![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, for the first time in this primary season I actually watched the debates last night. (Previously, I'd felt like there were just too many candidates on the stage for me to get a real sense of any of them.) I think it was really helpful to finally sit down and get a sense of what each candidate was like (especially on the Republican side: I've been largely ignoring the details of that race so far). And the debate format this time was interesting: very conversational as compared with most Presidential debates that I've seen (with explicit encouragement for the candidates to directly address each other on stage).
Watching the Republicans, I could see how Huckabee was so successful in Iowa: he really did feel like the most authentic and likable person on the stage in many ways. I'm deeply troubled by a lot of his politics, mind you, and I would hate to see him in the White House, but he could be a real factor in this election. I could also see why Ron Paul has some devoted advocates out there: he made some awfully important points in the foreign policy part of the debate (which the other Republican candidates then attacked en masse). But then when it came to domestic policy, it was as if he hadn't noticed the change: his argument seemed to be that without the war, all of our domestic problems would fix themselves. I got less and less happy with his positions as the debate went on (though I liked having him there to force the other candidates to justify their more mainstream views). In the end, my biggest impression was that none of the Republicans felt that they had any hope of getting my vote, so they didn't try.
My main interest was in the Democrats. It was immediately clear why Richardson is so far behind: he seemed like a nice enough guy and quite competent, but he felt like a much better Secretary of Energy than a President. Hillary Clinton referred over and over to her 35 years of "experience", but for the most part that just felt like she was pointing out that she was older than some of the other candidates: haven't all of them been social or political activists for most of their adult lives? Hasn't she held public office for less total time than any of the others? I'm awfully hesitant to give her credit as a chief executive just because she was married to one (no matter how involved she was at the time). In the end, her repeated insistence that we need not just talk but action failed to convince me that she was more likely to achieve that than her opponents. Yes, she seems like the sort of person who can buckle down and get things done, but a President needs to lead effectively to actually make that happen outside of her own office. I didn't see that last night.
So in this debate, for me it came down to Obama and Edwards. Both seemed likable and both aimed for a message of hope and inspiration (which, as Obama argued, is a powerful political force in its own right). Edwards continued his longstanding attack on special interests, which is apparently a "personal" battle for him. (His intensity on the subject would have convinced me of that even if he hadn't used the phrase so many times.) If he succeeded (which he might), that could lead to a large, qualitative improvement in our government (at least as long as it lasted). But the downside of his intense focus on that issue is that I wasn't left with much of a sense of whether he'd be able to pursue all of the other issues I care about with the same strength... or the same success.
In the end, I remained firmly in Obama's camp. There may have been some confirmation bias to that; it's hard to avoid, especially when a debate presents a lot to like and dislike about each candidate. But pretty much everything that Obama said made sense to me, and I came away with a sense that he had thought deeply about every issue that was raised (and that his way of thinking about them and his preferred answers were not too different from my own: I would trust him to make wise choices). At the same time, I felt like he was capable of the strength and confidence and leadership that we always need in a President. And I think he has as good a chance as anybody to reduce (at least a little) the deep partisan divide in this country, which I like to think could give him a greater mandate to create lasting improvements in how our nation addresses the issues of the day.
So I wish Barack Obama good luck in New Hampshire, and I fully expect that he will have my vote when he shows up on my ballot. As usual.
Watching the Republicans, I could see how Huckabee was so successful in Iowa: he really did feel like the most authentic and likable person on the stage in many ways. I'm deeply troubled by a lot of his politics, mind you, and I would hate to see him in the White House, but he could be a real factor in this election. I could also see why Ron Paul has some devoted advocates out there: he made some awfully important points in the foreign policy part of the debate (which the other Republican candidates then attacked en masse). But then when it came to domestic policy, it was as if he hadn't noticed the change: his argument seemed to be that without the war, all of our domestic problems would fix themselves. I got less and less happy with his positions as the debate went on (though I liked having him there to force the other candidates to justify their more mainstream views). In the end, my biggest impression was that none of the Republicans felt that they had any hope of getting my vote, so they didn't try.
My main interest was in the Democrats. It was immediately clear why Richardson is so far behind: he seemed like a nice enough guy and quite competent, but he felt like a much better Secretary of Energy than a President. Hillary Clinton referred over and over to her 35 years of "experience", but for the most part that just felt like she was pointing out that she was older than some of the other candidates: haven't all of them been social or political activists for most of their adult lives? Hasn't she held public office for less total time than any of the others? I'm awfully hesitant to give her credit as a chief executive just because she was married to one (no matter how involved she was at the time). In the end, her repeated insistence that we need not just talk but action failed to convince me that she was more likely to achieve that than her opponents. Yes, she seems like the sort of person who can buckle down and get things done, but a President needs to lead effectively to actually make that happen outside of her own office. I didn't see that last night.
So in this debate, for me it came down to Obama and Edwards. Both seemed likable and both aimed for a message of hope and inspiration (which, as Obama argued, is a powerful political force in its own right). Edwards continued his longstanding attack on special interests, which is apparently a "personal" battle for him. (His intensity on the subject would have convinced me of that even if he hadn't used the phrase so many times.) If he succeeded (which he might), that could lead to a large, qualitative improvement in our government (at least as long as it lasted). But the downside of his intense focus on that issue is that I wasn't left with much of a sense of whether he'd be able to pursue all of the other issues I care about with the same strength... or the same success.
In the end, I remained firmly in Obama's camp. There may have been some confirmation bias to that; it's hard to avoid, especially when a debate presents a lot to like and dislike about each candidate. But pretty much everything that Obama said made sense to me, and I came away with a sense that he had thought deeply about every issue that was raised (and that his way of thinking about them and his preferred answers were not too different from my own: I would trust him to make wise choices). At the same time, I felt like he was capable of the strength and confidence and leadership that we always need in a President. And I think he has as good a chance as anybody to reduce (at least a little) the deep partisan divide in this country, which I like to think could give him a greater mandate to create lasting improvements in how our nation addresses the issues of the day.
So I wish Barack Obama good luck in New Hampshire, and I fully expect that he will have my vote when he shows up on my ballot. As usual.
Tags:
no subject
--Beth