Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Debate Wrap

Like most of the previous outings, I didn’t watch the debate last night on CNN from Des Moines, but that’s never stopped me from posting about it.  I rely on a variety of pundits to tell me what I missed.

Kate Riga at TPM: Candidates’ Best and Worst Moments.

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post: Reason to Hope for a Happy Outcome.

Jennifer Rubin, also at the Washington Post: Klobuchar and Biden won.

Chris Cillizza at CNN: No, Mayor Pete and Elizabeth Warren won.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells at The New Yorker: The Democrats’ State of Stasis.

I have yet to be convinced that the debates have produced anything substantial, and yet there will be more of them, produced with all the fanfare of the next reality show.  But I sincerely doubt that history will record the next president of the United States became so just because he or she impressed a newspaper columnist or blogger.

3 barks and woofs on “Debate Wrap

  1. I’d be interested in seeing the numbers or who and how many watched this truly stupid idea of the DNC. I read that this last one was the worst. I’m so glad I have a wonderful murder mystery to read or the option of reruns of Law & Order to watch. If the idea is to winnow the number of candidates down before the nominating convention I think we can do that without this interview by teevee. God knows, they all have publicists and access to countless interviews where if we chose to watch we could make up our minds on our own.

  2. To those who don’t watch the “debates” for reasons: if nothing else they are a chance to see the various candidates in action interacting with others. Not the same as a speech or interview. They may be kind of crap because they have been outsourced to profit seeking corporations (although the one with Judy Woodruff predictably sucked as well and I wish PBS Newshour would get a total makeover) but there is value in watching them anyway. Plus you can put up TPM, Guardian, and Balloon Juice live blogs at the same time.

    The CNN “debates” have been available for free on their website.

    Also: posting links to behind firewall sources, including ones that give you an article or two a month is just kind of frustrating. At least you listed the source instead of just a link using up one’s allotment for the month without seeing it coming.

  3. So, I did watch.

    Buttigieg was good at repeating canned anecdotes he had memorized. One was a personal reminiscence about someone else.

    Biden had to fix what he was saying about three times in every sentence, as Cillizza points out.

    I thought Amy Klobuchar came off better than Chris did. She should go for the snark she is good at more. This was one of the rather similar Hillary Clinton failings: Hillary was too Midwestern Methodist Girl careful in public. Everyone kept saying she was so funny and relaxed in private but we didn’t see it, and she was up against, well, Trump being Trump. If you are kind of a Bidenist, Amy is the obvious similarly experienced and knowledgeable candidate except for being a lot smarter and not over the hill.

    Bernie said the same things the same way he always does. He’s way too old too. I think I could recraft his arguments in a less Marxist Leninist way that would get through to people but he hasn’t changed his rhetoric since his ’60’s Brooklyn Jewish intellectual origins.

    Steyer wants term limits. Bye, Felicia.

    Warren was OK but should work with an expert on speaking/presentation, which she has clearly never done. For various reasons she comes off as a bit too Chicken Little, which is not what anyone wants in a president. (Clinton should have also and no I’m not a sexist.)

    Yang isn’t going to get the nomination and might be an unsuccessful president, or not, but I like him and what he’s saying, mostly. Too far ahead though, but in a much different way from Bernie/Warren. I also missed Booker.

Comments are closed.