Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Democratic Debate: Kucinich Wins
Tonight (2007 April 26), the Democrats had their first Presidential Debate for 2008 in Orangeburg, South Carolina, on MSNBC. This is for perhaps what is the most important election in American history. My Periodic Presidents theory suggests that the next President will be a Crisis President, of the same stature in our history as Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, or maybe even exceeding them. Our country is about to enter the Fourth Turning, a decisive period wherein society goes through major restructuring, and there are several serious problems out there, including retirement of baby boomers, global warming, and especially peak oil. Further, it shows signs of being the most massive election, with 8 Democratic candidates and 10 Republican ones, at least, and a good deal of money being poured on this campaign already. So how did the candidates do?
I made notations of +1, +2, -1 and so forth when the candidates made statements that I thought were favorable or unfavorable. I then settled two ties, and the result was:
1. Dennis Kucinich, +9
2. John Edwards, +3
3. Bill Richardson, +3
4. Chris Dodd, +2
5. Mike Gravel, -1
6. Joe Biden, -1
7. Barack Obama, -2
8. Hillary Clinton, -9
Some big surprises! I thought Hillary was not the best of candidates, but I didn't think she was that bad. Barack Obama to me tonight was a big disappointment. He did not present anything new or original for the most part, and he showed himself to be aggressive to an extent that will hurt his run. Dennis Kucinich was the other surprise, but most of his points were due to his view on war, which is far more consistent than the others. No war of any kind is permissible, not even wars to prevent a perceived threat (such as Iran) from attacking our country or its interests. He was rather weak on domestic issues. Among the major candidates, I felt John Edwards was the winner. To me he now is the candidate that is most likely to be our era's "Redeemer President".
Here is my review of the candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton. To me she was the most insincere candidate by far. She lost points mostly for making statements that don't seem to ring true. She started a sentence with "I am serious about…". That meant that she was not serious about it. She started a sentence with "If I had known about Iraq…" To me that constitutes Monday morning quarterbacking. She was asked for one sentence and she uttered two. She said she was going to present three points and she presented only one. And to top it off, she said that if she were President in early 2003, she would not have invaded Iraq. OK, then, why did she support the President when he did invade? To me, a candidate that answers questions like this is not a sincere candidate, and if she were elected, she could prevail over an administration of lies. That makeover of the 1984 1984 ad showing her as Big Sister was right on the mark. I think now she is so bad a candidate that if she runs for the Democrats, there is a chance I may vote for the Republican. That is not true for any of the other seven candidates.
2. Barack Obama. To me he was the biggest disappointment of the night. I was hoping he would finish first. Instead he is second last. The answers that he gave were notihng original. He did give a detailed health plan, but he mostly presented the usual Democratic line. He also showed signs of being aggressively duplicitous. He was asked a question about the Confederate flag, and instead he started talking about terrorism. He was asked one about the environment, and he changed topic. It makes me wonder if he would really be the "Redeemer President" that this country may be headed towards.
3. John Edwards. Best among the major candidates. He could really be the Redeemer President. He said that the biggest problem in this country is trust. That is certainly one of the biggest problems nowadays. You can't trust anybody. There is WMD in Iraq, peak oil will be in 2040, and Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. Sure. But it's doctors, computer programmers, car repairers and salespeople of all type that won't reason with you. Edwards also said that he has no moral leader, and then mentioned his father as someone to live up to. I felt he came up with the best answer there, although he referred to God.
4. Bill Richardson. Also a good performance. His biggest plus was his suggestion that mental illness be made equal to other illnesses and not treated as a special case. He wants international effort to end the war in Iraq. He says we don't care enough about the poorer nations of the world - we worry more about Appalachia and our inner cities than we do about Darfur and Iraq. He was surprisingly off the mark on energy, being the former Energy Secretary, however. He said he wanted Russia to be a source of energy for us. Not likely. Russia is running out of oil, too.
5. Joe Biden. So-so performance. Interesting response on a leading question by the moderator on why he was the gaffe machine. His answer: "Yes." Without anything else. Thereby he does not utter anything which the PC machine can take and run with, unless they want to run with his not saying anything other than "Yes". He says sometimes we need to take military action. But his energy views are simply terrible. He believes we need new methods of getting lithium. It just ain't there, Joe. Use nickel instead for batteries. He says we need to get more stations using E85. Right. And not have any corn to eat.
6. Mike Gravel. Most interesting of the debaters. He not only wants us to pull out of Iraq, he wants remaining in there and fighting there to be a felony. When asked about nuclear energy, he changed the topic. He mentioned several times that he helped stop the draft. He was not asked often, but he sure made best use of that time.
7. Chris Dodd. Middling performance. He got impetuous at one time, when he stridently said we must not use any nuclear weapons. He said we should not use a foreign policy of reacting to enemies; we need to get out of enemy thinking altogether.
8. Dennis Kucinich. Best candidate of the evening. Unfortunately he not a major candidate for the office. He said over and over again that he was opposed to all war, with no exceptions. He mentioned specific bill numbers, so one can go on the Internet and read what he sponsored. When asked for his biggest mistake, he said it was to fire the Cleveland police chief on the local news.
