Knee Jerk Reactions
There is a reason why I worked so hard to abstain from commentary on the Virginia Tech massacre. I wrote two posts, one simply expressing my condoloences, and the other admonishing those who would hijack the incident to forward their own political benefit.
I took such a stance because of instances like this. Essentially, an honor roll student who was graduating with a gpa of 4.2 was recently arrested for participating in a creative writing assignment. He’s been charged with two misdemeanors, and his enlistment to the US Marines has been effectively canceled.
And for what? For doing what he was told. The assignment was pretty simple; students were asked to write whatever came into their head. They weren’t to correct the grammar, they weren’t to edit, and they were told that they had nothing to fear from being censored or admonished for what they wrote. So when eighteen-year-old Allen Lee wrote this, he had no idea the chaos that would follow.
Despite doing exactly what he was told, Lee felt the full repurcussions of a complete knee jerk reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings that occured two weeks ago.
Was it warranted? That’s the problem, it’s a tough call. I don’t think you’ll find a single article written about this story that won’t contain the following quote from the piece, “Blood sex and Booze. Drugs Drugs Drugs are fun. Stab, Stab, Stab, S…t…a…b…, poke. “So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone…, then had sex with the dead bodies. Will, not really, but it would be funny if I did.”” And even I had to admit that this opening bit was rather disturbing.
But again, I ask you, is the knee jerk reaction warranted? We, as humans, are often skittish creatures. In good times we are plagued with arrogance, and when we are faced with tragedy, all too often the lowest common denominator of our being comes to surface. We hold sacred, perhaps above all other rights protected by the Constitution, our right to free speech, and yet, at times of fear, we find ourselves compromising this right.
But this goes further than just free speech. This also goes to the heart of an agreement between a teacher and a student. An agreement that, due to fear, was broken.
Fear makes us do silly things. Even the physical reactions of fear are in todays world illogical. What is the benefit to sweating armpits and accelerated heart rate today when we are afraid? Sure, back in the caveman days, these were preemptive actions to physical exertion, they might have been helpful, but today, talking in front of people is widely held fear among all sorts of people, and trust me, sweaty armpits don’t help you at all there.
Socially, fear instills in us these crazy knee jerk reactions. You have terror management theory which essentially says that when you are mortally afraid, you’re going to vote like a moron, and you have this. Placing in jeopardy a young man’s education and career simply because he did what he was told.
I think it’s because when we are afraid, we stop thinking, perhaps another one of those primal reactions from bygone days when fear meant imminent physical threat and therefore no time to think, only time to act. But, much like sweaty armpits, today such behavior can often times only make matters worse.
The thing is, life today is too complex to think that such behavior is effective. We have on kid go to school, shoot thirty two, and within hours so many of us already have the answer to everything. Ban guns, hand out guns like candy, psychologically analyze every student on campus, bump up security, home school everyone. A million solutions without ever looking at the problem.
Even though Tim Kaine did the right thing by closing the loophole that allowed Cho to get his gun in the first place, it still didn’t fix the problem. It only addressed one of the many factors here.
So what should have happened in the case of Lee? Definitely not arrested. In fact, that should never have happened. What Lee did was in no violation of any law, particularly considering the fact that he was specifically told under the stewardship of his teacher to do what he did. At the same time, I cede the point that much of the piece was disturbing, and begged at least attention.
So the first and foremost thing to do is talk to the kid. Back when Columbine happened, a lot of parents blamed Marylin Manson. In Michael Moore’s documentary, he actually interviewed Manson, and when he asked Marylin what he would have said to the boys, Manson replied, “I wouldn’t say a thing. I would just listen to them … and that’s what nobody did.”
The idea I think is to talk first. In this instance, it would have alleviated a lot of trouble, as I’m sure many people would agree if they had read the piece whilst not in a hysterical state, knowing what is provided in the author’s notes (insight which you would most likely receive if you talked to Lee after reading the piece).
As it turns out, Lee’s not all that disturbed, the violent lyrics come from a Green Day song, some of the other negative sentiments are actually pretty common among the age, and actually, there is some rationality in it when he contemplates the political process behind some of his angst.
