In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Initial Debate Thoughts

Jill

coop
The best part of the CNN/YouTube debates? The Silver Fox.

It’s late and I’m tired, so I’m not going to belabor my thoughts here. I watched the debate with some lovely Drinking Liberally folks, and a crew from The Daily Show did some filming and some interviews. Perhaps we’ll be on tomorrow or in the next few days; I’ll keep you all updated. I was, thankfully, not interviewed. But if you’re watching the show tomorrow and see a ponytailed brunette in an ivory sweater probably making dumb faces in the background of the footage, that is yours truly.

So, the debate:

1. Sen. Clinton won. She seemed the most presidential, and projected the most power. She was cool and articulate and on-message, and she didn’t trip up or seem uncomfortable. She came across as confident and experienced. I haven’t been a huge Hillary fan, but this debate pushed me slightly more towards her camp.

2. John Edwards’ comment about Hillary’s coat was quite possibly his Howard Dean Scream moment. It was simply terrible. It felt sleazy and rude and sexist, and I was really not a fan. It also, unfortunately, epitomized all of his weaknesses as a candidate — that (a) he’s smarmy and (b) that he’s too pretty. When he said it, someone in the room said, “He Queer-Eyed her!” And that’s exactly what it felt like. Not exactly presidential or even endearing.

Obama managed to save the moment by commenting that he liked her coat — and it made him come across as a thoughtful, gentlemanly person. I can’t find the video on YouTube yet, but if any of you come across it and want to post a link, I would be very grateful.

3. Anderson Cooper is amazing. Not only foxy — although let me say that he is SO foxy — but good at cutting the candidates off when they got off-topic and ranty. And was so on fire when he asked the candidates to raise their hands if they came to the debate via private or chartered jet.

4. What in God’s name was the Kucinich “text for peace” business? It kind of reminded me of this:

THE NINETEEN-SIXTIES

—Mr. President! Did you hear about Woodstock?
—Woo— Woodstock? What in God’s name is that?
—Apparently, young people hate the war so much they’re willing to participate in a musical sex festival as a protest against it.
—Oh, my God. They must really be serious about this whole thing.
—That’s not all. Some of them are threatening to join communes: places where they make their own clothing . . . and beat on drums.
—Stop the war.
—But, Mr. President!
—Stop all American wars!
—(sighs) Very well, sir. I’ll go tell the generals.
—Wow. It’s a good thing those kids decided to go hear music.

5. John Edwards sucked. He dodged questions really obviously. And, granted, there were some questions that he had to dodge — like the reparations question — but he did a piss-poor job at it. Obama, in contrast, side-stepped the question by saying that we need to see reparations in the form of better education for young people, especially low-income students and people of color. Edwards rambled on about big insurance companies and power being concentrated in Washington. Not good. He also blew it on the sex ed question — a thousand Edwards aides hung their heads in shame when their candidate used the phrase “bad touch.”*

I was an Edwards fan before this debate, but no longer.

6. Bill Richardson is boring, and there is no way in Hell we’re pulling all the troops out of Iraq in six months. I want the war to be over as much as anyone, but given that we’ve invaded a country, killed off a significant portion of its population, created the largest refugee population in the world, destroyed its infrastructure, enabled sectarian strife, emboldened terrorists and started a massive civil war, perhaps it’s not the greatest idea to just peace out. Not that we need to stick around and micro-manage every detail, but we do need to give the Iraqi people the tools to rebuild their own country, now that we’ve demolished it. Six months ain’t gonna do it.

7. Dennis Kucinich is a creep, especially given his whole wife contest. Biden is a creep too for commenting that the best thing about Kucinich is his wife.

8. Mike Gravel was, as usual, a crazy old coot. And God bless him, because if there’s one thing I love, it’s crazy old coots.

9. The best thing about the YouTube debate: It allowed reporters to put out questions that they otherwise couldn’t ask without being blacklisted by the candidates. The worst thing about the YouTube debate: It illustrated just how pathetic our media establishment is. Why should they need the buffer of the average dude asking basic (but tough, unapologetic and straight-forward) questions? Reporters shouldn’t have to establish adversarial relationships with politicians, but they shouldn’t be so polite and chummy that they render themselves unable to push the candidates hard when they need to be pushed. So I don’t think the YouTube debate was as much of a young-voters schtick as some commentators have made it out to be; instead, I think it served as a convenient space for reporters and media elite to put forward questions that they would have otherwise never asked. I’m glad those questions were asked. I’m disappointed that the people with the greatest media power and access aren’t asking them.

Perhaps I’ll have more to say tomorrow. Probably not. What did you all think?

*Or “inappropriate touching,” I don’t remember.

73 thoughts on Initial Debate Thoughts

  1. I was already annoyed with Mrs Edwards and her claim that her husband is the best candidate for women and then the dude had to stare at Hillary’s chest and then point out her clothing. Sexist indeed. Best candidate for women, not even freaking close.

