Did you happen to catch the debates last night? I thought they were very interesting. My two picks of the night were John McCain and John Edwards. I thought McCain seemed very calm and collected and was pointed in his responses. He did not seem to be flailing like some of the others. Poised is a good word. Edwards spoke with great passion, and this goes a long way with me since I seldom see authentic passion in candidates. Most of them are giving a mediocre acting performance at best. As for the others: I felt that Obama didn’t really say much – Hillary was. . .well. . .Hillary, and Huckabee and Mitt seemed to be in combat the whole time. I also enjoyed Governor Richardson and Fred Thompson and am eager to see if these debates help their ratings much. How about Rudy? Well, I think he has some very strong leadership skills and would make a great addition to someone’s cabinet, but I am not convinced he’s the right man for the Presidency at this time.
I do not like it when candidates get personal with jabs and quips. I think this makes them look weak and insecure. I saw a lot of this last night. The one thing I did notice is that over-all, I think we have some much better choices than in the past few Presidential elections. I remember during the last election being so frustrated because I did not like either candidate, but had no one else to vote for so I had to settle for one. This year it will be easier to choose a candidate because I feel most of them have possibilities.
9 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
I agree completely with what you said about John Edwards. He really seems to be the one who wants it the most and I hope he gets some success in New Hamp.
I, too, saw the debates (although I missed most of the Republican debates) and I saw quite a few candidates who would do well in the White House. Right now I am only pulling for Huckabee on the Republican side (Rudy overplayed the 9/11 card and McCain lost my respect a long time ago, even though he was the most mature out of everyone, it seemed, during the debate) and I honestly like everyone on the Democratic side (with the exception of Hilary, especially with her choosing to attack others rather than work with them), although the debate last night really made me wonder about Obama. When it comes to a speech, I’ll say he is the best out of all candidates, but during debates, he always seems to be fumbling with his words, which makes you wonder if he really intends on going with what he says to the people, or if he just likes to dazzle the masses with his speeches.
Good points Rogpog. Thanks for sharing.
I concur.
I caught the debates (not the Republican ones, I had just gotten home from work and flipped on the TV). I must say, I, too, was impressed by Edwards. He presented himself extremely well – although I wasn’t too fond of the attacks on Hillary (not that I am a Hillary fan, mind you, and I was not pleased with her in the debates last night). He was on ABC News this morning and presented himself extremely well then too.
I was also surprised by Richardson. I had never considered his views before, but now, hmmm. He’s a possibility…he might make a good VP?
I think Obama just wasn’t at his best last night. Although, he didn’t seem to mudsling as much as the others, and maybe that’s why he’s being viewed as quiet. No matter how much he may have spoken, I agree with many of his ideas and think that from the responses he gave, he knows what he’s doing.
We’ll see what happens when the primaries are over with.
I did chuckle at the fact that when asked a direct question, few of them ever seemed to really answer it. Heh. Poiticians…*sigh*
I said the exact same as Ellease said: Richardson would make a fine VP. He seems too passive to sit in the big chair, however.
Food for thought. Remember please that ALL of the Democrats running for the nation’s highest office are liberals.
Dad
That’s interesting – I thought McCain and Romney were the ones sparring the most. I actually thought Fred Thompson did the best on both the ABC and Fox debates, but it is too late for him, I think. Plus, he’s just W., part II, and nobody wants another cowboy who maintains the same policies. Everyone’s looking for change.
My man Huck seemed too defensive in both debates, which is sad for me. But as long as it’s not Giuliani or Romney, I’d be relatively happy with any of the other 3. My main problem with McCain is he’s trying to say he’s pro-life, but at the same time he thinks it’s OK to kill babies to perform medical experiments on them. Even though embryonic stem cell research has produced NO promising results, and adult stem cells are now being used to treat 73 diseases. I wish McCain would be pro-life all the way and focus on the real promising treatment of adult stem cells. Then I would have no problems with him. Embryos left over from IVF procecdures don’t have to be either experimented on or thrown out – several of them have been adopted and born. That’s a much better solution.
We banked Nate’s stem cells when he was born, and plan on doing it with Baby #2 as well.
Liz – I think you said it best, Huckabee seemed defensive. While McCain did have a few jabs at Romney, I thought they were not out of desperation, and more like warning shots coming from a more experienced senator.
I hope that’s how it ends up coming across. McCain needs to win NH in order to oust Romney as a contender. Of course, polls in states all over the nation have Huck leading or a close 2nd, so that may end up being the ticket – McCain/Huckabee or the other way around. That’s one I could live with. =)
I especially liked McCain’s line “Yes, (Mitt), you ARE the candidate of change.” God forbid we have a repeat of 2004 with a flip-flopper in the GOP this time.