The Debate

Sittin' on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Goin' to the candidates' debate.
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Everyway you look at it you lose.

Paul Simon
Mrs. Robinson (1968)

That may have been true in 1968, and the same attitude may have hung over to Ralph Nader and the Green voters, who saw no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, and thereby helped George W. Bush maneuvre his way into the White House, but three wretched years of Bushonomics, neo-con foreign policy and the evisceration of many of the social gains this country made since the Great Depression, have convinced most thinking people that the only way we're going to get ourselves on the road to recovery is by getting rid of the guy currently running things.

And the guys who want to help us do that had a debate tonight.

Is there any really compelling reason why there needs to be a panel of questioners at these Democratic Presidential debates? The local reporters didn't do too bad tonight (although the repeated apology for "digging deep into my e-mail bag" was annoying) but both Brit Hume and Peter Jennings were clearly trying to do nothing more than provoke "Gotcha" moments. Still, the questions in general didn't do a very good job at letting us assess the ideas and personalities of these men.

A straight-forward format which provided 6 or 7 minutes of time for each candidate to say whatever he wanted to say (more time would be available if anyone had the balls to exclude Sharpton, Kucinich and Lieberman, who have no chance of getting the nomination), then once they had all finished, another 3 or 4 minutes for each candidate to respond, without cross-talk. If another 30 minutes was made available, use this for open debate.

It would probably be boring, I guess (except perhaps for the open debate period), but it might have the advantage of letting these folks present their message in a straightforward manner, instead of being forced to slip it in sneakily by ignoring or twisting questions. And it would make the positive statement to media stars like Jennings and Hume that is it not about them or the headlines they can generate, something they seem mightily confused about.

I watched this debate (or most of it -- I still have a low tolerance for idiocy, whether from politicians or journalists, and therefore made frequent use of the "mute" button) because I could (I was working during most of the others, and usually too tired to watch the repeats on C-SPAN), and because I really wanted to get a better feeling for Dean, Clark, Kerry and Edwards, all of whom I could happily support, but one of whom (logically), must be a better candidate than the other three. Dean's been my guy for a while now, but, apparently like many other Democrats, my support is fundamentally based on the practical consideration of who has the best chance of beating Bush. None of these four guys precisely mirror my views, and none are so far off that I would be uncomfortable with them, so I just want the one who's going to send Bush packing, which means I was watching not so much to check up on policies, but to take in all the intangibles I could: demeanor, presentation, ability to communicate, persona and so on -- you know, all that touchy-feely stuff that (let's face it) really determines who gets elected in this country.

Dean seemed subdued, but a little speedy at the same time, pressing a little too hard, but not with any real vigor. Clark was comfortable, for the most part, but really showed his inexperience as a politician -- for one thing, his answers were almost always shorter than the alloted time! I still like him, but his odor continues to be that he's not really ready for prime time. Edwards seems more and more to me like a Clinton type, a natural politician with easy Southern-ish charm and the ability to communicate with people, and as a result, I'm not sure I trusted him any more at the end than I did at the beginning.

(Not that I distrusted him, necessarily, but I when I see a personality like his I immediately withdraw a bit and get, if not suspicious, at least reserved. Clinton was so very, very good at it, the best natural politician of our time, that he broke through my reserve, but I'm not sure Edwards is quite that good.)

Kerry ... well, if all I had to go on was this debate, I wouldn't have much of an impression of him at all. That stuff about the people with two kids who live by a polluted lake is a style of campaigning that's really annoying to me. Gore used it frequently and couldn't pull it off, and Kerry can't do it either. (Clinton could, but it takes a master to do it right.) The rest of the his responses were utterly forgettable and deeply unexciting, which is pretty much what I think of Kerry overall. I don't distrust him, I don't dislike him, I'll happily support him if he's the candidate, I think he's smart and experienced and qualified enough to be President, but I have a real hard time convincing myself that he'd be able to beat Bush.

I can't see, for instance, Joe Swingvoter watching Kerry and thinking "Hey, I'd like that guy to come over Sunday and watch the game, that'd be fun," and I think that's just the kind of criteria by which Presidential candidates are selected by many people.

Still, Kerry's riding high in the polls, and Dean is dropping, so the only reasonable thing to do is to hang in and see what develops.