Youtube debating makes me want to watch the Republican debate

I thought this was going to be one of those things that I get all excited about, then it turns out phenomenally bad and disappointing (Like when you stay up for days so you can both work and read the entirety of Harry Potter, only for that ending). But I had genuine fun watching the latest instalment of the democratic debates; and what's more I can watch all the replays I want on youtube because they sponsored the whole thing. Or something equivalent-I'm not sure how they really would do that, but I'm fairly certain CNN told me this was a fact several times.

Literally the only negative thing about the whole experience was that my tv guide didn't understand what was going on, and didn't list when and what channel the debate was on, so I literally spent two hours before the debate flipping through all these vaguely looking CNN and fox news channels trying to find it. Luckily, I found it with twenty minutes still left on their countdown--which is another fabulous idea. They had a timer going counting down for the last hour, giving it the anticipation level it justly deserves.

It all started out so spectacularly too, with a Chris from Oregon asking how all the candidates would be any different, with plenty of air quotes to go around. I think I'm officially in the Obama over Clinton camp (but obviously Kucinich over them all) indefinitely. Which I believe is a result of both Clinton looking more politically motivated and sideswiping important issues, and Obama just getting better at saying...the same lines he has been saying. (But really better at it; and seeing as they are good lines anyways...). And it really broke my heart when asked if she would meet with leaders (even and especially ones we are in conflict with) during her first year and office and she gave the most direct 'no' I think I've ever heard her say. Obama on the other hand, said it has been quite a ridiculous policy indeed thinking that we are somehow punishing countries by not talking to them. But, Kucinich is giving reparations for slavery, and its before the primary and he's still in it, so why am I talking about Obama?

Gravel, not to disappoint was as angry as ever, right from the get go; even after humbly thanking his youtube questioner for asking him a question because, "he doesn't get a lot". This was mainly concerning how everybody is getting funding, yes even Obama, from banks, (and well, he's not). I'm also confused how Edwards can say that he's, "on a journey" with an issue, and so therefore doesn't know his personal opinion about it (gay marriage), but he affirms his personal opinions shouldn't reflect policy anyways. Which, 'yeah!', I think; but why then is he answering every other question as per what he believes in?

In all of the funny moments, I think it is tied between the snowman (hmm--I just realized this word is gendered, but I'm not quite sure how to remedy that because snowmyn just looks weird and snowperson seems stupid...) worried about how global warming will affect the little snow...people... and when everybody had to "say a nice thing about the candidate on their left" as a feel-good tacky close to the debate (which, come on, I live for), Kucinich's remark of "hey, I was set up; there is no one to the left of me", was met by an unusually fast and witty reply from Anderson of, "we looked; we couldn't find anyone to the left of you". It doesn't get better then that people.

So I got this shirt now and have totally texted 'peace' to 73223, because that's really all Kucinich wanted to get across the entire debate (the latter, not the shirt-that was totally my idea).

By a show of hands...

Ah, more debate. With Kucinach still in the race; does it get any better? It could, probably, if the candidates weren't reduced to having to raise their hand every other question. Come on, asking for a show of hands is something you use to decide who wants to go to the Mexican place to eat verses the Chinese one, not to determine who thinks English should be the official language of the United States, and certainly not to discern candidates concerns about the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

How frustrating.

But there were a few gem questions like Wolf Blitzer asking seriously, "what would you do with Bill Clinton?", then looking according uncomfortable, uneasily realizing the flaw of the question as he turned to Hillary Clinton to ask the question again. I admit; I'm easily amused, and still in college and fairly young, so I find it perfectly acceptable to laugh at ill phrased questions such as that. So I giggled again when Bidden explained his disagreement to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy as uniquely as he always manages to with stating about once you're in a hole, your not asking the other guy next to you whether they are gay or not. He meant foxhole, and I'm sure everyone knew it... everyone who has grown up at least.

For a two hour debate without commercials, overall I thought:

• there was too much Blitzer talking, especially when he insisted on repeating other folks' questions.
• Blitzer referring to everyone else by their title and last name, and referring to Clinton as Hillary for some of the debate was inexcusable.
• Gravel was uncomfortably angry the entire time (maybe because he's polling below 1%?), which made me sad and angry because I had totally essentialized all Alaskan folk as basically being cold, but very still very HAPPY versions of hippies (especially with the Men in Trees drama awhile back). So basically, my illusions are shattered; 'plow guy' doesn't exist, and certainly there isn't a sweet and simple Patrick guy waiting for me, and Jack is just a lie. Alaskans are actually apparently even grumpier then we all are.
  
• Obama really doesn't know how to talk about policy. And I got out the line ''we need a po-litical solution, not military one" before he did, so score one for me, but probably minus a lot more for him.
  
• Clinton starting to answer every "if you were president" question with, "when I'm president" was a phenomenal move on her part. Similarly, her stating for everybody involved which questions they will all answer was exceptional. This was a great technique to try and get us not to focus on how she is claiming that, "if she knew then what she knows now" she would not vote for the war, BUT she somehow still contends that she was fully briefed before she voted, and that she knew all the facts.
  
• Bidden impressed me with how he talked about Darfur, and reminding everyone of the urgency to act now ("as we sit here talking, 50,000 will be dead in Darfur"). Similarly, my mouth is still hanging open that Richardson apparently feels intervening with the Beijing Olympics to stop a genocide would be a "disproportionate" action. Seriously??
• Kucinich admitting he wouldn't kill Bin Laden if given the opportunity (assassination bad, following laws good), probably lost him any long shot he had in this race, but I admire him (yes, some more) for answering honestly, and for sticking with his principles.
  