And it’s not like people don’t ever talk about inflicting bodily harm on others. A coworker of mine was rather fond of the phrase, “I will shoot you in the face,” when he got irritated. For instance, if he was reviewing paperwork, and saw something he didn’t like, he would call the offender into his office, show him the error, and say, “I’m going to shoot you in the face, what the fuck is wrong with you?”
Did any of us live in fear that he might actually bring a gun to work and start unloading in our faces? Nah. When I play scrabble with my wife and she insists she’s gonna kick my ass, do I start wearing butt pads (actually, yeah, but then I don’t because she never kicks very hard).
The point I’m trying to make is that in all this hysteria, the first step is to see if there really is a threat, and in this case, I think a quick five minute conversation would have kept this from being a news story completely.
But what if it is a threat. What if you are still disturbed after talking to the student? Have him psychologically tested. Considering that Lee was tested in order to join the Marines, and until this incident was good to go, I think that answers that. But in the case of Cho, that’s exactly what happened, up until that point, all the right actions had been taken. He was identified as someone who may need help, he was analyzed, and then that’s when the failure happened.
If someone is identified as a threat, THAT’s when you take action. And you take PROPER action. I know there’s a bunch of people out there that think that jail is the answer for everyone who isn’t like them, but that’s not the case. There are people out there that can become productive members of society with counciling, and yes, drugs.
The alternative, of course, being that we find that precious right to free speech just eroding a little more…
Parsing Polls: Obama Overtakes Hillary; America Really Wants the War Over
Democratic Primary:
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Ill. Senator Barak Obama has overtaken NY Senator Hillar Clinton in the race for the 2008 Democratic Primary. The lead, only two points, is statistically insignifcant on its own, but does mark the first time that the Hillary has slipped from the number one spot in the polls.
The difference comes from independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic Primary, which means that any lead that the freshman Senator may currently be enjoying over Hillary is as of right now shaky if one makes the logical assumption that Democrats are more likely to vote in the Democratic Primary as opposed to Independents.
Still, this is consistent with what we know and have seen thus far in the race. One aspect of the contest that has gotten a fair amount of ink is growth factors. Hillary, having been on the national political stage for about a decade and a half now is well known to the voting populace, and her supporters and detractors are for the most part stuck in place. Many political analysts have predicted that we will see little to no growth or decline in support of Hillary’s campaign as a result.
With Obama, however, he has only been on the national stage for about three years now, and even at that, his entrance was during the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a great platform for political junkies, but no where near having the far reaching publicity as being first lady for eight years (Insert your GLBT joke here). What this means is that there is far more room for growth in support for Obama as more people come to learn who he is.
This idea has been born out thus far in the polls as well. As we can see from this graph, Sen. Clinton has remained relatively steady in her support, while Sen. Obama has been on a sharp rise since the beginning of the campaign.
War Funding Legislation:
In other polling news, America is really really really serious about ending our occupation of Iraq as evidenced of the fifty two percent who want Bush to quit his silly posturing and just sign the damn bill being sent to him this week.
Over half, wow. The President is now telling a majority of Americans to go screw themselves. What this means, however, is that while Bush may veto this bill, as time progresses, America will want more drastic action, and I think it is pretty safe to say that they will want MORE bills calling for our pull out.
It is also pretty safe to say that Bush’s numbers will sink yet again after signing the veto, and now wouldn’t it be nice if we had a president that paid attention to the polls just a little?
As George Will said yesterday, “Congress has voted to end the war in Iraq, which means the war will come to an end…”
Bush Fills Condi’s "Need;" He Is Her "Feed"
O Dub unearths this story for an early morning gag fest. Here’s the gross-out ‘graph:
Rice’s friends insisted the attraction to Bush was platonic, but Brenda Hamberry-Green, her Palo Alto hairdresser, who had spent years commiserating with Rice over how hard it was for successful black women to find a good man, noticed a change when Rice started working for Bush. “He fills that need,” Hamberry-Green decided. “Bush is her feed.”
In other Condi news, the Washington Post did an expose of the State Department’s failure to take advantage of hundreds of millions of dollars offered by foreign countries to assist Hurricane Katrina victims. The Post - ever digilent in protecting Condi - left Condi’s name out of the piece even though she was head of the State Department at the time. Don’t want anybody to think she was too bust shoe shopping to secure aid for Katrina victims, I suppose.
