the good guys don't always win

[hfojvt]

I hardly ever watch debates. Haven't for a long time. What is the point? I did not need to watch a debate in 2004 to know that I was gonna support Kerry over Bush. I didn't need to watch a debate in 2000 to know that I was gonna support Gore over Bush. It's not that I close my mind, but I have already done enough research before a debate to know who I support and why. So watching the debates are neither informative nor entertaining.

One exception to that was the Cheney-Edwards debate in 2004. Since Edwards is a smart and polished trial lawyer who was not gonna buddy up to Cheney like Lieberman did, I was looking forward to seeing Cheney get his clock cleaned.

I had to turn it off after about twenty minutes because it looked to me like Edwards was getting clobbered. Cheney sat their glib and confident and Edwards was not answering him or challenging him.

I wasn't happy with Edwards performance, but that wasn't gonna win me over to Cheney either. Some of the problem is that the devil has all of the good music. Republicans have the simple feel good answers - America strong, America righteous, taxes low, red tape cut, etc. while Democrats have to try to explain the value of regulations, taxes, and social programs even when they are imperfect.

I saw about ten minutes of the debate before having to goto work, and it seemed like Hillary was glib and confident on the gun control question, while Obama seemed hesitant and stammering, and just when he was getting some momentum, Gibson interrupted him.

In this debate though, Hillary seems to have the easy answer - bring back the 1990s and the Clinton administration while Obama is an unknown. At least to me on many issues. What is known to me is a number of ways the Clinton administration was a disappointment from a progressive point of view. That's a harder case to make in a two minute debate answer, but I know it because I lived it.

So Hillary can win every debate she has, and it's not gonna convince me that we are on the same side, any more than Cheney's seeming victory did.

[patrice]

1. She didn't win last night. Obama did fine once they got onto issues of substance.

Obama B+, Hillary C+

He doesn't like the BS. I think it even annoys him, so he has to slow down and pick his words carefully in order to keep his temper out of it and also to avoid giving them some more shit to throw.

...................

P.S. I judged quite a bit of debate in my days as a high school teacher.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. hear hear.

I, too, was tremendously disappointed in Edwards' performance that night. But Cheney having a better debate did not make him the better candidate.

Hillary won't be the better candidate until she publicly repudiates the DLC, stops making excuses for voting for the war, and moves her campaign to back the progressives.

There's so much more to it than being right on abortion.

[leftofthedial]

3. this is Amurka post raygun

there aren't any good guys, and if there were, they'd never win

[hfojvt]

5. you mean running for President, or just in general?

Isn't Harkin a good guy? or Feingold? or Kennedy? or Dean? Nobody's perfect, but isn't somebody good?

[leftofthedial]

6. not running for president

it wouldn't be allowed

[Kukesa]

4. I learned that bitter lesson when Kerry-Edwards lost in 2004. n/t