Well, Day 2 was disappointing.
Many of the candidates seemed to be simply marketing themselves, and being clever. Of course, eventually, one of these people--from the entire group of candidates, not just the Thursday ones, to clarify--has to be ultimately selected, and being simply a slick salesman is not a deal-breaker. But after three years or so of Trump, who is simply a salesman (and one who only appeals to a certain not-too-bright, and another completely cynical, demographic) and not much of anything else, after enduring all that, to buy into another candidate who is first and foremost a salesman, is repugnant.
Michael Bennet, the senator from Colorado, seemed rather a stick-in-the-mud. He comes across as a person with good values, and will be OK at a pinch, but he strikes me as being difficult to persuade to any new idea. Last night he was a lot easier to understand--in terms of his diction, only--than he was in the previous debate. Maybe I'm just getting accustomed to his speech...
Tulsi Gabbard, the Congresswoman from Hawaii, also seems to have all the right values. She had done her homework, especially relative to Kamala Harris's record as Attorney General of California, and her failings with the Police Department. So we know she is well prepared, but I did not see the sort of confidence in dealing with her fellow-candidates that would promise certain aspects of presidential leadership if she were voted into office.
I have nothing terribly bad to say about Kirsten Gillibrand. As she confesses, she has certainly enjoyed white privilege all her life, and she and I tend to differ on certain aspects of what we call PC speech; I don't know whether we're ready for a bionic Sunday-school teacher, which is what KG comes across as. But it seems wrong to score her down simply for being white. She has some very likeable qualities, and when she makes a mistake, she has a sort of Hermione Granger reaction that is--annoyingly--quite endearing.
Julian Castro performed well. He spoke clearly; he had his facts figured out; but figured out just a little too specifically. He always mentioned a specific piece of legislation that made his point for him, otherwise, he stated a general principle that everyone seemed to agree on. He needs to study the issues a lot better; there are things that others are interested in, that he might not be as interested in. Also, I'd like to see him a little more relaxed; he comes across as a tiny bit defensive, and that has to stop.
Cory Booker was quite a star (or "quite the star," as they say these days, especially when they do not approve of the stardom). But there was a little too much double-talk in his attacks and his responses. We know he falls on the right side of most of the issues; unlike Republican blacks, he is moderate, and unapologetic about black issues. He went on the offensive against Joe Biden, who was partly responsible for some of the legislation that has now been identified as being particularly harsh on African Americans. On one hand, Biden must answer to these accusations; on the other hand, there is no reason to be obnoxious about it. (But can you make accusations about failed policy without being obnoxious?)
Joe Biden was the target of a lot of attacks. There was general agreement that Joe Biden is not a racist. But he seemed reluctant to confess that certain pieces of legislation that he supported were wrong-headed. There was no attempt to say that they were bad choices, basically because their effects were not known in advance. Well, in hindsight, he could say, it does appear that I screwed up. But that could be a disaster, because such things are amplified by the media, which is interested in capitalizing in extreme ways on anything that appears controversial. And pro-Trump media very much wants Biden out of the running, because Trump is worried about him.
Kamala Harris was on the defensive this time around. There was a whiny sound to her speech that was annoying, and it seemed as if she did not address the points brought against her by some of the other candidates--notably Tulsi Gabbard--and by the moderators. Charisma-wise, she made a good showing, but I'm not sure that the accusations that were made against her can be successfully countered.
Andrew Wang was 500% better prepared this time than during the last debate. He gave good responses to every question that was asked; he might view the issues most definitely from a HT Business perspective, but they were on point. He most definitely is not an orator, and his approach might not impress voters who have to battle their instincts to distrust someone of the 'wrong' ethnicity. Wang's approaches to climate change seem to be a sort of Leave It To Business approach, from the little I had time to absorb. But without the charisma, I'm reluctant to spend the time to learn all his policy ideas!
Jay Inslee, too, had all the right values, and in addition, he was proud of having implemented a great many initiatives in the State of Washington, while he was governor. But the question is whether it would be possible to implement similar initiatives with a diverse Congress, a diverse Senate, all consisting of cantankerous reactionaries looking out for their pet Business Interests, as successfully as he did in the State of Washington, whose population is about 12 adults and 3 children, in comparison to the US, with a vastly larger population, and also much cattle? But I loved his manner towards his fellow candidates; his outgoing, friendly nature; the gentleness with which he phrased remarks criticizing the current administration, about policies and decisions that he undoubtedly felt very strongly about. An awesome guy, and I wish he could find a place in the new administration!
Bill DeBlasio is a tough customer, and I enjoyed how he went on the offensive against Joe Biden. (I'm sure he knew that that was entertaining!) Biden's mistakes have to be faced, and New York, and New York City had to deal with an unfair share of the fallout from Biden's legislational stumbles. DeBlasio is also an astute politician with a clear eye for the implications of policy decisions, and a good man to have in any White House. But I would imagine that people from the great middle of the country might be just a bit tired of New Yorkers, after four years of Trump. Of course Trump is not a typical New Yorker; he's more of a sort of Hollywood guy, who's stuck himself in the middle of Manhattan, on his way to establishing an outpost in Moscow. (He would probably prefer to be the Maharajah of Dubai!)
I started out saying that Day 2 was disappointing, but only because I wished that the candidates had a good opportunity to articulate their views on policy matters that they might actually agree on. The moderators were more interested in hearing them attack each other, than in hearing how much they agreed.
ArchimeDes
No comments:
Post a Comment