Shooting for the Trifecta
In Al Franken’s book The Truth With Jokes, he makes a very convincing case that Bush employed a three part strategy for winning the 2004 election. No, not Guns, God, and Gays, but Smear, Fear, and Queers.
It seems as though America’s Mayor is working really hard on achieving that very same trifecta.
Fear
By now, Giuliani’s very Cheney-esque remarks about how electing a Democrat will result in us going back on defense, and that the U.S. will suffer “more losses,” is rather famous. Even at a time when no one wants us in Iraq, and in fact the ongoing failure of a war is making us less safe, Giuliani is still plugging away like the master conflagurator he is.
Queers
In an interesting turn of events, though, the man who has during his tenure as New York’s governor been very pro gay, appointing homosexual people to government posts, and marching in gay pride parades, has decided to flip flop in favor of the Bush playbook of politics.
That’s right boys and girls, Giuliani has now turned his back and said that even civil unions have gone too far during some campaigning in New Hampshire. Which really makes me wonder, what the hell danger do gays pose to marriage? Really? But that’s for another time.
Smear
Go negative, get nasty, and fling mud like monkeys fling poo. Is there really anyone out there so deluded that they think the Mayor WON’T do this?
Personally, I think it’s just a matter of time.
Electability
I have a tendancy to irritate or alienate a good deal of my liberal friends. It’s not that I’m not a great guy, I am; handsome, charming, and chock full of wit. I mean, I fully realize that on any normal given day, it’s rather difficult not to grow enamored with me.
But politics are different, and I have a nasty tendancy to rub people the wrong way. Ironically enough, often the people I alienate are those with whom I share political beliefs on a personal level.
And I understand why. Paticularly for liberals, political beliefs are often as deeply held as religious beliefs, molded and constructed from cherished moral values. Liberals don’t believe in, say, equal rights for all out of some sterile and logical idea that to ensure equal rights for all will make society run more smoothly. No, they believe in this ideal and others because to them, or more accurately, to us, it is a moral value.
So the more embedded you get, the more vehemently you hold your political beliefs, and you will find, the more frequently you will find yourself at odds with me.
I’m not exactly sure why this is. Maybe it’s something as simple as I just grew interested in politics later in life. Perhaps it’s because that no matter how diverse my background, I personally have experienced my entire life as a middle class white guy. Maybe it’s because I just tend to approach most things in life with a sort of pragmatic detachment, or possibly it’s because when I first entered into the political debate as a person, I did it partly out of my own morality, and partly out of intellectual curiosity.
Sure, Bush’s war on gay might have been what got my attention, but the way campaigns are run, the way a single moment on television can sink or elevate a candidate, the way polls are born out and guage the public’s opinion… these are the things that intrigued me and fascinated me.
All this merely to set the stage, and I think it’s important. As the campaign for President of the United States of America continues, I’ll be liveblogging debates, parsing polls, and probably saying a lot of things that are going to irritate you folks, things like, Dennis Kucinich doesn’t have a chance at the Democratic nomination, let alone the presidency.
I want to clear the air because I don’t want people shaking their heads and thinking, ‘It’s because of people like that asshole Mr. M that we can’t ever get a good candidate,’ or, ‘We’ll never get an honest president with defeatists and compromisers like him.’
Because that is what I am; a compromiser. I freely admit it. I will support a candidate that I am less aligned with politically over one I am more aligned with based solely off of that one word: electability. And people hate this.
But why? Why do I settle? Why will I prop up someone who many liberals might call a Republican-lite, when there are good honest liberals out there that can make a difference?
Again: Electability.
And further more, I believe in that one word. I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing, and I fully embrace the idea of compromising some of my values to support an electable candidate. I’ve spent time and time again putting forth my political philosophy, the concept of slowly pushing left from the center. But here’s why.
As many know, I celebrate this country’s vast and diverse culture. It’s my favorite part of this country, because frankly, I’ve been to prettier places, with better food no less. The Parthenon and the Acropolis may be stunning to behold in person, but when I catch that plane home, I want it to be here, where I know my uniquely diverse friends and family are waiting for me with open arms.
But celebrating this country’s culture also means understanding it, and to a degree accepting it. It means understanding that there are some elements I don’t agree with, and don’t agree with me right back. And much like many of us liberals believe it is morally wrong to impose upon a woman’s right to have free choice over her reproductive system, there is a large population out there that believe it is morally wrong to allow women to have abortions.
