Debate Debrief - Part Two

When I began reviewing my daughter's careful notes from the Monday night Democratic debate/conversation/reality TV show, I quickly realized that at this point in her political education, this was merely a beauty contest on likability and telegenic appeal for her. Perhaps her use of smiley/frowny faces and physical comments ("His ears are really big") as notes should have been my first clue. I also realized that her point of view on candidates is in lock step with the majority of Americans in this early stage of the nominating season. My goal will be to raise her level of awareness about the issues and the challenges facing the presidency by October - not to an adult conversational level on matters of national interest, but at least to a level of understanding of a few key issues. Taxes, the war, education, Social Security, health care...you know, easy concepts to grasp for an 11 year old who has memorized the details of every Brady Bunch episode.

Here are some of my observations and musings post-debate:

Richardson looked bad. He got slapped down pretty hard after his comments that all troops could be moved out of Iraq in 6 months. I believe it was Clinton who told him that a troop movement of that size was physically impossible in 6 months. Richardson never responded. Opps. Hard to believe his poll numbers are climbing in NH after that performance.
John Edwards should not have made the "pink jacket" comment to Clinton. It made him look shallow at best, and with a poor sense of comic timing to boot. It was just dumb.
Joe Biden? Thank goodness he's there to point out to the listening audience when a question posed is plain stupid and inconsequential to determining one's qualifications for the Oval Office. He did the same thing in an earlier debate, too. This time, the question was about saying something nice about the person to your left, and something you don't like about him/her. Keep it up, Joe. When the press asks stupid questions, please remind us all how the posing of the question demeans the entire process.
Gravel is the Admiral Stockdale of the 2008 cycle for the Dems. Is his 15 minutes of fame over yet? Who is he? Why is he here?
The You Tube style videos prepared by each candidate looked terrible, like a poor substitute for a closing statement by the candidate. Are we doing this to improve ratings? Why do I feel like more and more I am watching a game show gone wild?
Obama was wrong to respond so quickly that he would meet with any world leader in his first year in office without conditions. As Clinton pointed out, and has continued to point out post-debate, that answer does demonstrate a naivete on international posturing and international leadership. Obama's clarifications since the debate have been effective, but his instincts in answering the question on the spot were troubling for me.
The Dems look unified as a whole. Bad news for the GOP. At this stage, the Dems are usually eating their young. Maybe that will happen later.
Dodd looked great. I felt his presence as a factor in the discussions, I thought his responses to questions were thoughtful, forceful, and specific. Good outing for Dodd. I do not agree with some of his positions, but I'd like to hear more. That's a victory for any candidate at this stage of the game.
The viewer-submitted questions, screened in advance by CNN, were no different than the general questions raised in the other debates I've watched this cycle...except for the fact that some were put to music and some involved the questioner wearing a funny outfit. Innovative? Ground breaking? If that's true, the bar for "ground breaking" must be very low these days.

All in all, this debate produced very little drama, very little confrontation, and very little that will make the history books. But I enjoyed it, and Marra watched the whole thing. That makes MY history book.

JS