    Bah.

    I had enjoyed the evening til that point, and then I stomped around the house for two hours griping over that.

  2. I had exactly the same reaction as you, Jill — I started out an Edwards fan and ended up sure I’ll be voting for either Obama or Clinton. Probably Clinton, honestly — I’ve been more and more impressed by her.

    My favorite Hillary moment was her Iraq pullout answer, actually. Clearly she has no interest in BS the American people on this. She’s done the homework, she knows the political landscape, and she knows it can’t be done soon. I was impressed by her leveling on that one completely, because she could easily have come up with cheap answers like everyone else.

    Obama came across very well — he’d be a fine President. But I find myself really skeptical of his rhetoric about ending the influence of special interests. He hasn’t backed this up with anything concrete — how is he going to avoid the same game everyone else has played? And Hillary made his answer on the Iran/Syria/Cuba talks seem a little amateur-ish — clearly she has a better idea of how a WH runs than he does.

    Anyhow, I’m looking forward to future debates. It’s a two candidate race at this point, but I’m glad Edwards is there to keep Obama and Clinton honest on poverty and health-care. I’m cautiously optimistic about 2008.

  3. Not that we need to stick around and micro-manage every detail, but we do need to give the Iraqi people the tools to rebuild their own country, now that we’ve demolished it. Six months ain’t gonna do it.

    Sweet Jesus, we have a point of agreement. I’m pleasantly surprised.

  4. Edwards’ comment about Clinton’s jacket paled in comparison to Biden’s comment about Kucinich’s wife. I watched the whole two hours — some good discussion, and great questions — and left with the image of Biden leering into the audience, looking for the hot blonde on the left.

    Sexist, disgusting; not good. Not good at all.

  5. I didn’t watch the debate, but my basic attutide toward Clinton is, Why not just vote for a Republican? Don’t get me wrong, of course I’d vote for her just on the basis of Supreme Court nomination(s), but I can’t pretend I’d be excited about it. I think Edwards is much too insubstantial to be president. I don’t know why, but I like Obama. On the one hand, I think it’s absurd to even be considering voting for someone for president who will only have been a Senator for two years, one of which he spent campaigning. But something about him makes me trust his judgment. If Clinton’s elected, I don’t think there’s any doubt she’ll kill people to get re-elected. It’ll only be a matter of time before she launches some trumped up military strike, presumably against Iran, in order to look “tough,” or whatever Chris Matthews is looking for in a president.

  6. Bill Richardson is boring, and there is no way in Hell we’re pulling all the troops out of Iraq in six months.

    I’ve always kind of gotten the feeling that he’s campaigning to get a position in the cabinet of a Democratic president. It would be kind of weird to have him not involved in New Mexico politics, anyway.

  7. Oddly, Biden’s comment about Kucinich’s wife didn’t bother me anywhere near as much as Edward’s little crack about Clinton’s coat, probably because I rather expect Biden to occasionally (okay, more than occasionally) pop off with something plainly idiotic. I don’t think Biden’s a misogynist (this is the man who authored the Violence Against Women Act, after all); I just think he’s got the world’s worst case of foot-in-mouth disease.

    I do have to agree with Jill on how well Senator Clinton acquitted herself. I have been dead-set against her as nominee for months now, and tonight’s debate performance went a long way toward softening that opposition.

  8. I think the “debates” were a steaming pile of CNN.

    Seriously, it was horrible. There was no debate at all, just sound bites, and they the whole thing just seemed like “how much can we kiss the asses of the ‘top three’ and make them look good”.

    Hillary loves war, Edwards is afraid of gays and the whole production was a giant advertisement.

  10. Yes! Jill, thank you for noticing that Edwards and Obama danced all around the sex ed question. They both equated it with sexual abuse (the aforementioned “bad touching”). I was disappointed to see that women’s reproductive rights once again got the shaft in a presidential debate, and on the political agenda as well.

    Medically accurate sex ed is not just about “bad touching”. It’s about comprehensive, accurate, healthy education about sex, the body’s sexual functions, and access to contraception, emergency contraception and abortion.

    Will they ever get it right?

  11. I was at work and watching it online but I couldn’t turn the sound up too much and I didn’t get to see the whole thing but I did see the part about the sex ed. I was really disappointed in Edwards’ answer to that. It turned into a “I warned my children about sexual abuse” thing instead of a “I taught my children about sex” thing. Sigh. I am very wary of Clinton; I take everything she says with a grain of salt…she’s so easily bought. Obama actually impressed me in the short time I watched it – could be he reminds me of a coworker that I adore. 😀

    Also, I wouldn’t shut up to my coworkers about Anderson. I mean, c’mon. He’s a fox. No two ways about it.

