and say "What the hell happened?"
But last night I saw most of the debate. Then I watched a Howard Dean public Q+A on CSPAN that included what I thought were fascinating interactions with folks from the audience afterward. I also watched a recording of the Primetime interview by Diane Sawyer with Dean and his wife.
I'm happy to report that I think everything's going to be ok.
The debate was great. Very civilized. Almost like the candidates agreed in advance to be supportive of each other no matter how much they were baited to bad-mouth each other by the questions (which they were). They gave sort of "We agree to disagree" and "We will support whoever is nominated" type answers, then turning the questions back on themselves with a "Well this is how I would do it..." and "When I'M president..." not taking the negativity low-road.
High points that come to mind:
At different times both Edwards and Dean, when they seemed to think the questions were unimportant or petty, asked "Why aren't we being asked more important questions like how to address poverty in this country?" etc.. and using their 60 seconds to say something of substance. (The original questions were so irrelevant I don't even remember what they were.)
Clark was asked about a quote from an interview last spring that seemed to support Bushes actions in Iraq. He very levelly put the quote back into the context of the interview to show what led up to the quote was a list of preconditions that would have to be met BEFORE he could support war with Iraq. Those conditions had not been met. Thus he did NOT support it.
Kerry defended his vote for the war in much the same way, emphasizing that he voted for it because the administration promised that war was a last resort and that congress had been lied to. That made me feel a little better about Kerry. But he STILL should have known better. ( I warned him in a letter BEFORE the Oct '02 vote, he should have listened. I couldnt have been the ONLY one!)
Sharpton was great. I could listen to him talk all day. Why doesn't he run for Senator? He could get some good things done, get some government experience and keep the senate in line. THEN run for president and actually have a shot at winning.
Everything Cucinich said made sense, every time, like he always does. I liked his explanation against NAFTA.
On the other hand Dean is FOR it, but with changes. (That sounded good to me too.)
My favorite though, had to be the audience response to Leiberman when TWICE he defended his support of Bushes war, and TWICE was soundly booed! That was great. What is that guy doing even running as a Democrat anyway??
Clark defended himself well against the suggestion by one of the reporters that, because he had been a general, he was a closet Republican. (Don't they listen to ANYTHING the man says?) Why didn't they ask Leiberman that!?
I'm still leaning toward Dean and Clark. But I'd be satisfied with anybody but Leiberman as the nominee.
The Losers: The Panel. They were disorganized and acted like they were there to instigate a pit bull fight. Some of the questions were stupid and they couldn't resist injecting their snide little comments. (The candidates only had 60 seconds to answer a question. The questioners had no such time limit. I think it should be a new rule. The QUESTIONS should have a time limit to keep the REPORTERS from making speeches.)
The Winners: The Candidates. They took the high road and tried to keep the questioners in line. Pretty bad when the candidates have to moderate their own debate. (Peter Jennings is pretty much a dink, isnt he?)
The Primetime interview with Dean and his wife: First off, I have to say Diane Sawyer is a total twat. (She and Jennings should get together.) I hadnt really noticed that before, not having watched her much. But she is. She kept running that tape of Iowa over and over and didn't ask about issues. Just kept digging around to find out any kind of dirt on Judy Dean or their marriage. She even tried to compare this interview with the Bill and Hillary "stand by my man" interview (with accompanying photo of the Clintons on the couch). Ah, yes. The American media in action. Like I said, a twat.
Bottom line: "Yes", Dean said, "The 'yee ha' speech looked silly." But 3500 kids in the audience had just worked their hearts out for him and were feeling discouraged and he wanted to cheer them up. That was his intent, and that's what it looked like to me. Fine, what's the big deal?
And Judy Dean is a sweetheart. A good mother, a caring doctor, and her husbands best friend. Very down to earth with a sense of humor. She is soft spoken and intelligent. Even though she was being interviewed by a twat. (did I mention that?) People are going to criticize her clothes and her hair and she's not going to apologize for it because those things arent important to her. I think she's just cute as hell.
You can see the whole interview here.
It was all-politics, all-night last night.