These battle lines are drawn all accross America, and you will fine that the large the stage in politics, the more significant these battle lines are. Bigger populations often result in more diversity, and this means more conflicting points of view.
So on a local scale, it’s possible to be dyed in the wool liberal/conservative/libertarian/socialist, and expect to see a positive outcome. Local populations have a tendancy to be more homogenous. For instance, when I volunteered for Governor Tim Kaine’s campaign, the pit bosses in the call centers had us flooding Norfolk with phone calls while we practically ignored Va Beach. The reasoning behind this was simple; Norfolk was largely Democratic, while Virginia Beach is Repub territory. Don’t even bother showin up if you’re blue.
And this makes sense, like people tend to live with each other. It’s not often that you will find an affluent white family living in a Latino ghetto.
But as you zoom out, so to speak, you find the picture gets fuzzier. Whereas if you were running for a state legislature seat, you could take a quick look at your district, realize they were mostly conservatives, and campaign accordingly. But now let’s say you are running for the US Senate. Now you don’t have to worry about just Norfolk, but Virginia Beach as well, and Richmond, and Williamsburg. You find that the red and blue blocks grow to be differing shades of purple.
And here is where things get interesting. Sure, you may be an ultra liberal Democrat, but the job you’re running for is to represent ALL of the people in the state. Yes, you are representing the largely Democratic state capital of Richmond, but also the largely conservative rural communities as well.
Zoom out some more to the highest office in the land, and I’m sure you can imagine what a mess that is. Here is where so many national candidates get perceived as losing their soul, and this is why a Dennis Kucinich or a Mike Gravel are unelectable.
The simple fact is, people don’t see the world around them the same way. What is irrefutably right to you or I is not so to someone else, and we have to respect that, or at the very least, understand it. It may be difficult for someone opposed to the very idea of the military industrial complex to respect someone who believes in its value, however, if there is a sizeable number of people who disagree with you, you must make a concession for them.
Because they vote too.
And that is ultimately where the idea of electability comes from. It is essentially that essence of a candidate that makes them appealing to varying demographics. And if we were to be thinking logically, then we must understand that the more polarized a candidate, the less electable they are. Sure, they may receive undying support from their base, but unfortunately, this support and catering to said base has the unfortunate side affect of alientating those opposed to the base, and further, that vital block of undecideds and swing votes.
Therefore, when I approach politics, particularly those on a large stage, my ideal candidate does not necessarily agree with me on all the issues. Instead, I look for that candidate that appeals to the most people, but will still work for some sort of progress as far as pushing the country in the direction I would like to see it going.
Admittedly, this is slow work, but I think it is far superior to the alternative where we put forth the kind of inspiring candidates that would fight for those things we believe in, but never get a chance to ever step into the ring because no one but us would vote for them.
There is another alternative, however, but I think many of us would not necessarily see this as a good thing. It is possible for a polarized candidate to win on a national scale, pursuing a radical agenda once in office. In fact, we’ve seen this… recently. I would go so far as to say that the current President is an example, and let’s take a look at how he was elected both times…
I rest my case.
Hi everyone
I had a snarky first post all queued up but then blogger realized it was hungry. First it ate my fonts, then the paragraph format, then the links, and finally my browser. I think it’s being stern early on so later on down the road it can ease up.
Anyway, it’s late and I’ve been doing far too much work for too long this weekend and the caffeine is starting to wear off. I want to thank everyone here at Comments for bringing me into the fold, and to Fester the Newshogger for recommending me. I’m looking forward to this experience, and hope anyone reading this blog will not hesitate to enter into debate with me. I’m in this for the experience and for opinion pushback.
But before I bid you goodnight, I ask you to watch this.
I’m still mad about Fredo Gonzalez after that. What a cruel world.
The Week in Preview - Overdue Thanks and Things to Come
On August 12, 2003, playing around with a recently discovered free tool found on these here internets, I put up my first blog post without a clue as to what it was, where it would lead, or the impact it would have on my life and the lives of countless others. Nearly four years later I have seen this space morph from a personal sounding board to a lively group blog, to nearly dead and back. In addition, I have seen too many excellent writers come and go from the blogosphere for reasons all to familiar to me; lack of direction, burnout, or sheer lack of time.
