A Question for the Presidential Candidates
June 10, 2008
There is nothing like a good debate. I like the tension and the pressure it puts on candidates. It’s a rite of passage that all politicians must go through. However, as much as I like watching the candidates, I watch the moderators even closer. It is ultimately the moderator who determines how good a political debate is and this puts them in a difficult position. If the questions are too soft - he or she is a wimp. If the questions are too critical - they are biased. I’m sure we’ve all had burning questions we were dying to ask. From time to time I will post a question that I wish the candidates would answer - truly answer. Here’s my first one. Read more
How Not to Win a Debate (Part II of II)
March 3, 2008
In the first part of this post, I introduced you to the buddies with whom I watched the final democratic presidential debate between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I also explained our expectations. In this part, I’ll tell you what happened after the food was devoured, the wine was drunk, and the debate was over. Read more
How Not to Win a Debate (Part I of II)
February 29, 2008
On February 26th I had the pleasure of watching the final debate between Democratic presidential candidates Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton with two good friends. We planned the gathering weeks in advance, cleared our schedules, and touched base with each other early in the day (by email, text messaging, and phone calls) to confirm our plans. Read more
The Manchester Debates (Part II - Democrats)
January 7, 2008
As for the Democrats…
Edwards - I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the accent. Then again, I grew up in Massachusetts so who am I to throw stones. Edwards came off as a fierce, passionate advocate for the middle class - exactly what he isn’t. The never-ending stories about his father’s struggle are eventually self-defeating. How does Pappy live now, John? This guy is good, very good. But not good enough to fool a majority. It was funny how he glorified writing the Patient Bill of Rights but neglected to mention that it never passed. Slippery. Opportunistic.
Hillary - She started off so smooth by answering the first question with a well-rehearsed, perfectly triangulated, 5 point plan on Pakistan. It was impressive. Then she got pissed off and most people disliked what they saw. Shrill is too nice a word. But she recovered and starting sounding presidential…until she shoved “35 years of change” down our throats. What the does that even mean? She will not be president and will likely lose the nomination to Obama. Instead of accepting that she was rejected as the least desirable candidate, she will claim “America just isn’t ready for a strong, powerful woman president”. Again, nothing is ever her fault.
Obama - He gives a great speech but, let’s face it, he stammers a bit when speaking extemporaneously. Otherwise, he comes off as a very calm, collected, confident leader. He’s likable. He’s done some things. And, most importantly, he is new. The optimism surrounding his campaign is infectious. However, he did say one stupid thing - the cooperation between Sunni factions and coalition forces in Iraq was brought about by the Democratic takeover of 2006. Swing and a miss. They are cooperating because the brutality of Al Qaeda makes the U.S. the lesser of evils. They are Muslims but the overwhelming majority of them are not of the crazy variety. So, he’s new AND a little inexperienced. So what? I like him and would vote for him. He’s educated and intuitive. The cream always rises to the top.
Richardson - On paper he is clearly the most qualified. In the three-dimensional world he is the least appealing. Maybe it’s his disheveled appearance or his overuse of fuzzy words like “healing”. He’s a lamb amongst tigers. Too weak to be Hillary’s number two. He peeked as Energy Secretary. Adios.
Edwards had fire in the belly. It’s just too hard to see if it was real or just a can of Sterno that will eventually die out. Even so, I say Obama walks with the whole thing.
The Manchester Debates (Part I - Republican)
January 6, 2008
I liked the way Charlie Gibson moderated the debate last night at St. Anselm’s College. He set a serious but cordial tone. He asked tough questions but with class and intellect. Having the candidates from each side come together in the middle of the broadcast for a group photo-op was great. The whole world watched as they did their best to look “likable”; Obama made it look easy. Anyway, on to the races.
This is the first of two posts regarding Manchester.
Here’s my snapshot of the Republicans:
Huckabee – Just as he started to sound charming he melodramatically recited the first few sentences of the Declaration of Independence and blew it. Never forget, “It’s easy to be cheesy”. The religious “halo” that follows him around is equally annoying. Personally, I think he knows he has no chance but the further he goes the more he can raise his speaking fees in the future. However, I have to give him credit for one good idea – offer a $1 Billion tax-free reward to the first engineering team that designs a car capable of getting 100 MPG.
Mccain – Seasoned, battle-tested, steady. Unfortunately, he also comes off as old, a bit of a slow-talker, and just a touch too casual sometimes. American hero? Yes, but so was Bob Dole. If “change” is really as important as the polls suggest, he does not inspire those images. His joke about Romney being the real “candidate for change” - because he has changed positions so many times - was painfully forced and ill-timed. Everyone felt the awkwardness but him. Ultimately, he will not be President. He will serve another Senate term or two and retire with a Medal of Freedom.
Romney – Obviously, he is the best looking of the lot and his hair is definitely presidential. Yes, that means something. But he also comes off a bit too polished, a little plastic. There’s no doubt he was a successful businessman. So was Ross Perot. In business, people get fired for not doing their jobs and producing results. The President doesn’t have such luxuries when it comes to steering the government. Washington D.C. is full of self-interested people that you just can’t “downsize”. You have to deal with an assortment of characters. This is why I am often wary of businesspeople who venture into politics. The Mormon thing is no more ridiculous than anybody else’s beliefs. His shameless flip-flopping is more bothersome.
Thompson- Comes off as painfully arrogant. Physical appearances aside, he represents what many people hate about Republicans. He’s rude but thinks he’s witty. His lame joke about Romney liking “man-dates” fell flat, but that didn’t stop him from chuckling like a sixth grader. He also looked like a schoolyard bully for the way he treated Ron Paul. No class. The sooner he is gone the better.
Rudy – Looking more and more like a one-trick-pony. Do we live in a post-post-September 11th world yet? The more he talks about being a mayor, the less presidential he looks. He is unlikely to get the nomination. He’ll be a great recurring guest host on Saturday Night Live.
Ron Paul – When is comes to foreign policy and terrorism he is telling the painful truth. People just don’t want to hear it and consider for even a moment that our actions have both short and long- term consequences. (This happens to be an area where I have a certain amount of expertise (see Bio). So, I will soon post a series of short articles on terrorism soon.) He is polling low but raising tons of money ($35 average contributions to the tune of $20 million for the last quarter). The concept of being “left alone” by the government to live in peace and privacy resonates especially with the young. Ironically, he gets more contributions from the military than any other Republican candidate. He has no chance but is making a statement.
Overall, I would have to say that McCain and Romney came out as the real players. There were no especially heroic or tragic moments for any of the candidates. McCain will likely win New Hampshire.
As for the Democrats….I’ll touch on them in part II
-
VOTE FOR THECANDIDACY.COM