And the best part, what does Kucinich want to do during his first 100 days in office? Aww, "reshape the world for peace". I'm getting images of Sandra Bullock, William Shatner, and Heather Burns explaining her favorite "date".

Hey, the republicans are about to go at it now; we shall see if they will make me laugh or cry more.

I'm not quite sure why my last post is so catastrophically weird and hard to read, but hopefully it will never happen again.

Ode to Dennis Kucinich

My eagerness and enthusiasm leading up to the first democratic debate ended up to have so many disappointing moments. I like Obama, in the sense I suppose, that I acknowledge it is probably going to be the best outcome I can reasonably hope for. More so then I even like him, is my want to really like him, which I suppose inevitably starts to complicate things. I like what I saw as an honest enthusiasm for the issues he likes to talk about, and especially his work on disclosing the stuff that the government is doing (ie being able to go online and see where exactly tax dollars are spent).

I've never really heard too many long speech segments made by him however, and I was really uncomfortable with too many of his answers for me to want to start giving him my one and only vote that I get in this whole thing. I also didn't like (on a more general note) how the candidates went out of their way to seem like they were agreeing with each other, in an attempt to, I can only fathom, try not to step on other folk's toes too early; but that was supposed to be the point of this whole exercise.

This leads to my secret candidate coming out and saving the day; Dennis Kuchinich. At this point, I'm so biased I almost can't tell people he's number one on my list without smiling. Even pushing aside the awesome work he's done for the AR movement, showing and constantly pointing out the link of how animal cruelty leads to humyn violence, recognizing the crisis our climate is in, and backing up everything he advocates by being vegan, and having a shockingly consistent voting record--breathe, yes, besides all that (the issues that I feel closest too, but understand don't hit very high on other folk's level of importance)-- I think he has an array of innovative and workable answers on many other issues such as immigration, energy, and education.

For anyone silly enough to have missed the action, you can follow along here-
www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042707-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html

It will please me immensely to put my top problems with the candidates (specifically towards Obama in general, only because he is my next "go to" person, so to speak) in list form, with how Kucunich solved the problem for me:

1. I am uneasy with how Obama seems to answer questions with "run around the issue" answers that makes no clear articulation where he stands. Or attempts to push the topic to a place where he feels more comfortable, or has more solutions.
   

MODERATOR:
Senator Obama, on this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

OBAMA: You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy...Now, there is a broader issue, though. And that is can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in the circumstances where they've got to anguish over these decisions.

Those are areas where I think we can all start mobilizing and move forward rather than look backwards.

Verses:

KUCINICH: But the truth of the matter is, it's possible, I believe, to take a course of action where you can get all the people of America in support of a culture of life which includes prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, universal health care, a living wage, all those things that give support to life.

a) Obama's response that we need to talk about abortion in terms of some ridiculously linking teen pregnancy issue where, "we do agree on" is atrocious. Nothing is going to be solved by side stepping to some ground deemed "safe". Debate needs to happen; there needs to be a discussion in which the harms are out in the open, where we are having a conversation about what it means when abortion is "legal" yet inaccessible to too many people, where the teen-age mothers Obama vaguely references are forced to let their fate fall into the hands of their parents, and what waiting 24 hours and listening to a stereo typed and simplified speech about abortion, really gains (personally, still searching for this last one...)

b)I'm not trying to say that Kucinich really scored too many points exactly on this particular point either, but as many have pointed out in examining the debate (talking unfortunately about other people, not him) , he won it by not losing; in this case, not pretending that it's simply a matter of stopping womyn from being in the position to make this decision in the first place.

2. I'm confused as to what Obama is actually proposing in terms of resolving the war.

OBAMA: ...there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.

Verses:

MODERATOR: Congressman Kucinich, do you think one can be against the war and yet still fund it?

KUCINICH: No. I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again...Furthermore, I don't think that it's sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we would have voted differently. That information was available to everyone. And, if you made the wrong choice, we're auditioning here for president of the United States. People have to see who had the judgment and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place, and I made the choice not to go to war.

a)What is his political solution? Reading other bits from where he talks about his plan, I've gathered he wants it to obviously end, and there is a bunch of troops being pulled out; but how is troop removal a political solution? According to his web site some troops will remain to "engage in counter-terrorism" ...which sounds suspiciously like what we are doing now, only with a few less people. If he really believes the war is "dumb", why would this still be going on? I am much more ready to listen to Kucinich's 'peacekeepers' without, you know, guns and other weapons that usually make talking harder, to try and resolve things.

3. You've got to be able to defend what you're doing, and why you are doing it; and then stick with it.

MODERATOR:
You've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren't you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

OBAMA: Well, not all, (emphasis added) we have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior and I have denounced it. But I have a track record of bringing people around this new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature.

Verses:

MODERATOR: "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?Let's try Congressman Kucinich. Why is your hand not up?

KUCINICH: Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty.

a)Direct questions need direct answers for me to believe what they are saying. I don't like fancy footwork that aims to distract from what is being discussed.

4. Seriously: Edwards spends $400 on his haircuts?

(even Kucinich couldn't resolve this problem, however)