  12. so wait, someone else set up a website to find kucinich a wife without his direct input, and hes a creep. kucinich says ” But in any event, I would want someone who would not just be there by my side, but be a working partner because I think we’re in an age when partnerships are imperative to making anything happen in the world.
    And I certainly want a dynamic, outspoken woman who was fearless in her desire for peace in the world and for universal single-payer health care and a full employment economy. ” after what i took to be a joke about the mind numbing stupidity of FOX and reality television, and hes a creep.

    man, i wish all creeps believed in health care for all, full employment, peace and so on. most of the creeps i meet laugh at rape jokes and call people by homophobic, racist, and sexist slurs. you must be running into far classier creeps than i am.

    and his wife comes off as an amazing intelligent woman.

  13. What the hell is this? Can you comment on any of the actual content of the debate or just on perceived creepiness and foxiness?

    Elaine, there are a million blogs out there — if you don’t like my initial thoughts, you are welcome to look elsewhere. Or, since you have your own blog, post your own.

    And things like perceived creepiness (and perceived power and other things I mentioned) have pretty big effects on the polls. Many people, sadly, don’t vote just according to the issues. So I’d say that the way candidates come across is pretty pertinent to the election. In my personal opinion, the general perception of a person is more important in elections than a person’s exact policy positions (not more important for my vote, but more important in the outcome of the election in general). That’s why I commented on how the candidates came across. They also didn’t introduce any new policy positions, so, while I could do a summary of everything they said (which has been said 500 times), that would be a little boring, and you can get it from any major newspaper.

    That said, I did comment on the actual debate. John Edwards dodged questions. Bill Richardson is wrong about Iraq. John Edwards answered questions about sex ed poorly. The YouTube debates illustrate how pathetic our media establishment is. I’d say that’s comment on the actual content.

    And again, if you want a play-by-play, most newspapers have websites, and there are a bunch of blogs run by people who may be right up your ally. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to show up at a place and demand that the writer cover something the way that you want to see it covered.

  14. man, i wish all creeps believed in health care for all, full employment, peace and so on. most of the creeps i meet laugh at rape jokes and call people by homophobic, racist, and sexist slurs. you must be running into far classier creeps than i am.

    He was also anti-choice until very recently, so you might want to add that to the list.

    And I’m pretty sure that he had more input into the wife contest than your comment makes it sound like, but I don’t have time to research it right now, so I’ll have to get back to you. But I think someone can have good policy positions and still be a creep. Supporting universal health care doesn’t necessarily make you a good feminist.

  15. I thought the debates were pretty insightful. Kucinich and the crazy old coot are closest to my own political stances, but neither as a chance of winning the nomination, so I’ll be choosing between Clinton and Obama. I agree that Clinton seemed the most presidential; she was definitely the most self-assured and confident. I’m just afraid that if she gets the nomination she’ll be clobbered in the general election (even if just by fraud). So I’ve been leaning towards Obama. I don’t know.
    While I caught most of the debates, apparently I either tuned in too late or drifted off too early and missed the comment re: Clinton’s jacket. Can someone explain?

  16. media reporters have become so increasingly inane that last night’s YouTube was a breath of fresh air. after a week of clinic attacks in birmingham, alabama, that were totally ignored in print and on TV (probably radio too but don’t listen), what a great moment when Ann of Planned Parenthood asked her question about sex education. hello, people, we need to be asking the questions, help out the smiley faces who seem to have forgotten what they learned in journalism school.

  17. The Jacket comment can be found here.

    For some reason the sex ed question isn’t working anymore – only the question is up, not the responses.

  18. I thought the debates were pretty insightful. Kucinich and the crazy old coot are closest to my own political stances, but neither as a chance of winning the nomination, so I’ll be choosing between Clinton and Obama.

    Agreed, except for the crazy old coot. He’s right about some things, but reallly wrong about others. Kucinich’s policy positions generally match mine, but he is unelectable, which is unfortunate. I was leaning Edwards, but now I’m pretty disenchanted by him. So Clinton or Obama it is.

  19. Hillary kicked ass! The woman-baiting question “can you handle them sexist A-rabs?” was one she had obviously been waiting for, and she knocked it right out of the park, with so much grace.

    Her answer was perfect, a variation of “been there and done that”–reminding everyone she had already visited 82 countries and had met most of these leaders already: No biggie.

    And she acted like it was no biggie, too! I was SO PROUD of her.

  20. I don’t think Edwards’ coat comment was so bad… it was a stupid question and he was doing his best to make a joke out of it.

    I thought his passion about healthcare and his honesty about a lot of other issues stood in marked contrast to the others. I loved Obama initially, but he takes a sort of lofty, substance-free approach to so many of these questions and refuses to condemn the Republicans because of his insistence that “we are all the same and we all want change.” I prefer Edwards’ and Hillary’s dogged partisanship– we are not all the same and I don’t want those right wing creeps in charge of my Gov’t!

  22. Biden was making a joke re: Kucinich and wife- he was annoyed at the question and the format in general. I got the impression that he really hated the YouTube format and informality of it.

    Hillary did well; it definitely played to her strengths.