After the results in Iowa, and Deans "yee ha!" the butt of all the late night talk shows and the TV media making such a big deal out of it, I was starting to scratch my head and say "What the hell happened?"
But last night I saw most of the debate. Then I watched a Howard Dean public Q+A on CSPAN that included what I thought were fascinating interactions with folks from the audience afterward. I also watched a recording of the Primetime interview by Diane Sawyer with Dean and his wife.
I'm happy to report that I think everything's going to be ok.
The debate was great. Very civilized. Almost like the candidates agreed in advance to be supportive of each other no matter how much they were baited to bad-mouth each other by the questions (which they were). They gave sort of "We agree to disagree" and "We will support whoever is nominated" type answers, then turning the questions back on themselves with a "Well this is how I would do it..." and "When I'M president..." not taking the negativity low-road.
High points that come to mind:
At different times both Edwards and Dean, when they seemed to think the questions were unimportant or petty, asked "Why aren't we being asked more important questions like how to address poverty in this country?" etc.. and using their 60 seconds to say something of substance. (The original questions were so irrelevant I don't even remember what they were.)
Clark was asked about a quote from an interview last spring that seemed to support Bushes actions in Iraq. He very levelly put the quote back into the context of the interview to show what led up to the quote was a list of preconditions that would have to be met BEFORE he could support war with Iraq. Those conditions had not been met. Thus he did NOT support it.
Kerry defended his vote for the war in much the same way, emphasizing that he voted for it because the administration promised that war was a last resort and that congress had been lied to. That made me feel a little better about Kerry. But he STILL should have known better. ( I warned him in a letter BEFORE the Oct '02 vote, he should have listened. I couldnt have been the ONLY one!)
Sharpton was great. I could listen to him talk all day. Why doesn't he run for Senator? He could get some good things done, get some government experience and keep the senate in line. THEN run for president and actually have a shot at winning.
Everything Cucinich said made sense, every time, like he always does. I liked his explanation against NAFTA.
On the other hand Dean is FOR it, but with changes. (That sounded good to me too.)
My favorite though, had to be the audience response to Leiberman when TWICE he defended his support of Bushes war, and TWICE was soundly booed! That was great. What is that guy doing even running as a Democrat anyway??
Clark defended himself well against the suggestion by one of the reporters that, because he had been a general, he was a closet Republican. (Don't they listen to ANYTHING the man says?) Why didn't they ask Leiberman that!?
I'm still leaning toward Dean and Clark. But I'd be satisfied with anybody but Leiberman as the nominee.
The Losers: The Panel. They were disorganized and acted like they were there to instigate a pit bull fight. Some of the questions were stupid and they couldn't resist injecting their snide little comments. (The candidates only had 60 seconds to answer a question. The questioners had no such time limit. I think it should be a new rule. The QUESTIONS should have a time limit to keep the REPORTERS from making speeches.)
The Winners: The Candidates. They took the high road and tried to keep the questioners in line. Pretty bad when the candidates have to moderate their own debate. (Peter Jennings is pretty much a dink, isnt he?)
The Primetime interview with Dean and his wife: First off, I have to say Diane Sawyer is a total twat. (She and Jennings should get together.) I hadnt really noticed that before, not having watched her much. But she is. She kept running that tape of Iowa over and over and didn't ask about issues. Just kept digging around to find out any kind of dirt on Judy Dean or their marriage. She even tried to compare this interview with the Bill and Hillary "stand by my man" interview (with accompanying photo of the Clintons on the couch). Ah, yes. The American media in action. Like I said, a twat.
Bottom line: "Yes", Dean said, "The 'yee ha' speech looked silly." But 3500 kids in the audience had just worked their hearts out for him and were feeling discouraged and he wanted to cheer them up. That was his intent, and that's what it looked like to me. Fine, what's the big deal?
And Judy Dean is a sweetheart. A good mother, a caring doctor, and her husbands best friend. Very down to earth with a sense of humor. She is soft spoken and intelligent. Even though she was being interviewed by a twat. (did I mention that?) People are going to criticize her clothes and her hair and she's not going to apologize for it because those things arent important to her. I think she's just cute as hell.
You can see the whole interview here.
