Those were Sen. Joe Biden’s words at the end of the debate after the the candidates were subjected to another weird question from YouTube land.
Some thoughts on the candidates:
Gravel: Why is he still allowed into these debates?
Dodd: He’s growing on me. There isn’t a question he doesn’t want to answer. Years in the US Senate haven’t dulled his edge.
Edwards: He doesn’t attack well, and it shows in these “debates.” But, when given a chance, can find the thread and run with it in a passionate way.
Clinton: She’s the smartest, best equipped candidate in the race. She has a great grasp of issues. She’s in the lead because she hasn’t had to attack yet.
Obama: I don’t get how the nat’l media folks see him as naive. He’s not, but he does have a sort of “over-thinking” quality, reminiscent of Gore circa 2000. He needs to get out of his own way once in a while.
Richardson: I’m surprised how by how little I liked his performance. With the background he has, you’d think he’d be taking it to Obama and Edwards. He hasn’t. I get the “he’s running for VP” vibe from him. Still, I’m ready to see what he does later in the race.
Biden: He’s not afraid to say unpopular things. But what a mistake to openly mock the gun owner from MI! Still, Biden is relatively bullshit-free. Even though I know he’s a longtime pol, I don’t want to write him off. He could be a factor (but probably not) later on.
Kucinich: If ever there was a worse spokesman for his ideas, Dennis is it.
I thought Anderson Cooper did a pretty good job. They could have given some candidates more time. Some of the YouTube questions were overly schlocky and schmaltzy, but the format is here to stay.
But next time, Jon Stewart hosts! I wish.
I’m waiting for the Ron Paul/Mike Gravel cross party independent ticket…
As a former Republican and now Independant, I have to admit that I am impressed with Hillary’s intellect and grasp of the issues……even if she is at odds with much of what I believe in.
What I would pay money to watch is a no holds barred debate between her and Newt Gingrich. None of the Republicans currently running excite me very much. They are a rather uninspiring lot. Newt however, is a brilliant historian that has tremendous vision and ability to generate new groundbreaking ideas. His problem is that if he did get in the race, the press would focus primarily on the petty, the trivial, and the unimportant. Not much coverage would be devoted to the substance of his ideas. When it comes to ideas…..any candidate from either party would be hard pressed to beat him on ideas alone.
Perhaps you can expand on that? You are referring to the,uhm, “Contract with America”? How did that work out?
It is true, of course, that were it not for unfortunate personal issues, which we seem unable to overlook in ANY candidate, he’s by far the brightest light the Republicans have going. I’m not sure that will get him far, as someof those ideas are, by liberal standards, a bit reactionary.
chadt says:
Perhaps you can expand on that? You are referring to the,uhm, “Contract with America”? How did that work out?
Newt nationalized the 2004 Congressional elections with the Contract With America, as you point out. He wasn’t promising they would enact all items in the contract, he promised that they would bring it to the floor to vote on it. The fate of it was then in the hands of the Senate and Bill Clinton. As it turned out…..welfare reform and ending the unfunded mandates on states were signed into law.
He tried to reform Medicare and its out of control growth in spending, which evolved into the biggest lie in American history…..that the GOP wanted to “cut” Medicare in the budget battle with Clinton in 1995. This was a deliberate and calculated lie spread by then Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Medicare spending was increasing at twice the rate of inflation, and Newt wanted to bring it in line with growth in other government spending. Only in Washington, DC is this a “cut” in spending. By that logic, if your son wanted an increase in his allowance from $10 to $20, but instead you only gave him an increase from $10 to $15…..by Washington logic, you just “cut” his allowance by $5.
I totally agree with your assessment. Kucinich and Gravel seem to be racing to see who can be the least relevant and Richardson acted like he’d just stumbled on stage by accident.
I like that Edwards had the post-debate web cast where he was able to answer questions a little more in-depth, but it was too short. Hopefully he and the other candidates will do that sort of thing more often.
5
Webcasts like Edwards’ are going to have to become more common as the world shifts to embrace new media rather than the one-way communications of the past. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Democratic candidate (whoever it turns out to be) has events like this in the runup to the elction; it will surprise me a lot if the Democratic candidates in 2012 don’t all do similar outreaches.
The shift from TV to new media is like the shift from whistle-stop tours to TV. The new won’t replace the old, but it will allow the candidates to get their message out, and out more directly, than the old way.
Will,
I keep dreaming of somebody with Dennis’ program and Obama’s cachet. Ain’t going to happen, I guess.
Hillary would do a good job, and it would be fun to elect a Clinton and rub the GOP’s noses in it.
Mark,
Newt Gingrich is an unprincipled scalawag and congenital liar. “Welfare reform” is a disaster. Unfunded mandates were by no means “ended” by Newtie, his unprincipled cronies in the House, or anybody else. In fact, under Bush they have increased (cf. No Child Left Behind Act). As for ‘cuts’ in Medicare–if projected costs, and\or inflation are increasing more than funding, this is a CUT in spending (i.e., services delivered per dollar expended) any way you look at it, except in nominal dollar terms. That you hang your example on nominal dollars exposes you for either an ignoramus or a mendacious liar.
Choose one.
Mark@4: You forgot the other LIE: A “CUT” in the school lunch program.
Puddybud says:
Mark@4: You forgot the other LIE: A “CUT” in the school lunch program.
Oh yes! Thanks for the reminder. Starving children, kicking grandma out of nursing homes, dirty air, dirty water…..all part of the Republican agenda if you listen to the Dem talking points during the mid 90’s. My personal favorite was Algore accusing Republicans of wanting to kill people, while out of the other side of his mouth accusing the GOP of “the politics of personal destruction”. The chutzpah!!
Your characterzation of Clinton being the “smartest and best equiped” isn’t born out by the record. Scholarship and professional accomplishments indicate that Obama may have the edge. Edwards by all accounts was a much better lawyer. And give me a break, her experience is voting for the war and killing a great chance for health care reform and doing very little in the senate of note. Her husbands experience does not count.
Uncle Newtie would make an interesting candidate for sure, but his exposed hypocrisy during the Clinton impeachment would drag him down like a million-ton anchor, not to mention some of his recent ideas on the continuation of curtailing freedom on behalf of security. But the irony of Gingrich is that Clinton’s presidency would’ve been a lot different without Gingrich being the yang to Clinton’s yin.
And on the idea of Jon Stewart moderating a debate, I’d like to see him mod a GOP debate. Or maybe Colbert. That’d be especially hilarious.
I can’t help but like Biden and his “no bullshit” attitude. It would be great to see him at the top of the heap.