Since I had little better to do tonight, I sat down and decided to turn on the CNN debate in South Carolina. What I got was more than I expected, both good and bad.
In the interest of fairness, I probably should let you know that I consider myself to be a moderate and that I’m not a registered member of any political party, so right now, the 2008 election is a toss-up for me.
Here’s what I saw and what I thought:
- The clear winner here was John Edwards, who not only survived the debate with some shred of dignity left in tact, but managed to make people remember that he's in the race. He might have joined in the fracas, but for a large part of the night, he spent time talking about the issues, and I think people will respond to that. Add in his "son of the South" card, and we might just be surprised how well he does in the upcoming primary.
- Clinton came off as seeming determined to destroy Obama by any means possible, as well as the candidate who wants to fight rather than unite. Her position on changing politics as is can really be defined as follows: "Screw the Republicans. I'm going to take them down." I've had a lot of vibes that Hillary's starting to turn into the Democratic version of what Bush was in 2000 - a hardline candidate who represents the party's interests. She might have won over the core Democrats tonight... but at what cost to the people sick of the way things are in Washington right now?
- On the other hand, Obama might have said he was more open to working with the Republicans, but under a barrage of attacks from Clinton and Edwards, he looked shaky, especially in the first half of the debate. The concerns that he might just be all talk and no action might have been strengthened in some potential voters by his performance tonight.
- The mudslinging between Obama and Clinton is getting really bad, and I wouldn't be surprised if it only gets worse from here. Trust me, it will.
- Anyone else have this feeling that someone's going to do what Mitt Romney did in Michigan - make a promise they can't possible hope to keep? Romney told Michigan voters he'd get their manufacturing jobs back to win their votes, but let's be honest: that's not happening. If any Democratic candidate does it in the coming days, expect it to be on universal health care, which seemed to be the big topic tonight.
Article comments
1 - Gwen
The reason why Edwards came out looking like a rose is because he's not a factor in the campaign. He's not the target of any attacks or criticisms because he has yet to have a strong showing in any state. In Nevada he only got 4% and in South Carolina polls, he's below 15%.
If Edwards was considered to be competitive, the other two candidates would have critiqued his record. Since he is not a factor, he can appear to be above the fray. The person under attack in a political debate, as shown in the Republican debates (if you watched them), is usually considered to be the frontrunner.
2 - Dave Nalle
To be fair to Edwards, the Nevada caucus is set up in such a way that he really got cheated. It only gives delegates to the top two slots, so Edwards voters flocked to the other two candidates to have some meaningful influence. If the delegates were split 3 ways Edwards might well have come in a point or two behind the others and gotten maybe 7 delegates out of it.
Dave
3 - wonde
the debate showed that politics is really dirty. If I have to choose, I choose a freshman dirty rather that an "establishment dirty"
Clinton is really scaring and really divisive. nominate her, then lose another four years
4 - John
I am always surprised when people start their analysis by calling themselves moderate and fair and then kind of make what is clearly a biased analysis.
You say, "Clinton came off as seeming determined to destroy Obama by any means possible, as well as the candidate who wants to fight rather than unite." You completely ignore the fact that Obama made the first attack on Clinton and all she did was respond to attacks. Remember it was Obama who stooped to a new low by talking about her seat on the Walmart board. He then goes about whining that he's attacked unfairly by Clintons. I think Edwards summed it best when he said, "If you are going to attack others, then better be prepared to defend your own record" and obviously Obama had no answer to his 100 present votes.
I agree with you that Edwards was the clear winner tonight. He did act presidential and definitely seems very eloquent on issues. I will probably vote for him if he remains consequential but please do not paint Clinton in such a negative light specially if you saw the debate and saw that she wasn't the one making the first attacks!
