<p>What did you all think? Especially of the format? What was your reaction to the YouTube questions and all? I did find it interesting that the pundits came to different conclusions/impressions than many of the voters/citizens did, according to interviews, according to the real-time “meter” (graphed viewer response). I have my own impressions, but I’d like to hear others’ first.</p>
<p>I didn’t see, hear. or cared. These candidates are only playing together. I want to see flying mud.</p>
<p>GOP candidates will be more fun to watch. I want to see the ideas they have for the elephant in the room.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Could CNN hype this event any more??? Enough already!</p></li>
<li><p>They chose easy questions.</p></li>
<li><p>Anderson Cooper gave too much time to front runners.</p></li>
<li><p>Sen. Gravel was great. (Don’t confuse that statement with I think he’d be a great president.) I loved two of his answers, the one about “Were lives wasted in Vietnam?” (You can go there now and order Baskin Robins…they have free trade status…what were we there for?) and when he said, (paraphrase) “If you want to know how things will be if you elect any of these candidates, just follow the money. It will be business as usual.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>a. Impressed with Anderson Cooper. I’m becoming a big fan. He doesn’t put up with nonsense. Obviously intelligent (made Chris Matthews look like even more of a babbling fool). Poised and in control. Loved his “how many of you took a private jet here?” question. Plus he’s really really cute. (Yes, I know he’s gay.)</p>
<p>b. Hillary was even way scarier than usual. Eye work latest botox treatments way overdone, and make her appear even less human and more robotic than ususal. Big mistake if she’s going for a more human image. Why was she so angry last night? Some of the closeups revealed her inner anger more than I’ve ever seen it revealed. She’s been so good with the smiling lately–or was it just the face work? Did she find out ten minutes before the debate that Bill has a new squeeze?</p>
<p>c. This is scary to me personally, but I thought Edwards came off the best last night. He actually did seem human. Obama second best. Seemed more authoritative than usual. I think he’s a keeper for the next election–definitely has potential. </p>
<p>d. Can Dodd and Kucinich and Richardson shut up already? It’s embarrassing to watch people’s egos so out there on display and so transparent. At least Biden has something of value to add.</p>
<p>e. The hokey You-Tube thing was excruciating.</p>
<p>f. Interesting that according to their immediate polls Hillary was the big time loser. She really was awful.</p>
<p>Thanks for asking, epiphany. It’s nice to be able to get that off my chest!</p>
<p>We watched it as a family last night. I think it is safe to say that if it had been a “regular” TV debate, there is no way my kids would have watched for the entire 2+ hours. The format engaged them. I enjoyed it too. My H wasn’t that crazy about it but he is a serious news junkie.</p>
<p>My only complaint with the format was in how they displayed the video questions. It was hard to see some of them from such a great distance. For instance, I couldn’t read the signs that were used in the video of the man in the wheelchair. I wish they would have displayed them fullscreen like you can see online.</p>
<p>Regarding the candidates’ videos, I only really remember one vividly this morning and that is John Edwards’ Hair video. What a great piece!</p>
<p>As far as candidate performance, I thought the top 3 all did well. I am not that crazy about Hillary in general, but I thought she did well. At least well enough for me to hold her in higher regard. </p>
<p>My kids loved Joe Biden and his loose cannon comments.</p>
<p>I agree about Gravel. That was by far the highlight of the evening, and made most of the others (especially Obama, who I happen to like, but who tried to respond) look really lame. </p>
<p>Instead of the idiotic questions about whether they’d take the minimum wage for serving, someone should have asked them whether they’d take a pledge to take no funds from health care and insurance companies and lobbyists. I would have loved to see them gulp. (Maybe they should pay Presidents at a piece-work rate. ;))</p>
<p>On the whole, these were a reasonably intelligent group of guys (and gal). I too thought Edwards came out looking best (as he did in the last debate), but I don’t think it matters - he’s toast.</p>
<p>Hereshoping: Why would you only comment on appearance for the female candidate?</p>
<p>mini: I wouldn’t write off Edwards just yet. He is also a candidate who has put his money where his mouth is. His anti-poverty plans aren’t just ideas. And at least one of his education proposals he actually instituted himself–though on a smaller scale–in a small school in NC, and it’s been very successful.</p>
<p>I also loved the question about public schools vs private and how the candidates whose kids went to private schools really danced around and made excuses for that… I thought that was rather amusing.</p>
<p>What Edwards did not add --though he certainly could/should have-- is that the middle school his 2 older children attended is an inner-city public magnet that is in a very rough area. (My daughter attended the same middle school.) It’s a wonderful school, equally outstanding in both academics and the arts, but this is not some fine public school in a wealthy lily-white, leafy green neighborhood (which was easily available to them). Middle school is the time when most people (at least in our area) start sending their kids to private schools, too, so I’m doubly impressed they all went to these public magnet schools (that do not require testing for entrance)–especially this particular middle magnet. </p>
