<p>
</p>
<p>Then you weren’t listening to the debates. While it’s true that many of the topics effect us all, in one way or another, they do focus on these particular states and regions in which they hold these debates, and the problems/issues that most directly impact them.</p>
<p>In Nevada, on January 15, that debate spent some amount of time on Yucca Mountain-- where nuclear wastes are stored. While you can find the stance each candidate has on his/her own energy ideas and policies, I found nothing written about Yucca Mountain on any of the candidate websites. </p>
<p>In this debate, however, it was revealed that both Clinton and Edwards sponsored a bill that allowed for more funding for the continued and unsafe disposal of nuclear waste in this area. Clinton pointed out, in the debate, that Edwards voted twice to store the nuclear wastes in that area. This was after Edwards spoke eloquently about ending dependence on nuclear power. No doubt that was a fairly illuminating point for those in Nevada, and devastating for Edwards. The fact that Edwards had more comprehensive and detailed ideas about clean energy than either Obama or Clinton, didn’t make any difference to those in Nevada. Clinton pointed out his past votes on Yucca mountain- coming up only in this debate-- and that destroyed any chance he might have had for winning Nevada. </p>
<p>In Iowa, the candidates spent a great deal of time on the economy-- an issue central to us all, certainly, but they focused on problems very specific to Iowans. For example, Dodd pointed out that the cost of attending Univ of Iowa has risen 147 percent in the past 6 years. Obama spoke about the economy and energy issues, and used as an example a new wind turbine plant manufacturing plant in some town in Iowa-- so he mentions a plant that focuses on alternative energy AND the fact that this plant added 400 new jobs in the area (covering both energy and economy in one fell swoop-- central to that local area).</p>
<p>And who can forget the SC debate? While the topics discussed there also centered on those issues about which we all have an interest-- each candidate very much invoked MLK at every chance they were given, and really spoke to the black majority in the audience that night, as well as to the black majority in SC that were the Democratic voters. When they spoke of the economy, points were made that were very specific to those in SC. (Edwards pointed out the 6,000 jobs lost in SC-- in one month, for instance).</p>
<p>In addition, who can forget the Obama/Clinton childish bickering that night? You wouldn’t have seen that on their websites. And for my money, that sort of bickering told me a lot. John Edwards shone in that debate and, indeed, “represented the grown-up wing of the Democratic party.” As far as I’m concerned, the best man for the job is out of the race now. </p>
<p>Also, this is the same debate where I learned about Clinton’s involvement with Wal-Mart and Obama’s involvement with Rezco. I feel sure I wouldn’t have seen that on either of their websites.</p>
<p>Finally, these televised debates truly offer us a chance to see how these people speak, how articulate they are when their speech writers aren’t telling them what to say, how quickly they think on their feet, how they handle that sort of stress, and just a little about about their thought processes. For me, anyway, that’s of value. I won’t find that on their websites.</p>
<p>Both Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, before dropping out) have really impressed me at various times with how they view issues, and how each manages to deconstruct questions that are asked and really get to the heart (or not) of what’s being asked. Are they direct? Do they sidestep the issues? Do they blow smoke? Do they actually answer the questions; if so, do they answer them in the way that I (as a voter) hope they do? Again, I won’t get that insight from their websites, nor from channeling their speech writers at a rally.</p>
<p>So, I personally find the fascinating, extremely worthwhile, illuminating, and invaluable.</p>