A couple days ago CNN hosted a Democratic Party debate with the assistance of YouTube, which I think is an interesting spin on how to take questions. The cynical side of me cannot ignore that in the end these debates always end up the same - the questions are filtered, the candidates won't answer questions directly and as a result nobody learns anything new about the candidates that would help voters make a decision. I'm going to illustrate to you why these debates are useless regardless of the method of asking the question. Watch -
This is a textbook example of what I hate about politicians. When she is asked about the definition of liberal the first few words out of her mouth are straight up, unfiltered bullshit, like taking 3 warm shots of Crown Royal with no chaser. Mrs. Clinton is definitely not alone - all politicians do this regardless of party and I could have easily used a different example. What the fuck is she talking about - "liberal" used to mean the opposite of big government and individual freedom? Did she even think through what she was saying or does she actually believe that liberals used to be more like Republicans? In other words, she answered the question but in doing so used flowery and meaningless language. Following that, some guy with no chance in hell of winning takes a pot shot at Barack Obama, and Obama responds in kind.
I have to ask again - how does any of this help voters make a better decision about who to pick? How relevant of a question was this to ask anyway? This is probably the most important presidential election of the past 35-40 years and this is the type of question that CNN chose to ask the candidates? Another question that boggled my mind - are African Americans going to receive reparations for slavery? First of all, the answer to that question is obvious - no. Secondly, this sort of question is by no means representative of the most important issues of the day. By the way, it was noted that not ONE question regarding how to handle illegal immigration passed through CNN's filter. When the questions are atrocious and the answers are even worse, who cares how "innovative" the questions are delivered? Again, its because these debates are ultimately meaningless. What about asking Democratic candidates about the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, something the influential activists and liberals everywhere are begging for? None of the Democrats will actually answer that question.
It is intriguing to me that in passing recently Mr. Edwards suggested cornering out the weaker opposition to Mrs. Clinton. Hey John, YOU are the weaker opposition. Mr. Edwards' main topic is poverty, aka the class divide known as "the two Americas" that most observers are very familiar with, since it was the exact same topic that lost him the nomination in '04. The problems Edwards faces are twofold - a) he's a fabulously rich guy talking about poverty, and b) his own vanity, which was best captured in the following video -
- in my best blatantly gay voice* - Just tease it a little, tease it!
Stuff like this is incredibly damaging to a politicians prospects. Coupled with the news about how much his haircuts cost, he has absolutely no credibility with the people he is trying to woo for votes. Granted, although rich people are completely oblivious to the needs of the poor, I don't think it should preclude them from shining a light on the issue. RFK and FDR are two examples of rich guys that had credibility with the poor. Unfortunately, John Edwards is no RFK or FDR. To his credit, as a wealthy liberal that lives an astoundingly wasteful lifestyle, he isn't preaching to us about lifestyle changes to curb global warming.
At the moment, Democratic politics are dominated by a cult of personality, obsession with polling results and the desire to see Bush out office, none of which make compelling reasons to vote for a candidate. At the moment, and I can't believe I'm saying this, the only Democrat making any sense at all is actually Joe Biden, one of the most entrenched blowhard Washington insiders in the Senate. Granted, all politicans are basically the same, but Biden, in my view, is the straightest talker and the most level headed. A few years ago Biden suggested what in essence would be a "United States of Iraq" with subregions created based on ethnicity. How badly he was poo-pooed at the time - as time passes by he is looking wiser and wiser.
Get involved - voter apathy, in my opinion anyway, is a mockery of a basic freedom that many in the world don't individually hold. Go get information on the candidates by checking out their web sites, reading their ideas, finding out how they vote on issues that are important to you. Just don't expect to learn much from debates until the nominees are chosen.
This Primary season gets me thinking about Instant Runoff Voting again. I'm glad we're spreading 'democracy' around the world, while in this country 50% of people don't even vote for the president, and 70% don't vote in mid-term elections.
I hope to be posting more often. Glad to see there is still good political discourse going on here.
(e:james) - yeah, thats definitely true. John Kerry, President Clinton and I'm sure plenty of other Republicans like Romney are "guilty" of the "sin" of paying bloated prices for haircuts. Personally, I don't really care what they pay... I really don't have much of an opinion on it from a basic level. Like you mention though, when poverty is your main issue, its obvious that if you are spending money like that on a haircut you are going to have problems.
(e:dcoffee) - how is everything - I haven't seen you post much lately. In one sentence you put two words together that I think are magnificent and appropriate when referring to the relation between the media, candidates and elections - overwhelmed and game. To be honest the approach is incredibly offputting to me.