<p>To be honest, I think he’s been more impressive all along. I think Obama has little substance, unfortunately. He sounds great, but in the end, he never actually says anything substantive. Hillary is very smart, but I don’t see her winning over the majority of voters out there. Kucinich I sometimes like, but he’s definitely a lost cause. Biden always looks good.</p>
<p>I’ll be more specific about one aspect or purpose to my posting. (Not that the above comments are also not interesting & pertinent.)</p>
<p>First I must disclose that I am not particularly a Hillary fan or foe. I do not have strong feelings about her, towards her. However, as I posted months ago, the political & social reality is that she is “divisive” even while not meaning to be. (Much of the rest of the country has strong feelings about her, and many of those feelings are negative. Some of those feelings may be ‘unfairly’ pinned on her because of those voters’ opinions about her husband, but nevertheless, all those factors are realities.)</p>
<p>Does it occur to people like Hillary Clinton & Cindy Sheehan what really turns people off, even people who cannot in any way, shape, or form be called anti-feminist? Where are they getting their handlers? And what real-world marketing & communications experience do some of these handlers have? I truly wonder. Here’s a clue: Stop pandering to the feminist crowd. We get it: you have ovaries; you do not have whiskers. That’s not apparent? And how did Hillary last night “pander”? Not by having been put unfairly in the spot of answering the stupid YouTube question about whether she’s “feminine” enough. But BY NOT CHANGING HER VIDEO AD IN TIME FOR NATIONAL AIRING. Hillary, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. (Sometimes Pelosi does this, too.) You claim to want to be treated just like a male politician (by the media, by the public), yet you constantly make reference to your gender AS IF the gender qualifies you “more” to be president. People with brains do not appreciate such illogic. And people on the edge of being anti-feminist (not just many guys, btw) are more likely to become card-carrying anti-feminists with this approach.</p>
<p>So shut up already about your gender, and when asked about it, confront it with the incredulity it deserves. If I were her, I would have turned that YouTube question right back to the questioner, although I realize this was not live dialogue: “#1, Questioner, define ‘not feminine enough.’ #2, Are you asking me to justifiy my candidacy based on a Femininity Quotient, or are you asking me to justify it based on my gender?”</p>
<p>A commentator noted a couple of weeks ago, in a What’s Wrong With This Picture? kind of piece, that Hillary is often photographed with 100% female consultants around her. Now, there happen to be lots of guys who support her, and many of those guys are consultants & politicans & lobbyists. So why on God’s green earth does she not make sure she’s photographed with THEM (if she wants to get a significant vote percentage of about half the U.S. voting population)? The women that are sitting around you, Hillary? You know what? THEY’RE GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU ALREADY. And there are millions of women sitting in their homes who will vote for you simply because you are the only female running. Period. Those are the die-hard feminists. You need not whisper a word about your gender to those women. You will not get “more” of such votes by airing a video in it with frequent references to your gender, nor by answering the stupid YouTube question with an answer that concludes with how your election would be “inspiring to little girls and boys.” </p>
<p>You should be making clear, in your professional behavior, in your media messages, and in your live answers in debates, that your gender makes you neither more qualified nor less qualified to be president of the U.S.</p>
<p>As to the stupid spin-off questions about whether Hillary is running “as a woman” and Barack is running “as a black,” I would again if I had been them turn those around: Is Paul Gravel running ‘as a white man’ with white hair? etc.</p>
<p>epiphany: Excellent points, all. Agree, especially the last 2 paragraphs.</p>
<p>“mini: I wouldn’t write off Edwards just yet. He is also a candidate who has put his money where his mouth is.”</p>
<p>I agree, but these are democratic primaries, and he has no logical source of votes, but picks off the leavings of the other candidates. Either Obama or Hillary would have to shoot themselves in the foot for him to have any traction at all (and if they did, Gore would likely step in.)</p>
<p>Too bad. I think he is quite thoughtful, and committed. I LIKE the fact that he was a trial lawyer. I LIKE the fact that he admits he was wrong. I think his health care plan has major flaws, but (other than Kucinich’s) is the best of the bunch. I think he can be trusted. But I doubt it’s enough to get anywhere near the number of votes he needs, and after he loses in South Carolina, he will be out of the race.</p>
<p>weenie: You can’t be serious!!!</p>
<p>Would you have preferred I mention Edwards’ hair? Actually, I didn’t think his hair looked as good as it usually does last night. It sort of looked like it collapsed–not enough hair gel? If that’s a $400 haircut, he needs a new beautician. </p>
