| Wolf Blizter is a muppet. It is amazing to me that some people maintain bloggers are not journalists, while crediting creatures like Blitzer with the worthy title. He appeared confused; asked aimless "color" questions; rarely pushed the candidates into anything resembling an actual debate; and seemed to have only a vague grasp of the major issues. One can find tougher questions, better analysis, and more substantive information in 30 minutes on the internet than in a full day of CNN.
Where was Mike Gravel? If they are going to put Kucinich on stage for comic relief, why not Gravel as well. The ostensible reason was that he hasn't raised enough money. Does anyone else find it ironic that Kucinich, who normally rants with the best of them about the corrupting influence of money in politics and the importance of giving a platform to fringe candidates, chose to participate despite Gravel's exclusion.
Calling Senator Clinton, "Hillary," while everyone else normally is addressed by an honorific and their family name, grates every time I hear it. I think it's sexist: she's a girl, first name will do. Grown up names for the men. On the other hand, Senator Clinton has chosen, "Hillary," for her campaign branding, so maybe she has brought it on herself.
My conclusions: Clinton and Obama sounded Presidential and did very well. I saw nothing to change my opinion of Edwards as a lightweight (set when he got crushed by Cheney in the Vice-Presidential debate). Richardson did enormously better than in past appearances (for example, his miserable effort on The Daily Show), but his self-deprecation is no longer cute: we're voting for a President. Dodd is my pick for Most Improved: he was impressive and well informed -- why doesn't he have more traction? Biden loves to hear himself talk. I guess it really is true that every U.S. Senator who looks in a mirror sees a President. Appearances can be deceiving. |
