Bah, humbug, I say. I found two nights with 10 candidates a bit exhausting, yet still worthwhile. The anti-debate argument is the same that was used in the 19th century when it was considered unseemly for men (back then it was always men) to campaign at all—the thinking being then that a head of state was not a campaigner, and it somehow tarnished the “royalty” of a president to have him do something gauche like ask for votes.
I do not think my vote for president should be solely, or mainly, based on debate performance—but, on the other hand, I think these spectacles are useful because they do give other voters and me a chance to do quick side-by-side comparisons and to “meet” many candidates. Before debates, campaigns were often contests of political advertising, so I appreciate that these events counterbalance that a bit.
Besides, while it’s true a president does not have to debate anyone directly, they do have to publicly articulate ideas and lead by what they say. They do have to make a case and counter ideas and persons that they oppose. And when they fail in that, well, consider the legitimate distress caused by the obvious communication incompetence of the clearly worst president in our nation’s history, Donald the Tweeter Twit Trump.
Anyway, I watched both debates this week. It was a bit easier for me Tuesday night—I found the Wednesday debate a bit harder to follow, a bit wonkier and a lot less positive.
Yet, I’m glad I watched.
The CNN moderators practically displaced their shoulders patting themselves on the back after the first night. I didn’t agree. They were not horrible, but their questions were often deliberately designed to pit candidate vs. candidate, which adds to the drama of the event but doesn’t do enough to show me the substance—that is, rather than provoke a fight between these people, prod them on how their ideas work or don’t work.
A few candidates did stand out to me as doing well in the two debates this week. Here is my list of debate winners, and why I liked their performances (images from Wikimedia commons or Wikipedia):
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: She was calm, spoke well, and didn’t go after her chief rival for the progressive wing of the party, Sen. Bernie Sanders. She seems a force to be reckoned with, and I admit I would find it delicious to see her debate Donald Trump.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Increasingly, my girl. If I had to caucus today, I would be in team Amy. On Tuesday night, she kept more attention on the Don, and contrasting herself with Trump, than many other candidates did. I appreciate a relatively moderate Democrat with a bit of feistiness, and I like the way she emphasized the integrity card. Amy, you’re no Donald Trump. I am not declaring that I am on team Amy today—there are months before the caucus and I’m still shopping around—just that if I had to pick today, Senator Klobuchar’s Tuesday performance would seal the deal for me.
Sen. Cory Booker: I found the Kool-Aid line confusing—I doubt anybody ever knows the flavor because that odd, artificial drink rarely has a distinct flavor. But Cory stood out in being bright, witty and, above all, happy to be there. I like a warrior who relishes the battle—politics should have some sense of joy, and it looked like Senator Booker was having some fun in the fight. He also made positive appeals. “We know in this country our fates are united.” Nice reminder, sir, and on a lackluster second debate night, you spoke well. I like the idea of a Klobuchar-Booker ticket.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I had not given her much thought before, she seemed like an obscure, second tier candidate. I am not on team Tulsi yet—as I noted before I’m a bit more of an Amy fan, but the congresswoman from Hawaii seemed like a woman of substance and passion. I wish, like Corey, that she had a bit more fun, too, but Tulsi seemed to have more depth than I expected.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Her explanation of white privilege was a little odd because the context was how to appeal to white voters, not now to put them in their place, but still—damn, girl. You were totally, and startlingly, right on target.
A good debate night is not a whole campaign. I’m fond of several other candidates who did not stand out on debate night. Julián Castro is still high on my list of maybe, for example. And Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana needs to do more than point out he won a governor’s race in a Trump state—but he spoke well Tuesday night, and I like the idea of a moderate governor as a candidate.
There were many who did poorly, too. I don’t understand that attraction of Marianne Williamson, nor why some commentators thought she had a good night Tuesday. I found her to be the crazy snake oil lady who prattles on about “causes” and love—not exactly spouting nonsense, but in that neighborhood. And that voice. Who would voluntarily want to be spoken to by the stern hippie nun of the candidates? Marianne, if we need a revolution, I want Pete to lead it, please.
And then there is Pete Buttigieg. I had heard him use his zinger—the Republicans will call us socialists anyway—line before. For me, he had an off night, although he also still seems quite intelligent. I continue to list him among my maybes.
The same week we had the Democrats debate, we had continuing rants form our dumpster fire of a president. Somehow, it surprised no one that the debate moderator he singled out for criticism was the one African-American on the panel. No, Donald Trump, Don Lemon is not the dumbest person on TV. You’re still there.
Anyway, who did you like in the debates, and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment