Round two with Izzy
So today was the first forum dealie of the 2008 presidential race. All but one announced democratic candidate appeared in Carson City Nevada, gave some statements and some answered questions, others talked for a while in response to questions and may have answered them but mini-memorized speaches are kind of annoying. Anywho, tis sort of me second group look at the candidates. I was a little surprised by some candidates and not so with others. Here's a short summary of how they've moved my impressions of them. Up meaning of course they seem better in my eyes than my initial issues look, and down means they didn't fare so well. I give some modifiers to these of course as some did a lot better than others.
Dodd: Way up-Of the group, he gave the best presentation easy. Part of this may have been because he went first, another might of been that he's not a front runner, thus doesn't have to worry so much about gaffs and can thus relax a little. Good answers overall too.
Richardson: Up-Solid performance today. I was really happy someone put out a no-smear campaign promise pledge idea today. *eye balls Kucinich* Came off as honest and concrete.
Biden: A little up-I applaud him for cutting down on the number of words he absolutly has to have when talking. His a good orator, but damn, previously its gotten out of control. The little up instead of a simple up is due to me not really buying some of his plans as sound ideas despite his belabored efforts to try to make it sound like they are. In fact trying so hard may have hurt him there.
Gravel: A little up-I finally know how to pronounce his name! Gra-vel, not Grav-al. He's still a long shot but today he won tons of credibility for being a long shot that takes the campaign seriously. I thought it a little rude of Stephenapolous to ask him the question of who he would support if he had to choose among the other candidates. He's still a bit extreme libertarian in his thinking in certain ways than I'm comfy with, but he at least seems to have the convictions to back it up. I should also modify this to point out I didn't get to see all of his portion as my recording ended before he was done.
Edwards: Netural-Nothing exceptional to report. I've seen him in this situation enough before to sort of know him fairly well and he didn't change the mold that much. Though I do applaud him for his anti-poverty work independant of any motivations good or selfish he may have.
Vilsack: Down-Knew what the issues were and a few details, but I taking into account what I know of him previously, he came off as kind of phony with his plans. Very much the local posturing move but I'm trying to look sincere about it thing. I'm kind of glad Edwards is in the race so Kerry won't endorse him.
Clinton: Down-We all know she was going to be asked about health care and iraq. And she was. Her memorized speach was pleasant but not ground breaking. Also half of it seemed to be trying to be an inside joke with the democrats about her time as first lady. This is going to get old real fast. And please please, I'm not trying to harp on Clinton because she's a lady, I'm doing it because I'm unimpressed by what I see. And what I see is a politicaly posturing politician in it to win yes, but I don't see her giving me a reason for me to want her to win.
Kucinich: Really down-WTF, mate? After 6 candidates who were fairly cordial to each other, we get Dennis 'everybody is sooooo wrong and foolish but me' Kucinich? Sure it was amusing (and sad) to see him doing twirles at the end (and I'm serious, he was indeed spinning on stage at the end), but he's acting like this is the 2004 campaign with his rhetoric, and acting like its his 4th grade class president election in how he's acting. He's very dismissive of the other candidates and comes off as someone who isn't the least bit interested in a dialogue of any sort about anything he feels is important. (I wonder if 'No Strings!' is going to be his campaign motto this round) After seeing him on stage, I'm seriously wondering about his mental health.
Obama: *-Obama didn't attend the forum today. But it may have been a sign of thinking outside the box. On the other hand, the forum was done by AFSCME, aka a big ass union with lots of supporters nation wide who may be up for helping you with feet on the ground if they endorse you, so it might of been a bad idea strategically. The flip side is of course that he went to Iowa, which probably makes me home town folks happy and generates press in Iowa. Another note, there was apparantly a rhetorical scuffle with one of Obama's supporters bad mouthing Clinton, Clinton releasing a statement asking for a condemnation, and apparantly a rather fast response to it (I glanced at it earlier). Not reallly important in its own right except to note the speed of Obama's campaign with dealing with this. A fast (and smart) campaign in the primaries could mean a competant national campaign in the general.
Dodd: Way up-Of the group, he gave the best presentation easy. Part of this may have been because he went first, another might of been that he's not a front runner, thus doesn't have to worry so much about gaffs and can thus relax a little. Good answers overall too.
Richardson: Up-Solid performance today. I was really happy someone put out a no-smear campaign promise pledge idea today. *eye balls Kucinich* Came off as honest and concrete.
Biden: A little up-I applaud him for cutting down on the number of words he absolutly has to have when talking. His a good orator, but damn, previously its gotten out of control. The little up instead of a simple up is due to me not really buying some of his plans as sound ideas despite his belabored efforts to try to make it sound like they are. In fact trying so hard may have hurt him there.
Gravel: A little up-I finally know how to pronounce his name! Gra-vel, not Grav-al. He's still a long shot but today he won tons of credibility for being a long shot that takes the campaign seriously. I thought it a little rude of Stephenapolous to ask him the question of who he would support if he had to choose among the other candidates. He's still a bit extreme libertarian in his thinking in certain ways than I'm comfy with, but he at least seems to have the convictions to back it up. I should also modify this to point out I didn't get to see all of his portion as my recording ended before he was done.
Edwards: Netural-Nothing exceptional to report. I've seen him in this situation enough before to sort of know him fairly well and he didn't change the mold that much. Though I do applaud him for his anti-poverty work independant of any motivations good or selfish he may have.
Vilsack: Down-Knew what the issues were and a few details, but I taking into account what I know of him previously, he came off as kind of phony with his plans. Very much the local posturing move but I'm trying to look sincere about it thing. I'm kind of glad Edwards is in the race so Kerry won't endorse him.
Clinton: Down-We all know she was going to be asked about health care and iraq. And she was. Her memorized speach was pleasant but not ground breaking. Also half of it seemed to be trying to be an inside joke with the democrats about her time as first lady. This is going to get old real fast. And please please, I'm not trying to harp on Clinton because she's a lady, I'm doing it because I'm unimpressed by what I see. And what I see is a politicaly posturing politician in it to win yes, but I don't see her giving me a reason for me to want her to win.
Kucinich: Really down-WTF, mate? After 6 candidates who were fairly cordial to each other, we get Dennis 'everybody is sooooo wrong and foolish but me' Kucinich? Sure it was amusing (and sad) to see him doing twirles at the end (and I'm serious, he was indeed spinning on stage at the end), but he's acting like this is the 2004 campaign with his rhetoric, and acting like its his 4th grade class president election in how he's acting. He's very dismissive of the other candidates and comes off as someone who isn't the least bit interested in a dialogue of any sort about anything he feels is important. (I wonder if 'No Strings!' is going to be his campaign motto this round) After seeing him on stage, I'm seriously wondering about his mental health.
Obama: *-Obama didn't attend the forum today. But it may have been a sign of thinking outside the box. On the other hand, the forum was done by AFSCME, aka a big ass union with lots of supporters nation wide who may be up for helping you with feet on the ground if they endorse you, so it might of been a bad idea strategically. The flip side is of course that he went to Iowa, which probably makes me home town folks happy and generates press in Iowa. Another note, there was apparantly a rhetorical scuffle with one of Obama's supporters bad mouthing Clinton, Clinton releasing a statement asking for a condemnation, and apparantly a rather fast response to it (I glanced at it earlier). Not reallly important in its own right except to note the speed of Obama's campaign with dealing with this. A fast (and smart) campaign in the primaries could mean a competant national campaign in the general.