Whatever our reasons for doing it, blogging is generally a thankless exercise. Considering all that this place has been through I can not in good conscience let it go further for one more day without extending my sincerest thanks to those who have contributed here over the years and are no longer around. They have carried me through tough times, kept the readers clicking through, and opened their souls to world without so much as a penny in return. Take some time and read back through their work, they deserve it.
Alicia Morgan, Artie See, Banobo, Doug Drenkow, Fester, and Zencomix.
Fast forward to today. Comments From Left Field is still alive and kicking and plans in the works to take things to a new level. We have streamlined our writer pool to four people; myself, Mr. M, Macswain, and the newest of our lot - adhocheretic. We hope that together this team will be able to deliver a wide range of opinion and analysis that will keep you coming back day after day. In addition, we will be working closely with our friends at The Newshoggers to provide rounded coverage of the important topics of the day.
We encourage you, our readers, to provide your opinions and engage in discussion with us via the comments links below each post. Some of us are better than others at participating in this dialog but don’t let that discourage you. Without your feedback this whole exercise is for naught.
Lastly, I have been all but absent from this place for roughly a year now. There are many reasons for this but mostly it has to do with my work schedule. That being said, I am committed to putting up at least one post a week which will come in the form of a Sunday editorial. It will likely include a resurrection of my old favorite “round the horn” where I point to my favorite posts from the around blogosphere during the prior week. Ultimately, the goal of this post will be to recap the previous week and to set the stage for the week to come.
So with that in mind, thanks again to all of our past contributors, thank you for reading and have a great week.
Happy Birthday David
Just a quick note to say Happy Birthday to my Costa Rican blog buddy David at In Search of Utopia. As my grandfather always says, Cento anni!
Massage With Quotation Marks
*sigh*
These Bushies need to slow the hell down. I’m serious, my poor fingers feel like they’re going to fall off trying to keep up with all the scandal going on.
The latest scandal in the mill? Deputy Secretary of State, Randall Tobias resigning because he used an escort service currently under investigation. He says he only called them over for a “massage”.
Right…
So Effective
HT to Kevin Drum
It’s a pretty common joke that ties the War on Terror in its effectiveness to the War on Drugs, the implied punchline being that they just don’t work. Problem is, this is where the joke stops being funny.
While Condi and Co. considered withholding or delaying the report (not the first time they’ve actually done so), they have decided to actually follow the law (no doubt because with all the law breaking that is hitting the papers lately, the administration doesn’t want to take anymore chances) and release the report that states pretty simply that Bush’s war on terror is pretty much a blatant failure.
Again, terrorism worldwide has risen by nearly 30%, a direct result of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course you’ll expect the Bush apologists to come up with some horse crap about at least the attacks aren’t happening on our soil, but in regards to this, I want those folks to take a good hard look at the dynamic and bold foreign policies and theories put forth by our Democratic friends, which actually make sense.
We are seeing what banging the war drums is doing. It’s creating more violence, more terrorism. This is something I’ve been saying for years now, you want to give someone a reason to be a terrorist, bomb the shit out of them, screw up their living conditions and then give them the old flag of the United States as the ultimate cause, and boom, a bunch of people willing to blow themselves up for the glory of Allah and some sweet action with seventy some odd virgins in Paradise.
It is because of results like this that we MUST change our world view. We must quit this crap of saying Democrats don’t understand terror because they do. If one thing that all candidates from last night agreed upon, it was that more war will not make us safer (proven). You have to reach out to the communities, politically, diplomatically.
You want to effectively reduce terrorism, help fix the problems with where they live, not turn it into a battle ground.
Tenet the Scapegoat
El Presidente and the Vampyre using someone for a scapegoat to alleviate themselves of responsibility? No! You don’t say.
Or maybe you do. After three years of biting his tongue, Tenet’s talking, and he’s a little pissed.
Post Debate Analysis
So last night at South Carolina State the democratic presidential primaries had their first real official kick off with the first debate, pitting the eight would be nominees against each other for ninety minutes with no commercial break. I did live blog the event, but due to technical problems with posting, the entire live blogging occured in the haloscan comments section to this post.