  23. I wonder how a hypothetical candidates would grade out if he/she answered every query with “Wow, that’s a good question.” and then shut up.

  24. Eh, shaping up for a “none of the above” or “hold my nose and vote for the least noxious candidate.” Those who avoid voting for candidates on the issues and are swayed by the “electability” bullshit are complicit in the Democrat’s righward creep. The primaries are where those of us on the left can make the case for a truely progressive platform rather than a rubber-stamped Clinton platform.

    Did Clinton address the gay marriage issue? I couldn’t find it in the transcript.

    Either way, it’s a field that reinforces my belief that my activism time and minimal funds are best spent elsewhere.

  25. Well, I jumped on the Edwards bandwagon when Amanda and Melissa were hired, and I’ve been hanging on ever since. I’m still with him as the most progressive of the top-tier candidates, but don’t expect him to gain the nomination.

    So my money is still flowing in small sums to Edwards. (Mainly, though, I’m giving to the D-triple C and holding my fire for the general election). I’ll probably cast my ballot differently than I spend my money; if the California primary were today, I’d fill in the bubble for Kucinich.

    And call me an old fogey, but I liked Bill Richardson last night. I agree with you, Jill, about Clinton’s stellar work and Edwards’ lamentable behavior, but I catch a spark from the governor that others don’t seem to.

    He’ll make a fine Secretary of something, as others have said. The real question is whether Clinton dares make Obama her veep choice, and whether he’d take it.

  26. I really am a bit puzzled by why anyone would change their minds about candidates based on debates; it’s just a terrible format for revealing much about positions, and it gives absolutely no information about whom they trust for advice, which I think Bush has shown, tragically, to be absolutely crucial. We’re not looking for someone to play a president on TV; we’re looking for someone to run the executive department.

    I also find it really sad that the ‘serious’ position on foreign policy is to maintain a (smaller) occupying force halfway around the world indefinitely, when all of the evidence shows that our presence actually makes things worse rather than better. It’s really a direct analog of “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” Sigh.

  27. Did anyone else notice that only 12 of the YouTube questions shown over the course of the whole 2 hours of the debate were posed by women? I know this is a side issue, but I found it extremely frustrating. I find it hard to believe that that many fewer women than men posted videos.

    Also, about half of those were “women’s issues” questions. Come on, CNN. Get it together.

    But I did love the woman who offered to make a standardized ballot sheet. She was awesome.

  28. I’ve always kind of gotten the feeling that he’s campaigning to get a position in the cabinet of a Democratic president.

    Richardson has already held cabinet positions, under Bill Clinton. But i think you may be on to something: it looks a lot like he is hoping to be the Secretary of State in 2009.

  29. My thoughts:

    a) Anderson Cooper sharing screen time with Barack Obama? SO HOT.

    b) Clinton – meh. I preferred Obama on diplomacy. I don’t like the idea of using communication (or its being withheld) as a leverage. Communication needs to form the basis of every diplomatic activity. Besides, if she plans on the sanctions-and-missiles approach that her husband used for Iraq, I’m not interested.

    c) Edwards on same-sex marriage. Awful. I hate how he always talks about his personal struggle and moral whatever. STRAIGHT PEOPLE: THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Why can’t candidates ever talk about queer people when they discuss queer issues?

    d) Obama didn’t ever really impress me, but he also avoided doing anything particularly wrong. Okay, he impressed me when he called bullshit on the minimum wage question. “You’re doing fine, Chris!” CLASSY. But not classist.

    I thought Hilary and Obama did fine, but neither of them really did enough that I could see them gaining or losing support. And certainly none of the minor candidates did anything to challenge their lead. Though if there is anything just in the world, this will be the end of Edwards. The coat diss, and the “bad touching” – holy. awkward.

  30. Debates in general barely mean anything anymore, other than being a new PR tool. So yeah, there IS nothing else to comment on other than creepiness and foxiness.

    And oh my god…Anderson’s reporting/interviewing skills are not only inspirational to me, but are as much of a turn-on as his looks are!

    Is it wrong for me to see someone as my role model for my chosen career path, and also want to violate them in so many filthy, sinful ways?

  32. Oh, and that link has a small picture that may not be safe for work and could really bother some people — even though it’s small. I wouldn’t look too closely.

  35. Can you comment on any of the actual content of the debate or just on perceived creepiness and foxiness?

    Well, you know, Anderson Cooper is Jill’s Other Boyfriend of long standing, so you have to expect the foxiness comment.

    Hillary kicked ass! The woman-baiting question “can you handle them sexist A-rabs?” was one she had obviously been waiting for, and she knocked it right out of the park, with so much grace.

    Good for her. I am so tired of suggestions that our best response to Islam is to become more sexist, so, you know, we can compete.

    Those who avoid voting for candidates on the issues and are swayed by the “electability” bullshit are complicit in the Democrat’s righward creep.

