POLITICS: The Dems debate
By Mary Anna Towler on Jun. 4th, 2007 at 8:56am 2 Comments
It's way more than a year before the next presidential election, but we're already well into the candidate debate season. And so far, the debates are some of the best shows on television.
On NPR this morning, news commentators speculated that voters will get tired of the debates. I hope not.
Americans need to make a better choice than they did in 2004. And since the primary season has been moved up, it's not too early to start studying.
Last night's debate on CNN, like the earlier debates, displayed a gratifyingly strong Democratic field. And even with the extreme time limits, even with eight candidates on the stage, we got a good look at the Democrats' similarities and differences. And surprisingly, even within 60 seconds, the candidates made forceful arguments on complicated subjects.
Among the highlights for me: Joe Biden and Barack Obama explaining their opposing positions on funding the Iraq war; Dennis Kucinich's insistence that the only solution to the United States' health-care problem is a universal, single-payer system; John Edwards' declaration that the "war on terror" is nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan designed to frighten Americans; and Biden's attack on the don't-ask, don't-tell military policy.
Quick candidate impressions: Hillary Clinton is coming off less shrill - to me, at least. Obama is confident and congenial and is obviously the most charismatic of the eight. There's something about John Edwards' personality - I can't identify it; does he seem too youthful? - that seems to be keeping him from getting traction. Joe Biden is a superior candidate whose experience and thoughtfulness would make him a good president, and he ought to be getting more attention than he is.
And frankly, other than Mike Gravel, there isn't a weak candidate in the bunch. Like Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are having trouble getting attention. In last night's debate, they were practically shut out. CNN's Wolf Blitzer did a good job as moderator, but he should have made certain that all of the candidates got equal exposure. Debates like this one, after all, are among the few chances we get to see the candidates talking about the wide variety of issues a president must deal with.
The closer we get to the election, the more we'll be bombarded with campaign ads. And not too long from now, some of the current candidates will withdraw - not because they're not good candidates, but because they don't have enough money to continue.
The ugly truth about American politics is that it takes money - way too much money - to run for office. And the more money candidates can raise, the more likely they are to be elected. Money, more than anything else, will determine which candidates will be on the New York primary ballot next February. I'd bet that half the field will be out of the race by then.
Next up: a debate by the Republican candidates, Tuesday night at 7 on CNN.






User Comments
Here is what others say about this blog post. City Newspaper isn't responsible for the content of comments.
Kevin on August 26th, 2007
These candidates are all bought and paid for except Ron Paul. Ron Paul needs more coverage. Clinton is corrupt to the extreme. Obama is just another puppet who already caused problems with his comments on Pakistan. Vote for a man you can look up to. Check Ron's past. He is a man of the Constitution. Lets get our liberty back.
JR on September 24th, 2007
On NPR this morning, news commentators speculated that voters will get tired of the debates. I hope not. Americans need to make a better choice than they did in 2004." I personally am getting tired of these debates. When I turn the channel and see someone is talking about a presidential candidate, I tend to turn the channel within the first few minutes. What Americans really need is coverage of the presidental candidates when they are not on the stand prepared to speak about certain issues. I really want to know what Clinton thinks about upstate New York when she is in the middle of the city. My point is, is when us American's hear/see these debates we tend to go for a candidate that makes millions of promises and tells us exactly what we want to hear. Look what happened with Bush....If you're saying American's need to make a better decision as in 2004, then it's not these debates that voters need to watch, it's the studying they need to do on each candidate.......and preferably outside television sources.