A quick word or two about this site and the debates. We will attempt to liveblog as many of the presidential debates as we possibly can, both Democrat and Republican. While initially my intent was to do this on the main page, I found using the comments section faster, easier, less sticky, and overall more convenient. As a result, all debates will from now on be liveblogged in comments. This is good for you, the readers, as well, as this means you are more than free to join us in liveblogging the events. In fact, we welcome it (unless you’re spamming us. Despite their frequent posts, I’m pretty sure the company selling butt plugs last night really wasn’t all that interested in the Democratic candidates).
With that out of the way, let’s talk about last night (and not in the awkward, gee I had a good time last night but I barely know you, and sure I’ll call you kinda way).
The scenario is pretty simple. You got your three top tier candidates; Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards. Representing the second tier, you got Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, and Governor Richardson. Bringing up the rear were Congressman Kucinich, and former Senator Gravel.
Now in a debate like this, it is important to understand the expectations and burdens held by candidates in each of the tiers. In the top tier, you are talking about those who are most likely to attain the nomination, and their single biggest job is to not screw up. As we know a single gaffe can make or break a successful campaign, and these three candidates who are already running strong to the polls are just trying as hard as they can to keep that going. This is often done by being as reserved, on script, and cautious as is feasible without looking like you are actually doing so.
For the bottom tier candidates, the situation is effectively the opposite. Throw caution to the wind, get attention, make a breakthrough, and go for the gold. That is the name of the game here. In a way, for these lower level candidates even a gaffe would at least result in more press than they have already gotten, and may secretly be welcomed.
I think in a situation like this, the trickiest situation lies in the middle. The reasoning behind this is that they too can suffer widely from from a gaffe, ceding the tennable hold they have on the media and the public’s attention, but at the same time, they still need that extra shove to get their names squeezed in with the front runners. In this regard, they have maybe not the toughest job, but possibly the most complex job, mixing caution with controversy to create that perfect storm of buzz.
If we understand this dynamic, then last night’s debate is also easily understood. I’ve spent much of last night and today reading commentary after commentary on the debates, and what we see are patterns. Each of the top three candidates took their share of criticisms about being cautious and scripted, there was plenty of talk about over reaching on behalf of at east two of the three middle weights, and as for the basement dwellers… wow.
I think first it is important to look at the role that Kucinich and Gravel played in last night’s debate, and when doing so there is one thing that I think that most observers have to admit, and that is when it comes to candor and passion and standing out from the crowd, these two definitely stole the show. Whether it was the image of Kucinich holding up the constitution as he explained his motivation for shooting for a Dick Cheney impeachment, or it was Gravel shaking his hands urgently as he almost violently called out, “WHO ARE WE AFRAID OF?”, they challenged convention, and while their validity as presidential candidates was not helped much, by the end of the night, you knew what they were fighting for.
And at least in the case of Sen. Gravel, that he wasn’t fighting for enough. I found his performance last night dynamic and daring. Nearly every occasion in which he spoke he challenged his colleagues with wreckless abandon on foreign policy and hawkish tendencies. But Gravel’s problem was that the Iraqi war seemed to be the only thing that the former Senator wanted to talk about, completely and totally ignoring other questions, and jumping straight back into his anti war crucade. In this context, I’m forced to agree with talking heads of Air America fame Randi Rhodes and Rachael Maddow in that I think maybe Gravel’s real intention isn’t necessarily to win the Oval Office, per se, but just to keep the other candidates honest. The elder statesman keeping a watchful eye on his herd.
Dennis Kucinich, however, I think is making a serious bid on the presidency. Now, I’ll be honest, I don’t have a wealth of knowledge on a lot of the lower tier candidates, and to prepare for the debates I watched clips on each, and I remember specifically watching some footage of Kucinich and thinking to myself, “Really? For president? Are we sure about this Dennis?” Of course, first impressions don’t always come off.
Where Gravel came off as the somewhat psychotic long shot that he is, I was struck with how… gee… presidential Kucinich presented himself. Calm and reserved and deliberate, Dennis did well in expounding upon his ideas, showed himself to be exceptionally different from his colleagues, but at the same time not in an overtly disrespectful way. I also think it didn’t hurt him at all that he had the very volatile Gravel there to make him seem much more calm and sensible and, yes, mainstream.