After this debate, I say the Democrat's best candidate is John Edwards, with perhaps an Edwards-Obama ticket. Next week it's the Republicans, 10 of them. With them, I will be looking for hints of their not being religious Bible bangers, and for being libertarians rather than Moral Majorityites. And of course if any of them starts talking about peak oil, that's my candidate right there.
I made notations of +1, +2, -1 and so forth when the candidates made statements that I thought were favorable or unfavorable. I then settled two ties, and the result was:
1. Dennis Kucinich, +9
2. John Edwards, +3
3. Bill Richardson, +3
4. Chris Dodd, +2
5. Mike Gravel, -1
6. Joe Biden, -1
7. Barack Obama, -2
8. Hillary Clinton, -9
Some big surprises! I thought Hillary was not the best of candidates, but I didn't think she was that bad. Barack Obama to me tonight was a big disappointment. He did not present anything new or original for the most part, and he showed himself to be aggressive to an extent that will hurt his run. Dennis Kucinich was the other surprise, but most of his points were due to his view on war, which is far more consistent than the others. No war of any kind is permissible, not even wars to prevent a perceived threat (such as Iran) from attacking our country or its interests. He was rather weak on domestic issues. Among the major candidates, I felt John Edwards was the winner. To me he now is the candidate that is most likely to be our era's "Redeemer President".
Here is my review of the candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton. To me she was the most insincere candidate by far. She lost points mostly for making statements that don't seem to ring true. She started a sentence with "I am serious about…". That meant that she was not serious about it. She started a sentence with "If I had known about Iraq…" To me that constitutes Monday morning quarterbacking. She was asked for one sentence and she uttered two. She said she was going to present three points and she presented only one. And to top it off, she said that if she were President in early 2003, she would not have invaded Iraq. OK, then, why did she support the President when he did invade? To me, a candidate that answers questions like this is not a sincere candidate, and if she were elected, she could prevail over an administration of lies. That makeover of the 1984 1984 ad showing her as Big Sister was right on the mark. I think now she is so bad a candidate that if she runs for the Democrats, there is a chance I may vote for the Republican. That is not true for any of the other seven candidates.
2. Barack Obama. To me he was the biggest disappointment of the night. I was hoping he would finish first. Instead he is second last. The answers that he gave were notihng original. He did give a detailed health plan, but he mostly presented the usual Democratic line. He also showed signs of being aggressively duplicitous. He was asked a question about the Confederate flag, and instead he started talking about terrorism. He was asked one about the environment, and he changed topic. It makes me wonder if he would really be the "Redeemer President" that this country may be headed towards.
3. John Edwards. Best among the major candidates. He could really be the Redeemer President. He said that the biggest problem in this country is trust. That is certainly one of the biggest problems nowadays. You can't trust anybody. There is WMD in Iraq, peak oil will be in 2040, and Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. Sure. But it's doctors, computer programmers, car repairers and salespeople of all type that won't reason with you. Edwards also said that he has no moral leader, and then mentioned his father as someone to live up to. I felt he came up with the best answer there, although he referred to God.
4. Bill Richardson. Also a good performance. His biggest plus was his suggestion that mental illness be made equal to other illnesses and not treated as a special case. He wants international effort to end the war in Iraq. He says we don't care enough about the poorer nations of the world - we worry more about Appalachia and our inner cities than we do about Darfur and Iraq. He was surprisingly off the mark on energy, being the former Energy Secretary, however. He said he wanted Russia to be a source of energy for us. Not likely. Russia is running out of oil, too.
5. Joe Biden. So-so performance. Interesting response on a leading question by the moderator on why he was the gaffe machine. His answer: "Yes." Without anything else. Thereby he does not utter anything which the PC machine can take and run with, unless they want to run with his not saying anything other than "Yes". He says sometimes we need to take military action. But his energy views are simply terrible. He believes we need new methods of getting lithium. It just ain't there, Joe. Use nickel instead for batteries. He says we need to get more stations using E85. Right. And not have any corn to eat.
6. Mike Gravel. Most interesting of the debaters. He not only wants us to pull out of Iraq, he wants remaining in there and fighting there to be a felony. When asked about nuclear energy, he changed the topic. He mentioned several times that he helped stop the draft. He was not asked often, but he sure made best use of that time.
7. Chris Dodd. Middling performance. He got impetuous at one time, when he stridently said we must not use any nuclear weapons. He said we should not use a foreign policy of reacting to enemies; we need to get out of enemy thinking altogether.
8. Dennis Kucinich. Best candidate of the evening. Unfortunately he not a major candidate for the office. He said over and over again that he was opposed to all war, with no exceptions. He mentioned specific bill numbers, so one can go on the Internet and read what he sponsored. When asked for his biggest mistake, he said it was to fire the Cleveland police chief on the local news.
After this debate, I say the Democrat's best candidate is John Edwards, with perhaps an Edwards-Obama ticket. Next week it's the Republicans, 10 of them. With them, I will be looking for hints of their not being religious Bible bangers, and for being libertarians rather than Moral Majorityites. And of course if any of them starts talking about peak oil, that's my candidate right there.
