12.04.2003
the candidates
for some reason, I can watch c-span for a much longer time than most people. lately, I’ve been watching the democratic debates, and I can’t get enough of them. the whole political climate seems so emotional right now, and things are still early enough that actual topics are getting addressed in something more substantial than bullshit platform sound-bytes. at least occasionally.
I’ve watched two debates from (almost) beginning to end. and I’m fascinated on many levels. first, it’s encouraging to see how deep the liberal hatred of the iraq war is finally running— after all those cowardly months of eggshell walking in the months leading up to it. too little too late, of course, but still somewhat refreshing.
also refreshing is the inclusion of dennis kucinich, one of the few strong dissenting voices in the post-9/11 mayhem. and, unlike similarly-minded ralph nader (whom I like too), he’s a pretty decent public speaker. he’s clear and passionate, and he says "radical" things (he’s in favor of free college tuition, for example) without sounding like the team crackpot or something. he’s added a nice dynamic to the mix, and its interesting to watch howard dean struggle to agree with him— knowing full and well that the anti-war left that’s supporting his campaign would probably prefer kucinich if he had a prayer pragmatically. it seems to me that "the left" is so brimming with confusion and conflicting ideas right now that it’s opened up, via growing animosity to bush, space to really consider progressive politics. admittedly, this is probably just reactionary, emotional hot air, but it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
at the risk of sounding predictably bohemian, it is, of course, the longshots that are most intriguing. in addition to kucinich, carol moseley braun is easily the most giving in terms of clear agendas. and her charismatic calmness nicely balances the ongoing cat fights of kerry and dean (also fun). she confidently risks white male eye rolling by pushing identity politics in her answers. occasionally, her contributions push the debate itself into similar directions, making each of the candidates clarify what their specific agendas mean to women and people of color. and she’s not a one-trick-pony, either. her answers are often the most complex of the bunch. for example, she was the only believably anti-iraq-war candidate to problematize a quick withdraw from the region. this strikes me as something that needs more discussion. I mean, I opposed the war from the get go, but now that it’s happened, doesn’t our country have a new and deeper obligation to the people of iraq themselves? we can’t exactly say so long and hope for the best…
and then there’s the biggies: I was excited to hear about general wesley clark early on, being a convenient thorn in the side of the GOP (aka a left-leaning military general), but he certainly doesn’t strike me as having much to say. his strength ultimately, seems to be his looks—the silvery hair, the sharp, statesman-like presence, the eloquent speech. hell, he makes howard dean look like the guy who taught health class in your high school. beyond that, he seems too quick to push the military service card, and strikes me as a bit evasive most of the time.
the big drama of course is the constant clawing and hissing between kerry and dean. and it can get really nasty too, so much so that al sharpton will inevitably throw in a joke or two about keeping things concentrated on bush rather than one another. sharpton is strikingly optimistic and seems to be the only one up there who’s enjoying himself, and that adds a nice flavor to the whole thing as well.
edwards says basically the same thing as sharpton when kerry and dean begin to go at it, but in a more calculated manner. he seems to be playing diplomat too much. and in the end, I disagree with both of them about the bickering anyway. I wanna see some hair get pulled. I wanna really figure out what the hell these people have to say. and if that takes a little human emotion than so be it.
ultimately, I see myself voting for dean. no one can catch him. I think most people are backing him primarily based on his opposition to the war, and as simplistic and one-dimensional as that is, I can sympathize. it’s a pretty big deal that we allowed something like that to happen, in my opinion. plus, his grassroots-ish (and blog friendly) campaign has been interesting, he’s got a decent momentum going and most importantly: he seems tough. I hate to think that the election’s gonna come down to some sort of wild west machismo war between bush and ???, but I’m afraid that might be what it takes to win this thing. what an awful thought. oh well.
p.s. i should add that neither debate that i saw included awful joe lieberman, who my mom thinks sounds exactly like the dad from "alf." think about it.
I’ve watched two debates from (almost) beginning to end. and I’m fascinated on many levels. first, it’s encouraging to see how deep the liberal hatred of the iraq war is finally running— after all those cowardly months of eggshell walking in the months leading up to it. too little too late, of course, but still somewhat refreshing.
also refreshing is the inclusion of dennis kucinich, one of the few strong dissenting voices in the post-9/11 mayhem. and, unlike similarly-minded ralph nader (whom I like too), he’s a pretty decent public speaker. he’s clear and passionate, and he says "radical" things (he’s in favor of free college tuition, for example) without sounding like the team crackpot or something. he’s added a nice dynamic to the mix, and its interesting to watch howard dean struggle to agree with him— knowing full and well that the anti-war left that’s supporting his campaign would probably prefer kucinich if he had a prayer pragmatically. it seems to me that "the left" is so brimming with confusion and conflicting ideas right now that it’s opened up, via growing animosity to bush, space to really consider progressive politics. admittedly, this is probably just reactionary, emotional hot air, but it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
at the risk of sounding predictably bohemian, it is, of course, the longshots that are most intriguing. in addition to kucinich, carol moseley braun is easily the most giving in terms of clear agendas. and her charismatic calmness nicely balances the ongoing cat fights of kerry and dean (also fun). she confidently risks white male eye rolling by pushing identity politics in her answers. occasionally, her contributions push the debate itself into similar directions, making each of the candidates clarify what their specific agendas mean to women and people of color. and she’s not a one-trick-pony, either. her answers are often the most complex of the bunch. for example, she was the only believably anti-iraq-war candidate to problematize a quick withdraw from the region. this strikes me as something that needs more discussion. I mean, I opposed the war from the get go, but now that it’s happened, doesn’t our country have a new and deeper obligation to the people of iraq themselves? we can’t exactly say so long and hope for the best…
and then there’s the biggies: I was excited to hear about general wesley clark early on, being a convenient thorn in the side of the GOP (aka a left-leaning military general), but he certainly doesn’t strike me as having much to say. his strength ultimately, seems to be his looks—the silvery hair, the sharp, statesman-like presence, the eloquent speech. hell, he makes howard dean look like the guy who taught health class in your high school. beyond that, he seems too quick to push the military service card, and strikes me as a bit evasive most of the time.
the big drama of course is the constant clawing and hissing between kerry and dean. and it can get really nasty too, so much so that al sharpton will inevitably throw in a joke or two about keeping things concentrated on bush rather than one another. sharpton is strikingly optimistic and seems to be the only one up there who’s enjoying himself, and that adds a nice flavor to the whole thing as well.
edwards says basically the same thing as sharpton when kerry and dean begin to go at it, but in a more calculated manner. he seems to be playing diplomat too much. and in the end, I disagree with both of them about the bickering anyway. I wanna see some hair get pulled. I wanna really figure out what the hell these people have to say. and if that takes a little human emotion than so be it.
ultimately, I see myself voting for dean. no one can catch him. I think most people are backing him primarily based on his opposition to the war, and as simplistic and one-dimensional as that is, I can sympathize. it’s a pretty big deal that we allowed something like that to happen, in my opinion. plus, his grassroots-ish (and blog friendly) campaign has been interesting, he’s got a decent momentum going and most importantly: he seems tough. I hate to think that the election’s gonna come down to some sort of wild west machismo war between bush and ???, but I’m afraid that might be what it takes to win this thing. what an awful thought. oh well.
p.s. i should add that neither debate that i saw included awful joe lieberman, who my mom thinks sounds exactly like the dad from "alf." think about it.
