Random Thoughts on the Dem CNN-YouTube Debate

(OK, I've reposted this after it disappeared due to the TypePad power outtage. Now you may get it twice.)

These are my off-the-top-of-my-head, personal thoughts on last night's debate and the Dem candidates. What are your thoughts?

Some questions were more pointed than those usually posed by the MSM, but others were plain silly. It's unfortunate that the poobahs at CNN provided the screening as I'm sure there were many great video questions that CNN wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

CNN is completely biased putting the perceived "frontrunners" at the center of the stage with Kucinich and Gravel at the ends.

CNN is completely biased in giving the perceived "frontrunners" way more questions and way more time than other candidates.

When not every candidate gets to talk about some of the most important issues of the campaign -- like health care reform and environmental degradation -- the format is not serving the interests of voters.

No questions on campaign finance reform, the death penalty, "free" trade, labor issues, the increasingly evil role being played by hedge funds and private equity outfits, military spending, the silencing of real journalism, Iran or many other issues I wanted to hear about. But we did get questions on Hillary's gender, whether Obama is "black enough" and favorite teachers of the candidates. Go figure.

Anderson Cooper obviously doesn't know much about the issues and seemed most concerned with getting all the video questions aired rather then getting comprehensive answers. Let the candidates talk! He gave certain questions to certain candidates without regard to their experience. For instance, you'd think a question about nuclear power would go to Richardson given his experience as Energy Secretary and the fact that NM is so entangled in all things nuclear.

Gay Marriage: The answers from most of the candidates (except Kucinich) were weasling, confusing and just plain wrong. Civil unions or domestic partnerships DO NOT provide the same benefits as civil marriage as they omit hundreds of rights provided by federal civil marriage, like all the rights married couples get regarding Social Security survivorship, portability between states and nations, etc. Gay couples are already getting married in select churches -- it's the civil rights provided by civil marriage , which have absolutely nothing to do with religion or spiritual matters, that are unavailable. I did like that Richardson talked about what's "achievable" instead of talking about how "conflicted" he is about gay marriage, like Edwards did.

The Word Liberal: It really irked me that Hillary couldn't bring herself to respect the word "liberal." She claimed she's a "modern progressive," whatever that is. I guess it means you've abandoned the needs of those living in poverty, the working class and the middle class, and refuse to push for such things as single payer health coverage, in order to please the deep pocket donors from Wall Street and big corporations. But you don't hate gay people, African-Americans or Hispanics. Big whoop. DLC allegiance all the way, just like with Bill.

Health Care: Despite this issue generally being number 2 with the public behind Iraq, it got very little play. They crammed three questions on this into one and then didn't give many candidates a chance to answer. The health reform plans of every candidate except Kucinich preserve the role of for-profit insurance companies, brokers, HMOs etc., when it's clear that a majority of Americans want single payer NOW.

Say It Loud: As in previous debates, Kucinich and Gravel spoke the truth in no uncertain terms on a number of issues, making Cooper and the other candidates uncomfortable. How dare they not stay inside the box of accepted spin talk! They must be crazy! I especially liked Gravel calling out the others on the big donations they take from those connected with global finance and global corporatism. I liked Richardson's clear answer on No Child Left Behind: "I'd scrap it. It doesn't work."

The Dem Field: At this point in the race I have to say that no Dem candidate inspires me enough to get excited. Each one seems to have a gap where they need more substance and/or courage. Maybe I'm just too cynical or I'm still pining for the excitement and status quo challenges of the Dean campaign in 2004. It seems to me we need an incredibly high degree of wisdom, boldness, genuine leadership, passion, creativity and ethical purity if we're even to begin solving the profound problems we face.

Do you see those qualities in any of the current candidates? They all still seem so business as usual to me. Platitudes and spin. Of course, any one of them would be an incredibly better president than any of the Repubs. I'm just not very pumped up by any of them. Craving more charisma and truth! I also wonder if any of them realize we have a constitutional crisis going on ....

Hillary Clinton: The more I see her, the more I think she'll win the nomination based on her toughness, her ability to recite calculated talking points perfectly and her incredible intellect. What I question is what, exactly, she'll use that huge intellect to try and achieve. I don't trust her. Her links to corporatist forces are just too strong and many. Given that the Wall Street and big media forces are aligning behind her, I have a hunch she'll win the nomination hands down. She also uses her "first woman president" schtick to great advantage.

Barak Obama: Very good at using many words that sound substantive on their face but actually communicate little specific meaning. Yes, we're all for "hope" and solving problems and "turning the page." The devil is in the details, not the generic slogans. I tend to mistrust any politician who seems to entirely lack anger at what's going on in America and who seems to view anti-constitutional neocons as being amenable to bipartisan negotiation.

John Edwards: I like his wife much more than I like him. Although he voices positions that are often strong, creative and focused on the real problems we're experiencing as a nation, he doesn't seem tough enough to me to win against the Repub machine or to take on the powers he'd have to confront to achieve his stated plans. He often comes across as too slick and packaged. His populism is attractive but it's anyone's guess how sincere he is about it.

Bill Richardson: Too often, the Governor still seems not ready for prime time in his presence. I question many of his statements about what he wants to do in terms of education, health care and other issues. If he's being sincere, why hasn't he done more in New Mexico to achieve these aims? You have to wonder what he's promising away to raise the funds he's raising. I always get the sense he's really the DLC-oriented politico he's always been with some liberal, anti-war frosting added by consultants to make him more palatable to the Dem base. While he's done some very good things in NM, there's always that lingering sense that he does everything with an eye toward political gain rather than deep-seated values.

Joe Biden: Ever since he badgered Anita Hill at the Clarence Thomas hearings I've had a negative view of him. He often comes across as a bully to me. I don't believe his claim that he prays the rosary every day. He has deep connections with the financial and military establishments.

Chris Dodd: I like many things about Sen. Dodd, but he voted for the war and repeats Repub talking points like "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." Given the power of corporate players and the severe economic inequalities within his home of state of Connecticut, he's got some 'splainin' to do. Not enough charisma.

Dennis Kucinich: Great positions on many issues coupled with a very weak record of successful achievements in the Congress and beyond. He lacks any degree of pragmatism or realism on many issues. Still, I like that he's on the stage saying what the majority of base Democrats believe on the important issues. Somebody has to do it.

Mike Gravel: I like his ferocity, even if it can be a little over the top. I like his freedom to say things like all the troop deaths in Nam were a complete waste. Almost everyone knows that, but few will say it out loud. He did some really important things that I respect when he was a Senator in the Nam era, like filibustering against the draft and standing up for the release of the Pentagon papers. While he expresses a number of fringe views, I think he should be given his due instead of repeatedly being cut off and dissed by pundits, candidates and debate organizers.

See for yourself:

• Debate transcript Part 1 and Part 2.
• Complete video of debate.
• Video clips from PoliticsTV.