    How much attention you should pay to “electability” depends on what kind of “electability” you’re looking at. I definitely want, from among those candidates who come closest to my positions, to choose among the ones with the experience and skill to actually promote those positions best. Where I drew the line, last election, was with those pundits who were telling me I should eliminate everyone opposed to the Iraq War in the name of electability. I’m a Quaker; if I have to vote for a hawk to pick someone electable, electability has lost its point.

    This election, it’s a little murkier who is going to be best at extracting us from Iraq.

  37. Jill,

    My point is that you decided Kucinich is creepy before watching the debates. Please tell me what Kucinich said in the debate that was creepy.

    Kucinich’s policy positions generally match mine, but he is unelectable

    Well, yeah, if you and other prominent progressive bloggers keep taking the opportunities to promote him and his policies as creepy instead of saying upfront and honestly that you support his positions. If you were as honest as he is, and if bloggers were less into political games, then he might actually have a shot.

  38. errm, according to ontheissues.org i read this “Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)” about dennis kucinich.

    and really, id rather someone who was anti-choice become pro-choice, like kucinich, than someone who was pro-choice become anti-choice, like the majority of the republican candidates.

    and i thought edwards comment wasnt bad, afterall, he and hillary not realizing anyone could hear had that nice chummy moment a bit ago about the need to limit the debates to the “serious” candidates only. i prefer edwards to clinton or obama, but really, so far as i can tell, theyre owned by the same companies, they are the same candidate.

    ill vote for whomever gets the nomination, but it would be great to see someone with actual vision like kucinich at least get tossed a bone as the VP running mate. im not nearly naive enough to think he has a chance at the nomination.

  39. My point is that you decided Kucinich is creepy before watching the debates.

    Jesus, Elaine, the man didn’t just hatch from a pod the morning of the debate. He’s run for President before; Jill’s had plenty of time to form an opinion of him before last night.

  40. If you were as honest as he is, and if bloggers were less into political games, then he might actually have a shot.

    Somehow, I don’t think the blogetariat is going to turn the election.

    The guy’s been running in the single digits for years. He has no hope of winning, but what he can do within the framework of electoral politics as it exists is have some influence over the platform of the party. Which is why you get these no-hope candidates running.

  41. Well, yeah, if you and other prominent progressive bloggers keep taking the opportunities to promote him and his policies as creepy instead of saying upfront and honestly that you support his positions. If you were as honest as he is, and if bloggers were less into political games, then he might actually have a shot.

    I’m playing political games by reflecting honestly on how I feel about the candidates? I’d suggest that choking back my own feelings about the candidates in order to advance one of them would be playing political games.

    And actually, no, I hadn’t decided that Kucinich was creepy before the debate. I like Kucinich’s policy positions; I’ve expressed my affection for him before. I’m glad Kucinich is in the race, particularly because he forces the other candidates to address lefty issues. I’m not anti-Kucinich; I’m not interested in cutting down Kucinich to boost Clinton or Obama (not that they need it).

    I just think the wife thing is creepy, and I distrust his commitment to abortion rights.

    I also resent the implication that expressing my opinion of him is somehow making him less politically tenable, or that it makes me dishonest. I’m happy to say that I support most of his positions. I think he’s unelectable regardless — which doesn’t mean that I won’t say I support him. I have said that I agree with him on a lot of things. However, he’s not my candidate of choice, for a variety of reasons. I mentioned the creep factor because the wife thing came up in the debate.

    I wish that my opinion about Dennis Kucinich had any effect whatsoever on his electability. If it did, I might actually play some political games, swallow my distaste for certain aspects of his character and his voting record, and throw myself behind him, because I do support him for the most part. But as it stands, I don’t support any of the Democratic candidates yet, and I think they’re all open to criticism on both their policy positions and the aura they give off, because both of those things matter to voters. Kucinich doesn’t get a pass just because he’s the liberal underdog.

  42. errm, according to ontheissues.org i read this “Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)” about dennis kucinich.

    Sure. And in 1999-2000, he was rated 95% by National Right to Life.

    Perhaps he’s had a change of heart. I would believe that he’s moderated on the issue, because his voting record tends to suggest that. But I have a hard time believing that he’s suddenly become a staunch advocate for women’s rights, just coincidentally when he was trying to get the Democratic party’s nomination for the presidency.

  43. ill vote for whomever gets the nomination, but it would be great to see someone with actual vision like kucinich at least get tossed a bone as the VP running mate. im not nearly naive enough to think he has a chance at the nomination.

    I agree, Jess. I’m really not trying to tar Kucinich here. But I do have some serious questions about his treatment of women’s issues, and I think it’s fair to put them out there. I also don’t think there’s any way in hell he’ll get the VP position. In my ideal world it would be different, but Kucinich is not going to get mainstream support any time soon. But I do think it’s great that he’s up there, and that he’s demanding his voice be heard — it does move the dialogue left, and it does matter to have someone up on stage who will take a solid stand for progressive causes. I’m glad he’s there to do that, and I wish he had more power.