5 - Christina
I agree with you that Edwards was the clear winner. I have four kids -- two in college -- and I think I know many of the issues that concern them. I hope that after tonight's debate you will take the time to visit Edwards site --edwardsforpresident -- and look over his plans for education. Even more, look over his plan to address heath care, the environment, poverty, and Iraq. He is a man who says what is true, which always the PC thing to say, but I appreciate his honesty. Whomever you vote for is okay, as long as you make an educated vote! I've done my homework, and I'm going with Edwards!
6 - Arch Conservative
"If any Democratic candidate does it in the coming days,"
Are you blind, deaf of both?
Obama's cmapign has been nothing but a litany of empty promises.
Let's see....
He's promised to unite the country. He can't.
He's promised to end the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops in the next four years if elected. He can't.
He's promised to deliver healthcare for all. He can't.
Another thing....who gives a dman what issues concern college kids? College kids shouldn't even be allowed to vote. For a most part they are a bunch of dumbasses partying and drinking 24-7, living off of mommy and daddy's dime and having no real responsibility.
Their parents pay thousands of dollars for four years of leftist indoctrination and then when they graduate we get to hear about global warming and how the world isn't fair. The rest of us get to hear how these college kids believe that they are entitled to this and that. We're creating a generation of pussies who expect everything to be handed to them in the under 25 set.
7 - c
"Another thing....who gives a dman what issues concern college kids? College kids shouldn't even be allowed to vote. For a most part they are a bunch of dumbasses partying and drinking 24-7,"
It is unfortunate you live in an area, or come from a family, where this is the case. Luckily for me my experience has been just the opposite, but you get what you raise. Students are more politically involved and aware than ever.
Obama came off the clear winner for me. When you have nothing to lose you often come out looking better, but I suggest looking at the debate again.
My second look made Obama a clear winner.
8 - Arch Conservative
Students are more politically involved and aware than ever.
No one said they weren't.
They're also more self righteous, more arrogant, more devoid of real life experience, and more gullible than any generation to date.
The point I was trying to make C is that it is hard to take someone seriously about anything when their life experience consists of sleeping until noon, relying on someone else to pay for their every need, watching MTV, getting drunk...and occasionally forming a political opinion based on their delusional view of the world that they have developed in the warm comfy cocoon known as college.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Their parents pay thousands of dollars for four years of leftist indoctrination
Oh, puh-lease.
I'd love to hear your exposé of how left-wing indoctrination is applied in, say, a physics class, an engineering class or a PE class...
10 - Arch Conservative
I'd love to hear your exposé of how left-wing indoctrination is applied in, say, a physics class, an engineering class or a PE class...
You obviously haven't been on a college campus within the past ten years dreadful.
The fact is that the majority of our campsus are dominated by leftist faculty and administration who force feed students non stop leftist propaganda and do not tolerate any dissent from their views.
11 - Dr Dreadful
On the contrary, Arch, I'm a currently enrolled sophomore at a community college in California.
I can only recall one faculty member (a sociology professor) who actively expressed what might be called a left-wing agenda in her class. There certainly was dissent, but I can assure you she did not quash it.
Most of the teachers in whom I have detected bias in class have actually been of a conservative bent - and such bias was very mildly expressed and not forced on the students.
12 - Dan
That's hilarious Dr. D.
I've got one:
My wife sometimes complains that I snore in bed. Of course she's wrong, because I've never heard myself snore, except maybe once, and it didn't even wake her.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Not quite sure what you're getting at, Dan.
If you're saying that personal experience counts for naught, o master of the false analogy, then there really isn't anything more I can tell you.
Except that I do not sleep in class.
14 - Dan
Just saying, the indoctrinated don't know they are indoctrinated.
15 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, come on, Dan, now you're just being silly. By that argument, we could ALL be indoctrinated and not know it.
I'm reminded of one of the arguments creationists make when faced with scientific evidence showing that the universe is billions rather than thousands of years old, to wit: "It only appears to be billions of years old because God made it look that way." To which the scientist replies, "Well, whether God made it so or not, it nevertheless appears to be billions of years old. Since God hasn't made available any data suggesting that the universe is not billions of years old, it's pointless to work from any other hypothesis."