Don’t get me wrong, though, this performance I think will impress some people, but not enough.
Though neither broke into a higher tier, you got to give Dennis and Mike credit, they definitely made the debates more fun.
Then you have your second tier candidates. I’m gonna say this right here and right now. Both Senator Dodd, and Governor Richardson fell flat. They didn’t perform poorly, exactly, but then remember that they aren’t top tier; their sole job is not to just avoid the gaffe. Both candidates were obviously scripted, sounding strong and practiced on questions that you know they were practiced on, and floundering pretty easily on questions they weren’t used to dealing with in their day to day roles as elected officials, or that they didn’t specifically bone up on. As a quick side note, Dodd I think turned me off when I heard him say “safe, legal and rare.” I’m a big fan of the doctrine, but when he mentioned it in context of the abortion part of the debate, it really felt as though he was just jacking the Clinton words in favor of him having his own opinion. Come on man, every other candidate that addressed the question at least found a way to reword the answer, you can too.
Joe Biden (or Joe B, as a friend of mine likes to call him) was a different story. If I were to pick a candidate who “won” I would pick Joe. Now let’s slow down for a second. I’m not saying he won on best overall performance, but I am saying that in regards to what he had to do as a middle tier candidate, he did very well. He didn’t commit a single gaffe, sounded great on all of his answers, was strong on a few, especially when it came to national defense, and I think the big ticket here is that anyone coming into the debate with no previous knowledge whatsoever would have to ask themselves why isn’t he considered a top tier as well. If nothing else, I think Joe looked the most confidant up on stage of the eight.
The second most confident looking candidate would have to be Hillary, which brings us to the heavyweights, the candidates with the most to lose. As would be expected, each candidate was cautious and scripted on just about every question that came their way. In this regard, I will cede that Hillary probably looked the strongest up there, but that comes as a double edged sword.
When Hillary gets worked up she has a tendency to come off as either combatitive, or even downright condescending, and last night wasn’t an exception. On the other hand, she is strong and impassioned. In the end, I think where Hillary wins is that she was the most consistent candidate on the stage. The other thing about Hillary was she did a great job showing her experience; she framed many of her answers with what she did in the past, and her policy answers were adequately detailed. On the negative, I think Hillary may have gone after Bush a little too much, and she seemed to failsafe to her stump speech pretty quickly throughout the night.
As for John Edwards, I think he has a couple of things going for him. One is his charisma. He’s very endearing, and I think he has that walk in low IQ that actually works well in presidential politics (the concept of walk in low IQ works kinda like this. You see a guy walk into a room and here for him talk for one minute and you think, this guy is pretty average, decent, cool dude to hang with. Let him talk for another five minutes, and you realize this guy is way the hell over your head). Policy wise, Edwards excelled in his health care plan explanations, and I think this was probably his strongest policy performance. On the other hand, if I were to look for a weakness, I would say that he is relying on that apology for voting for the war a little heavily, a tactic I still think is a little questionable in its wisdom.
And then there was Obama. Now before I say anything about Obama, let me preface it with this single thought. Obama came into this debate with probably the biggest handicap of high expectations. No matter what happens, what he says or does or what anyone else says or does, a damn large group of people out there think the man can walk on water and make water into wine. It’s one thing when you know you have big shoes to fill, it’s another thing completely when those big old shoes are your own.
All this said, I was a little disappointed with the messiah’s performance. He started off shaky, and while some questions he fielded rather well (despite failing to recognize Israel as one of our closest allies, his answer to the allies question was organic, ergonomic and well presented), overall the one impression I think one could take away is that he was out of his element. As it turns out, the quip about how Obama takes sixty seconds to clear his throat actually is kinda true.
But debates are not just overall performances. Far from it. They are individual moments; Dukakis total lack of passion when asked whether he would ask for the death penalty if someone brutally murdered his wife, Reagan asking America if they were better off than they were four years prior, Bush41 looking at his watch impatiently, etc. Indeed, an argument can easily be made for the idea that it is the moments in an election that can shape an election, not the overall performance.
So what were moments mattered?
Obviously the one that you will hear about the most, the one that so far has probably gotten the most ink was from Joe Biden. When asked if he could guarantee that the normally verbose Biden would not turn into a gaffe machine, quickly and crisply he answered, “Yes.”