<p>We’ll wait and see if anyone mentions Rudy’s comb-over (mentioned on a different thread yesterday) during the Republican debate. Will that be off-limits? :)</p>
<p>Maybe someone could post a TOS as to exactly what we are and are not allowed to express in our reactions to debates. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>If people are going to get riled about mention of Hillary’s appearance (which relates, I think, to what epiphany expressed above–if people can discuss the male candidates’ appearances, why can’t they discuss the females’?), it’s going to be a rough road ahead, alright. :eek:</p>
<p>I meant to add this link to my earlier comments about Edwards. This is about the pilot program he initiated at a relatively poor rural high school in Eastern NC. <a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/573372.html[/url]”>http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/573372.html</a>
In part:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as discussing how candidates looked, as I said before, I think Joe Biden always looks good. However, they all looked like they were wearing a little too much make-up, I thought (though that didn’t seem to help poor old Kucinich, who would do much better politically if he looked more like Joe Biden). ;)</p>
<p>Oh, sorry mini, I just saw your post. I actually also like Kucinich, but he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hades. Of course, I don’t think Obama does either (and I suspect he’s peaked too soon). Hillary has an awful lot of money and clout behind her, and I do think she’s very smart, but I just don’t see her getting votes across the country. </p>
<p>This might leave Edwards in a better position than you think. And people really love Elizabeth, too. They’ve both gotten a lot of great press recently, most especially Elizabeth. I do think he can be trusted, too. </p>
<p>I also agree that if Gore steps in at the 11th hour, all bets are off. They must all be quaking in their boots over that thought. I still think he might enter this race.</p>
<p>O.K. Let’s get catty. (I forgot how to do that grin smiley.)</p>
<p>I thought Joe Biden looked puffy-faced; I was concerned that he was suffering from some kind fo edema in his face, like he was on meds. Dodd was wearing a ton of make-up. (I could see the make-up line.) And he needs it less than some, because he’s good-looking/dapper, etc. </p>
<p>Hillary? Again: bad decision. Pay me to be your handler. Pink says, “My, my; look how ‘traditionally feminine’ I am; you know: pink for girls; blue for boys.” Nor would it have been good to wear dark navy or black. (Hey, I can pretend I’m a guy.) Yellow (which she often wears, & does wear it well because of her blond hair) would have made her look too soft. She should have chosen something middle-ground, like an emerald green. She would have still stood out, but green is less gender-associative.</p>
<p>Epiphany, I suspect that what HC’s handlers are concerned about is that more women than men will vote against her because she’s a woman. I won’t claim this is logical, but any trial lawyer will tell you that women on a jury are much harder on a women who is on trial than men are. And I think that same factor is at work in politics. I suspect that a lot of her image work is directed not at feminists, and not at men, but at women who don’t consider themselves to be feminists and will vote against her for reasons that are hard to explain logically.</p>
<p>Oh, I’ll have to go back and look at some of the videos from the debate. I didn’t notice Biden’s apparent puffiness. He just always looks so distinguished and put together, great hair and his suits are so obviously tailor-made. </p>
<p>You think Dodd is “dapper and good-looking??” Maybe I have him mixed up with somebody else. He just looks like another in a long line of old fat guys to me. (I suspect he’s been eating too much food with HFCS in it.) :eek:</p>
<p>Further disclosure:
My heart’s with Obama, for a variety of reasons. But my head tells me that the PARTY will not be brave enough. I think they may be mistaken there, because where you see the passion for Obama is especially in disaffected voters of all races and ages, and there are millions of those. And passion coalesces a party & drives the precinct work – which is what happened with JFK so long ago.</p>
<p>If the Dems are worried about the inexperience factor with Obama, they should choose Edwards rather than Clinton, but unfortunately I think they’re going to choose Clinton. I say unfortunately because Edwards would be more of a "uniter’ than Clinton would be, definitely. I also think an Edwards/Obama ticket would be more powerful than a Hillary + anyone ticket, but no one listens to me, pout, pout. ;)</p>
<p>Dodd has good hair, jack. No? I guess I think he hides his weight well, too. Biden’s not bad, but I think Dodd looks more “put together,” more polished.</p>
<p>And I love this completely irrelevant cattiness.</p>
<p>Hereshoping: No, I would not prefer that we discuss how the candidates look, as I couldn’t care less. Let’s face it, most of the anti-Hillary rhetoric is just anti-woman. I have friends who rabidly dislike her, but when you ask them, which part of her record do you disagree with, they can’t name a thing. (And she has plenty of record behind her, for better or worse.)</p>
<p>Let’s not forget why people voted for Bush - because they wanted to have a beer with him. 'Nuff said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that would be interesting. I can see that. I do think Obama should have waited another 4 years or so.</p>
<p>I’m gonna go and take another look at Dodd. I’ll be back.</p>