The Democratic Debate
Yesterday, the Democratic candidates debated each other on various issues. Dr. e. published several posts about the debate, therefore I have decided to only publish a post about the debate at my own blog. If you all are interested in my thoughts on the debate, I encourage you all to read my post (including videos).
Sadly, I was not able to watch the debate live (time difference and all that), so I have to rely on coverage on CNN, English newspapers, the BBC, and Dutch newssources (and YouTube of course) and I have to say: I think that Hillary Clinton performed quite well. She is the frontrunner, her main goal should be not to make any big mistakes. Besides that, she should present herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. In my opinion, she succeeded in that (using some good, smart tricks).
To read more, click here.
10 Responses to “The Democratic Debate”
I thought most of the candidates performed pretty well. Edwards was much more aggressive than the first time, and Obama and Richardson seemed better prepared. I still really like Joe Biden, because he just seems like the most honest of any of them. Sen Dodd is a decent sort, but he never really seems to say anything but politicospeak.
All in all, I thought it was a good debate- but vastly different in tone and substance from the last 2 GOP debates. I have no idea who I’m backing. Hillary was on top of her subjects and in total control, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
I have to say that I find the Republican debates much more fun to watch. At least there is something happening there. I found the Democratic debate to be, well, lame.
Is it just me?
The Republican debates scare and depress the hell out of me, because the candidates sound like pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, pro-torture war- mongers. At the first one they kept trying to resurrect Ronald Reagan (mentioned 19 times) while avoiding any mention of Bush, at the second one only John McCain objected to torture , while Romney wanted to double the size of Gitmo.
At least the Democrats brought up the issues that most of the middle class here want to hear about- reinstitution of diplomacy over the neocon’s use of force in disputes,repair and recovery of our tarnished rep in the world through strengthening alliances, healthcare solutions, global warming solutions, energy solutions, and Darfur.
But if you are a war hawk or a neocon, I can see why the Democrats’ debate wouldn’t work for you.
I really thought Hillary held her own pretty well. Aside from getting attacked by Edwards every chance he got, she did ok.
lol Kim, I am not talking about what they said, but about how they said it. It was more of a tea party, wasn’t it?
Phil: agreed. She did very well.
Oh. They were reasonable adults, not raving lunatics, dramatically trying to move to the right of each other on each and every issue.
Is that what you mean? LOL Then I agree- it wasn’t good political theater.
Quite understandable coming from a European conservative.
Michael,
Your recent
obsession withobservations on America liberals says more about your conservative outlook than American Liberalism. LOLIt should seem lame. Its not exciting to discuss healthcare, international diplomacy, and other aspect of national gov’t. It shouldn’t be when its done right. Its immensely complicated issues that need a huge level of detail and research to handle properly. When it is exciting is when you know someone is just putting on a dog and pony show and probably doesn’t know or mean what they are talking about.
Well from a drama standpoint, there wasn’t a lot of fur flying when compared to the 2 GOP debates! I think that’s what MvdG was saying- the Dems were mostly civil and even complementary with each other.
I appreciated the civil atmosphere. That’s what debates should be.
For excitement, folks can always watch wrestling.