  44. i agree too. obviously (or maybe not that obvious since you dont kno me) i think protecting reproductive freedom and expanding choice is incredibly important. i give him the benefit of the doubt becos i want to believe he and i are on the same page and we agree on every other issue. as to his wife, like i said, shes a pretty impressive woman, and not just becos shes beautiful. she comes from a background of social justice/poverty relief charity work and in interviews ive read she seems incredibly bright. even moreso they seem incredibly in love, and im willing to believe that its not about her looks, but about shared passion for change. im right around her age, and tho im not often attracted to older men, there really is something charming about kucinich, theres this twinkle in his eye that reflects his intellect that i think could really win me over.

    what about al gore? i kno hes most likely not running (tho he hasnt ruled it out completely, yay), but would you want him to? my dream ticket is gore/kucinich.

  48. The coat thang: someone asked a stupid and annoying question, that felt like it belonged in a high school retreat, telling each of the candidates to say one thing they like and one thing they disliked about the candidate to their left. Edwards said some nice things about Clinton, then added, “I’m not sure about that coat, though.” I didn’t think it was that bad, having just watched it, but most of the other candidates came up with wittier things to say (except for Biden, who came across as a complete asshole and, yes, a bit of a creep (“Hey, Dennis, how’s your wife?“)). Clinton just laughed at Edwards’ remark. Obama then came back and said, when it was his turn, that he liked her coat.

  49. My summary of the coat thing (based on watching it once, earlier today):

    The question posed by the YouTuber was to (paraphrasing) “Turn to the person on your left and say one thing you like and one thing you dislike about them.” It was pretty lame, really, a couple people dodged the criticism bit completely. The Edwards said something nice and generic about Clinton, and followed it with (I may be getting this off by a word or two), “But I’m really not sure about that jacket.” Clinton laughed, like she was actually really amused by the comment.

    My take was that he was trying to come up with -something- and chose a lame, jokey sort of ha-ha. Which actually annoyed me less than the “Well, I want to run a positive campaign, so I’m not going to criticize this wonderful person here on my left who I admire and respect SO VERY MUCH or even bother pointing out where I disagree with him” tack taken by a couple of the others.

  50. Okay, I should proofread myself better, clearly, but you should get the drift.

    I do get that it’s Yet Another example of pointing out something about Clinton’s clothing, rather than her politics; maybe that’s why it’s irritating other people?

  53. My two cents on Kucinich: he’s annoying, pointless, and not “principled” so much as he is a self-righteous crank. He’s like Ralph Nader (who, if I’m not mistaken, was also militantly anti-choice before 2000); they’re right about a few important things, but dead and absurdly wrong about so much else. And their supporters tend to be even more sanctimonious and clueless than they are. Dennis Kucinich is a laughing stock; having him represent left-wing, progressive positions doesn’t give them more influence, it makes them look more pointless, irrelevant and crack-potty. It makes people who support them look like delusional hippy holdovers and wanna-bes, or just out-and-out weirdos. If you want to push things left, just vote for the Greens or the DSA (probably who I’ll vote for, depending on where I’m living at that point). The Democrats have drifted rightward because the perception is that’s how you win general elections, not because there aren’t enough primary votes going to the candidate making vacuously self-righteous statements about “peace.”

    And here’s a newsflash: you’re voting for a candidate, not a set of policy positions. One of the things the prez has to do is deal with the unexpected; so, yes, your personal impression of a candidate and what kind of president she would make is important. Also, bully pulpit, etc., etc.

  54. My very close rendition of events….

    The question was: say one positive and one negative thing about the candidate to your left.

    Edwards: I admire what Senator Clinton has done for America, and what her husband did for America…I’m not sure how I feel about that coat. (Rakes eyes over body).

    Clinton: (responds with the kind of half-derisive/half-embarrassed/I-can’t-believe-that-pecker-just-said-that-to-me laughter that we women have mastered.)

    Hotty Hotness Coope    r: Senator Clinton?

    Clinton: John, it’s a good thing we’re ending soon. [Blah, blah, blah, we all love each other and blah, blah, are ready to lead, but of course, I’m way cooler than all these men, because America is ready for change…in the form of someone with a vagina.]

    Obama: (Sweetly) Well, I like her coat!

    Actually, this question really annoyed me, because it was a good chance for each candidate to say what made them unique from the others, and instead turned into a giant…well, not “circle jerk”, but you know…. I’m glad they all like each other (right), but I really wanted to know their actual responses to this question.

    I came into the debate favoring Obama, but man, was Hilary good. Regardless of politic, she came across as someone you could trust to run things and run them well.

    And, she has nice skin.

