Presidential Debate: Democrats

Some political commentary. I've been wanting to do this forever. And yes, I will comment on both sides- no worries, I've got issues with all the candidates. :) But tonight we'll start with the Democrats, since I was able to catch the debates. I have to admit that this is the first presidential election where I have watched any of the debates leading up to the nominations. A lot of the questions seem geared to "catch" the candidate or trap them in some way. It's all just a big game.

First of all, I sometimes wonder how Tim Russert got the gig of hosting Meet the Press with the hollow questions he was asking. He asked each candidate whether they would pledge that Iran would not get nuclear weapons if they were President. It was such a stupid question and it was obvious that the panel thought so too. Each candidate had to think of a way to answer without actually pledging since the pledge was an impossible promise to make to the public. And the worst part: he solicited answers from the entire panel of candidates and wasted even more time.

I was disappointed by Clinton's flip-flopping towards the end of the debate. First she said giving illegals a drivers license would be a good idea, then said it wouldn't be a good idea. I think Dodd made a better argument, saying that a license is a privilege and should be reserved for those here legally. Guess he changed her mind because suddenly she agreed with him.

I also think some of her choices have been a little suspect. For instance, she said that voting to look further into Iran was an act of diplomacy. In normal circumstances, I would agree with her. However, she failed to take into account that this is the same pattern Bush/Cheney took when plotting the Iraq war. Senators should not vote as if they are dealing with a reasonable administration. They should vote intelligently and realize that Bush/Cheney are doing the same thing they did before invading Iraq. Making a mistake is acceptable; it's the people who don't learn from their mistakes that scare me. To be clear, I'm not anti-Clinton. I might even vote for her. I just wasn't impressed at this debate. Not that she had it easy with every other candidate attacking her.

Obama said that we need to make math and science jobs more attractive. I thought this completely missed the point, which is that our educational system is seriously lacking in these areas. Kids aren't avoiding math and science because the jobs aren't lucrative; they don't have enough knowledge in those areas to be able to pursue the associated professions and compete with students that have been taught overseas. Edwards, on the other hand, talked about having a national university to recruit the best and brightest teachers and then deploy them across the country. He seemed to be more on track with a plan that might actually work.

All we hear about in the media is Clinton because she's a woman and Obama because he's black. Is that the extent of our intelligence- to only be able to consider people based on gender and race? And are people really going to choose the leader of their country this way? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer. I'm consistently disappointed by a population that can't think past these surface level traits to the bigger issues affecting our country and our world. The focus on gender and race is causing people to overlook the other candidates who actually have some good things to say. Biden and Dodd make good points but no one even considers them as valid candidates because we've been told to focus on Obama and Clinton. Based on the debates tonight, I'm most impressed with Edwards.