Laughter erupted, and even Brian Williams was caught off guard, the look on his face saying “That’s it? You’re sure? Really?”
Edwards also took the spotlight in what was easily the most honest and most heartfelt moment of the debates. When asked about his moral inspiration he took eleven seconds to think about the question (yeah, you’re going read eleven seconds quite a bit in other analyses of the debate, so I might as well get it out of the way) before humbly talking about religion and family, and in this one instant, he upstaged Obama. Barak Obama who is supposed to be strong on being able to talk about his religion in the realm of politics could not have sounded as sincere as John Edwards when he said, “My Lord” in the beginning of his answer. A truly touching moment, and a reminder of why he can sometimes be such an attractive candidate (I’m reminded of the 2004 debates when he complimented Dick Cheney on his support and love for his daughter Mary Cheney which provided probably the most human moment in the entire campaign).
And who could possibly forget the image of Kucinich holding his pocket constitution as he made his case for the impeachment of Cheney?
But in a way, if you want my pick of the moment of the night, believe it or not I give it to Barak Obama. Barak who had been performing okay all night had his big moment at the end. As the debate was winding down, many of the candidates were either ignoring or perfunctorily answering questions to get back to the topic of National Security to show they were strong in said subject, with the exception of course of Gravel and Kucinich. This set the stage for both Gravel and Kucinich going after Obama two on one, and Kucinich actually interrupting Obama in the middle of a rebuttal.
To this, Obama put up his hand, said, “Let me finish,” and continued with a very strong and impassioned bit about the role of surgical military might in the pursuit of terrorists.
Now here is why I think this is such a vital moment. For the eighty or so minutes prior to this moment, Obama was okay, but obviously not standing out for any reason. It was pretty clear that he was out of his element, his town hall style of speaking not lending itself very well to the faster paced and significantly more structured forum of a national debate. But what he showed in that single confrontation was strength, confidence, presence and poise. He had went at once from an owl to a lion whose roar was as powerful as his bite, and you can take this one thing as a fact, if he can take that Obama, that candidate who stifled his opponent and then followed up with a killer answer, he really will be the rockstar that so many of his supporters proclaim him to be.
Winners, Losers, and Final Thoughts
Winners:
Joe Biden for putting on a performance that shows he deserves to be in the top tier.
Hillary Clinton for her laudable level of control.
John Edwards for excellent substance on health care, and sincerity in morality.
Barak Obama for exceeding expectations in foreign policy, and at least giving us a glimpse of a properly ferocious democratic candidate.
Dennis Kucinich for good policies all around and looking far more presidential than I think many people gave him credit for.
Mike Gravel for being the impassioned elder statesman.
Losers:
Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson for being completely and thoroughly uninspiring in just about any area. They weren’t even inspiring about being uninspired, they were that dull and flat.
Final thoughts:
This is just the beginning. No candidate was made or broken at this debate, and we got one hell of a long trek to go before anyone will be made or broken. That being said, I think that there are still some important things to glean from this debate.
First, we have one hell of a field of candidates. I am pleased to see such a strong Democratic field, and while watching last night’s debate, I could easily see any of five of the candidates on stage sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich). They were strong on both substance and style, and I think many of the candidates on stage did an excellent job.
Secondly, I’m also very pleased with the tone of the debate, and really hope that this is the weathervane for the rest of the campaign. One thing that you will read time and time again is how unbloody the event was, how polite and courteous. I think thi stone is vital to maintain throughout the primary not only to preserve the integrity of whatever candidate does win the nomination, but also to provide a palatable foil to the Republican brand of politics.
In the end, we do have a long road to go, and it would be folly to draw any serious conclusions at the end of this debate, but I think any democrat out there has to be pretty happy with what they saw last night.
Next week we get the first of the Republican primary debates in California, and we at Comments From Left Field fully intend to provide the same live blogging and final analysis as you saw for this debate. I welcome you to join us for both.
See ya there.
Bush On Not Counting Suicide Car Bombers In Iraqi Casualty Numbers
“If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory.”
In other words, the surge will succeed when we just stop counting.
What an idiot.
(via Taegan Goddard).
The Media’s Invisible Terrorist
Feministe has the story on the bomb planted in front of a woman’s clinic in Austin, Texas.