  55. Jill, about Bill Richardson and Iraq. I get where you’re coming from, because I once felt similarly—I was against the war when it started, but thought that we had a committment to stay and fix things. But here’s the thing that changed my mind. 79% of Iraqis say that the U.S. presence is making things worse in Iraq (both because our troops are instigating unnecessary violence, and because their very presence fuels the insurgency). 71% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. troops to withdraw in the near future (37% for within 6 months, 34% for within 1 year). So when you say that we need to stay to “give the Iraqi people the tools to rebuild their own country,” you’re in the perverse position of saying we need to help people who (1) say we’re not actually helping them and (2) violently want us to stop. If the Iraqi people are in favor of a rapid withdrawal, I don’t see how it’s irresponsible for a U.S. presidential candidate to be in favor of exactly the same thing.

  56. Edwards is too slick, Biden’s too cranky, Kucinich is too flaky, Richardson’s too bland, and Clinton’s a racist.

    I’d vote for Obama.

  57. The Democrats have drifted rightward because the perception is that’s how you win general elections

    but thats just plain wrong, it hasnt worked no matter how hard they try, the further they move to the right the further they alienate the base.

    i turned 18 a few months prior to the 2000 election, and i voted green becos al gore seemed like he didnt actually have a position on anything except the one that whoever was listening currently wanted to hear. the same thing happened in 2004 with kerry and so i wrote in the green candidate (cobb) as he wasnt on the ballot in my state.

    im tired of having to use my vote as a protest vote. i want to see someone who actually has a chance to win share my beliefs (plus my local green party was silent on the immigration reform bill and the SCOTUS abortion ruling) so im back, and im going to use my voice as much as i can, and i hope others do the same, and try to steer the democrats back into being the peoples party. afterall, we are supposed to be their bosses, we pay their salaries.

    and i think the top 3 democrats would make fantastic presidents. of industry, not this country.

  58. Apropos of Dennis: Dennis and I had a similar shift on abortion. I started out pro-choice, became an evangelical, became pro-life. I spent a few years agonizing in the “consistent life ethic camp” where I emphasized that abortion was just one issue among many (going hand in hand with pacifism, veganism, anti-death penalty, etc.). Eventually, I came back to the pro-choice stance, albeit after a lot of thought and agony.

    Dennis is a vegan pacifist who is interested, on a fundamental level, in talking about life issues holistically. He’s interested in moving the consistent life message from the margins to the center, and it’s a hard and lonely battle. I honor him for that.

    In the end, I’m convinced that the best we can hope for from a Clinton or Obama presidency is some very solid cabinet picks. A real environmentalist running Interior, someone with a real commitment to civil rights running Justice, etc.

  59. What about Richardson’s comment that “no one who is mentally ill should be able to buy a firearm” (or something along those lines)? I don’t want to come off sounding “pro-gun”, but that seems rather arbitrary. He could have just as easily said “anyone who is a danger to themselves or others”…

  61. but thats just plain wrong, it hasnt worked no matter how hard they try, the further they move to the right the further they alienate the base.

    I think you and I would like to see the same things happen politically, jess, but just for the sake of argument, I think you could argue the opposite point persuasively, just in terms of strategy. Clinton was extremely popular and, obviously, successful, and retained very high approval ratings even during his impeachment. I think you could definitely argue that Gore and Kerry were done in by a mixture of hostile and incompetent media coverage and extremely poor campaigning/skills as candidates. Again, I don’t paricularly want to see a DLC candidate win the election, but I’m not sure their basic strategy has been refuted or shown to be inadequate.

  62. Anyone else think that Elizabeth Kucinich looks like Julianne Moore? Hubba hubba!

    Who let Joe Biden in here?!

  63. Dear gods, I am sick of the disrespect that Hillary Clinton gets, here and everywhere else. Why do people insist on using her first name, when all the men are referred to by their surname? At least on this site, most people use her surname, but there’s still a number of people who don’t. Gah.

    (No, not voting for her. Not voting. Not American.)

  64. Why do people insist on using her first name, when all the men are referred to by their surname? At least on this site, most people use her surname, but there’s still a number of people who don’t. Gah.

    Well, to be fair, it’s often the equivalent of using Dubya to refer to the current president. When you share the same surname as a predecessor (something that the rest of the crop of Dem candidates do not), you do need something to avoid confusion. I agree it is occasionally sexist, but usually a desire to avoid confusion with the Compartmentalizer in Chief to whom she is married.

  65. Oh bloggery, how you help us air our grievances…

    I don’t think it’s disrespect to call her Hillary at all, for several reasons:

    1. We are not in a formal setting that would require formal titles.

    2. To me, to call her Hillary is a sign of respect, even of honor that she alone is THE Hillary. Unless you’re a thirteen-year-old boy and automatically think of a former blonde Disney TV star when you say the first name, Americans KNOW which Hillary it is without adding a last name. In fact, there are very few people that are known just by one name; it means something significant to get to that place.
    3. We are not in a formal setting…oh wait, said that one.