So, Dan, if I am indoctrinated, but all evidence available to me suggests that I am not, I may as well proceed from the hypothesis that you are talking bollocks - as is Arch Conservative, who assumed that I was unfamiliar with college campuses because I dissented from his (indoctrinated?) view that they were a hotbed of liberal oppression.
16 - Dan
" we could ALL be indoctrinated and not know it."
Yes, touch'e
"It only appears to be billions of years old because God made it look that way."
You see, some of us who like to think we're not indoctrinated know that creationists don't make this argument. Rather, they say that the carbon dating technique isn't accurate.
Or, in one case I'm familiar with, where scientists have said that a layer of strata accumulated over thousands of years, creationists point to a fossilized tree trunk that is vertical throughout the layer. oops.
Of course, I'm not siding here with the creationists. Only giving evidence of my non-indoctrination, in that I'm open to all sides of an argument.
17 - Dr Dreadful
You see, some of us who like to think we're not indoctrinated know that creationists don't make this argument. Rather, they say that the carbon dating technique isn't accurate.
Well, that's not as crude as just flat-out saying that God faked the apparent age of the universe, but it's essentially the same argument:
- carbon dating shows Fossil A to be x million years old
- young Earth creationists 'know' this can't be true, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old
- therefore, the carbon dating method must be giving false results
I would say that trying to shape the evidence to fit your conclusions, rather than the other way around, is a sign of indoctrination.
18 - Dr Dreadful
in one case I'm familiar with, where scientists have said that a layer of strata accumulated over thousands of years, creationists point to a fossilized tree trunk that is vertical throughout the layer. oops.
"Oops"?
Is that what the tree thought when it realized that putting down roots on the slopes of an active volcano might not have been the smartest idea?
Seriously, though, there are numerous mechanisms by which such fossils may form, none of which involve Noah's Flood.
19 - Dan
Dr. D, I think that it is OK for you to think the creationists have weak arguments. I just don't think you know, or care to know, what they are.
A strong opinion is one thing, but a glib, scornful dismissal without examination, is another.
If the "old earth" scientists assert that a strata accumulated over thousands of years, and then later a vertical tree trunk is found, and then the old earthers go with the volcano angle to fit the evidence, that would be "trying to shape the evidence to fit your conclusions" as well.
What I know about carbon dating wouldn't permit me to speak authoritively, but I think it's got to do with isotopes decaying, and older specimens give off a precise rate of decay that can be measured um... precisely.
I couldn't argue with that. But then there's also the fact that there aren't any specimens to measure where you could know definitively that they are, in fact, x million years old.
A useful analogy might be the argument of whether IQ tests are a meaningful test of intelligence. They seem to correlate well with people who we perceive as intelligent. They also correlate with some we perceive as less.
Of course, people who don't like the results of such tests are going to mount arguments against there validity.
But I don't necessarily scoff at every argument they make. There might be some argumentation outside the bounds of good faith. Same with some of the creationists.
It could be that your indoctrinational zeal doesn't allow you to examine contradictory arguments without a preconceptualy dismissive attitude.
Or it could be that you just know a lot more than I do.
20 - Doug DeLong
John (#4) wrote: "obviously Obama had no answer to his 100 'present' votes."
Actually, Obama gave a very clear answer to that accusation in the debate, which was totally ignored by his opponents. He explained that in the Illinois legislature, voting "present" is a common strategy that legislators use when they want to indicate that they could support a piece of legislation, except for one particular aspect which they have a problem with. It is often used when the outcome is not in doubt and thus your vote is not critical. It is in no way a dodge, which is what Clinton and Edwards were trying to portray it as. Given that he cast thousands of votes in his legislative career, 100 "present" votes is a blip. It's this kind of deceptive crap that's going to backfire on Hillary.
21 - Clavos
Doug writes:
"It's this kind of deceptive crap that's going to backfire on Hillary."
I agree.