People say that voting for a third party is "throwing away" your vote. I think that is totally wrong because ultimately you are exercising your right to vote and register your own viewpoint... which is what its all about. Voting for a "loser" is better than not voting at all, and I'm at a loss as to why for some people there is a disconnect there.
President Bush is amongst the least eloquent presidents in history, but of course he isn't alone in that regard. My bro and I were watching the Kerry-Bush debates last year and President Bush on two occasions had the most appalling debate performances EVER. Granted we were smoking a little bit so we didn't need any extra help to find some humor in it all - I kept saying "My God he is a beady-eyed motherfucker!" Nevertheless he won the election, so on the other hand it makes me wonder how influential the debates are nowadays. I think the media's next-day reaction to the debates are more influential than the debates themselves.
A quick point on the John Edwards hair thing.
Campaign finance records show that a whole lot of candidates spend thousands of dollars in the duration of their campaign on hair and makeup. One session for Romney cost him $300 and was disguised as "Political Consultation"
It is just silly because Edwards' big issue is poverty and because that haircut of his is a $15 haircut. Seriously Johnny, it isn't that fancy, nancy.
Candidates and the Mainstream Media are overwelmed by the "GAME" of elections. You're right about debates. They're a bit better than 30 second TV ads, but that's like saying "he's more well spoken than Bush" cause 30 second TV adds make a practice of giving you NO information whatsoever.
I like Biden too. He's straight up, he doesen't search for poll tested language before he says something, and pissed off about Iraq, as he should be.
I think I'm going to register Democrat and vote for Kucinich though. He's the one candidate who's above the corrupt political establishment.
I could go on, but not right now.
You're right, voter apathy is killing this country. I don't care if you don't trust either party to keep their promises. Just be Informed, and Vote. Vote for a third party, and march out of that voting booth with your finger in the air.
Oh yeah, by the way Josh, I used your "give them enough rope to hang themselves" technique on some poor dolt today. Oh you would have given me a standing O. I'll talk to you about it later.
You see some of the comments on the YouTube page for the Edwards video? A few pages in there is a hilariously typical statement from a self-loathing white lib calling a conservative hispanic a "nazi jew" - nothing like racist stereotyping!
What I cannot understand about Edwards in this video is this - what is it that he is so unsatisfied with that he looks pouty and fusses with his hair for so long? It looks the same at the end as it did in the beginning.
I wonder what kind of shampoo he uses.
Oh no! I forgot about that Edwards hair thing! Haha! John, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!
Ugh. Now I just hate john edwards even more. what a douchebag.
In a sense Hillary is correct in her awful parsing of the word liberalism. Liberalism is a big umbrella, with the pseudo-socialists like Hillary residing within a subset of Liberalism.
Regardless, instead of complaining about the word, which is absolutely a ridiculous thing to do, because it is perceived (I think incorrectly) as a perjorative, people like Hillary should "own" the insult, the same way gays have "owned" the word faggot and african-americans have "owned" the word nigger.
You take away the power of someone to use it as a perjorative when you do that, but most people would rather whine like a child about "labelling" someone. No, I prefer another label, "Modern Progressive." Fuck you Hillary! Just say "Yeah I'm a liberal, and I'm proud, so what of it?"
That is an interesting thread to this early season. I agree with you, even the sparring in the debate is staged and pointless. The more telling thing is the headlines the trickle out after. Hillary saying it's going to be done by late February, her and Obama taking some swipes at each other (like the other guys don't matter, which is probably true).
Nothing new is going to happen for awhile and I think that is going to contribute to more voter apathy.
Makes me wish Bloomberg gets in just to shake it up in the fall. Don't know if he'd be good, but it would be interesting to see what a development like that does to both parties
Good point James - they are already talking about "debate fatigue." If they are talking about it now, what about next summer when its going to be critical?
Not only are Rep. unhappy with their candidates a poll recently showed that 'none of the above' was by far the most popular GOP candidate. That is pretty sad.
Debates themselves are silly. The answers have been polished months in advance. They are all just slight nuances on their opponents (in primaries). It should all be decided with an arm wrestling match.
John Edwards, while a second tier candidate might actually do it. He is kicking ass in Iowa, which is how Kerry managed to get his nomination instead of Lieberman.
But you are right, we had candidates announcing in December, over a year before the first primary. It seems like a Dem strategy to keep focus on the president and away from a nominally controlled congress. But at this rate I am going to be exhausted and disinterested by the time January rolls around.
hahahahaha, i feel pretty....