    Would I call her “Hillary” to her face? No. I’d call her Senator Clinton, since we’ve never formally met, and to be polite. (I’m assuming that would be more of a formal setting and I wouldn’t be in my pajamas maowing down on a bucket full of Dibs). Just like I’d call our president “Mr. President”, as I’m sure “Captain Fucktard”–as I prefer to think of him–would not go over well.

  67. Jill,
    Please tell me what Kucinich said in the debate that was creepy.

    He came across as creepy. At least to me. It’s a perception, and you certainly don’t have to agree with it. I never said that he made creepy comments; I said that he is a creep. That’s because he strikes me as a creep.

  68. Jill, I think I saw you on the Daily Show, but I’m not sure. Were you at somebody’s apartment? When you said you were hanging out with Drinking Liberally folks, I thought you meant you were at a bar. But I’m pretty sure it was you with the ponytail in the background while John Oliver was interviewing people chugging beer. Nice!

  69. I think you and I would like to see the same things happen politically, jess, but just for the sake of argument, I think you could argue the opposite point persuasively, just in terms of strategy. Clinton was extremely popular and, obviously, successful, and retained very high approval ratings even during his impeachment.

    i think youre right in that we probably do want the same things. i just feel like the best way for the dems to win is to appeal to the people who dont vote, and those people are the ones who feel they arent being spoken to, the people on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, young people, people of color, the lgbt community, and women. those are also, so for as i can tell, the people who stand to benefit the most from a government truly for the people (i say that as a member of 3 out of 5 of those groups). the margins in elections recently have been so damn close that if they brought out all the people who dont vote and got them voting in droves i think the dems could be unstoppable. and i dont think it would be that hard at all.

    i was too young to vote for clinton, but probably would have had i been able to. theres an appeal to that man that really extends beyond anything i can define. in trying to explain it all i can think is this, a whole bunch of americans dissapointed me by voting for the g-dub becos he came off as a “mans man” they could drink beer with and tell AIDS jokes together. like an 8 year frat party, woooooooooooooooooooooooo! *shudder*

    i think people liked bill clinton becos he seemed like the sort of guy you could hang out with maybe smoking pot or huffing nitrous, maybe do some air guitar to led zeppelin and try to one up each other with tales of past sexual debauchery. he was like the adult professional version of that cool guy at your highschool who plays in a band and skateboards and gets all the girls, but hes also serious with his pursed lip and intellect and all.

    he had policy i agreed with and policy i disagreed with but i liked him. i dont so much kno if policy change has been the big issue that has been losing for the democrats so much as refusing to actually tell anyone what their positions and policies are. their way of moving to the right has mostly been to shut up about what they do believe and what they do want and to speak out both sides of their mouths when asked direct questions.

    i see it in obama now, if i understood a comment on pandagon correctly, he is again supporting clean coal, which he had stopped supporting, which he before that supported.

    i dont ask that every candidate agree with everything i believe, if they agreed with me theyd be called commie pinko bastards and would never win elections. i just want to kno what they believe, and i think thats what theyre losing with, by not being outspoken enough. i think they figure the best way to pander to the swing voter stuck in the middle (who i dont fully believe exists) is to be as average as possible in every single way. and average doesnt win elections.

    the way they won in 06 was becos we wanted change, but thats not going to keep them winning indefinitely, theyre going to have to find substance again.

  70. “Sen. Clinton won. She seemed the most presidential, and projected the most power.”

    I think this is part of the problem with American politics.

    I want a leader who’s atypical. Why? Because look at Washington today and you’ll see what conventional politicans do for us (or to us, I should say). Therefore, I don’t want someone who is “presidential” or someone who projects power. That’s like eating stale food for dinner…every night. We need (and I desire) leaders who will make the best decisions for our people and our country (and the world, to a certain extent).

  71. “Dear gods, I am sick of the disrespect that Hillary Clinton gets, here and everywhere else. Why do people insist on using her first name, when all the men are referred to by their surname?”

    Because respect is something that should be earned. It doesn’t show up on your doorstep packaged along with all your official titles.

  72. Because respect is something that should be earned.

    Disingenuous, Marksman2000.

    The quoted commentor isn’t talking about any special *extra* respect for Clinton. The question is why does Clinton not get the same level of respect as the other candidates.

    Shouldn’t they all get the same level of respect, Marksman?

  73. Anyone who complains about people referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name hasn’t visited her website lately, with its Hillary for President banner, “Hillary” button to access her bio, contribution button asking you to become a “Hillraiser,” button for joining “Team Hillary,” news about “Senator Feinstein endorses Hillary,” “HillaryStore,” “HillaryHub,” etc.

    IOW, she’s the one encouraging use of her first name to refer to her. And since she doesn’t fart without consulting the polling data, one can safely assume that this was a deliberate choice on her part, likely to emphasize that she was not simply running on her husband’s coattails and using his name recognition for her own advantage *cough*GeorgeBush*cough*, but that she was running on her own achievements.

    In addition, she took her husband’s last name only reluctantly, and to help his political career. Why not drop it to help her own?

Comments are currently closed.