Democratic You Tube Debate--A successful experiment.


The Democratic You Tube Debate not only informed the public what the candidates stood for, but also revealed who they are as people. It showed who had the courage to answer the uncomfortable questions and who chose to dodge with clever dialogue or stubborn antagonism. Most of the candidates came off as wise, clever professionals who had the country’s best interests at heart. Clinton, Edwards and Obama benefited the most. All three were well informed and approached the questions with courage and directness. The three of them clearly had an energy and mutual respect connection. However, Senator Mike Gravel came off as angry and bitter; his focusing on the money came off more as sour grapes than any real concern for political change. The rest of the candidates made themselves and their issues more real to the public by not only showing their knowledge about the challenges the country faces, but also their human side and their passion for change.
Senator Hillary Clinton came off as very practical, informed and human. Those who have called her cold and distant in the past will have difficulty finding traction in the future. Senator Clinton was quick and direct with her answers. She clearly was attempting to be not only the leader of the pack but the unify factor between them. The only time this became a negative was at the end when she refused to directly say anything about Senator Obama. Her body language while he spoke and the issues they agree upon revealed the great respect she has for him. However, her refusal to directly address him was more of a political ploy than a personal snub. It was quite evident she likes him as a person and as a public servant, yet he is the one nipping at her heels. The quips with Senator Edwards about her jacket also showed their underlying respect for each other. It seemed to be a private joke between them. Senator Clinton’s laughter was not only genuine, but gave the public a peek into her as person. It was an unguarded moment, which showed the person behind the politician. Her willingness to address the environment issues directly were to her credit, as were her realistic expectations about the withdraw from Iraq. She took the time to investigate the practical limitations and challenges of moving not only personal, but also the equipment and civilian staff.
Senator John Edwards was also very informed, direct and sensible. His focus on poverty, the environment, and health care spoke directly to the needs of majority of the country. His video revealed not only his wit, but also the silliness of his critics. However, he did fall a little short on the foreign issues. It was not so much of what he said, but his lack of participation that caught my attention. He was never really engaged on the topic; however, he was very passionate on health care, the environment, alternative energy and education. It was very evident that his knowledge and passion lies with domestic issues. The changes Senator Edwards proposes in alternative energy are quite doable with the current technology. In addition, his comments on his religious beliefs showed his respect for civil rights and the need of a president to represent the whole country not just special interest groups. He is very passionate about helping lift up the disadvantaged of the country, not as a political agenda, but to fulfill a promise he made to himself and his God. He sees this country’s strength coming from its diversity, its civil rights, and its heart. His shining moments can when he answered the difficult questions, not by dodging them but by defining them on a more specific level that addressed the underlying issue.
Senator Barack Obama has a fresh perspective on the political arena. He sees the web of corruption behind the political scene and how the conglomerates have corrupted the country for their own greedy ends. Repeatedly he pointed out how the oil, drug, and insurance companies have been given special political privileges, which have hurt the individual as well as the pubic in general. However, instead of allowing his frustration and anger to dominate, he has channeled his energy into alternative solutions. His approach to the questions presented to him and his stance the issues is very reminiscent to that of Bobby Kennedy. Like Senator Edwards, his is focused on the health care, education, and the environment, but he was more outspoken on internationals issues. This could have simply been the result of the questions asked him. Although, he was questioned more on foreign policy, his answers revealed his inexperience as well as his passion to restore the country’s image worldwide.
Senator Joe Biden could be best described as practical. His solutions to both the country’s and the world issues are realistic. Although he is very passionate about resolving the conflict in Iraq, he understands the challenges involved in bringing personal and equipment home. He also was the most military supportive of the candidates; by asking that the military have the most effective technology and equipment, he’s focus is on getting the job done, while keeping personal safe. Unlike the current administration, he doesn’t see military personal as expendable. On occasion, his frustration with several other candidates seeped through the political facade on this topic. The conflict in Darfur changed his perspective of the world and made him question his own values. It was a turning point in his life that changed his personal and professional ambitions. With his experience and knowledge, he would be an excellent organizer of the withdrawal from Iraq as well as determining which world issues the country should become involved in.
Governor Bill Richardson was also greatly influenced by Darfur. The cease fire between al-Bashir and leaders of several rebel factions was only one of his diplomatic successes. As with Senator Biden, his trips to Darfur have changed him. But instead of becoming angry, he uses the energy to create alternative solutions. His passion for change and for peace made some of his solutions unrealistic, especially when it comes to troop withdrawal. He was knowledgeable about country’s issues. As Governor of New Mexico, he has already created changes in the educational system, energy resources and civil rights. Although he supported the marriage act, he fully supports civil unions. He is very protective of civil liberties; medical, religious, lifestyle, and legal rights are not optional nor is it the governments business to made personal decisions for the individual.
Senator Christopher Dodd is politically aware and sees the broad picture in foreign affairs, yet his solutions aren’t sensible or feasible. His long political service gives him the inside practical knowledge of how the system works and helps him navigate the turbulent waters of personal egos and special interests. When he was the new kid on the block, he had the spunk to fight windmills, yet that passion has mellowed into practical solutions and the ability to compromise. He believes that a nationwide public service program will redirect the growing lethargy of the American public and reigniting their patriotism as well as reawakening the nation’s adventurer spirit. Although he originally supported the war, he changed his position when the truth came out. He as since become an outspoken advocate of holding President Bush fully responsible for eroding the nation’s reputation and for the increase terrorist threat around the world.
Former Senator Mike Gravel focus on following the money, initially came off as sour grapes as he financially failed to gain traction. He came off angry and frustrated, yet it was only by listening to him and doing research that I found that wasn’t the source of his anger. He has spent decades fighting political corruption only to find the same issues reappearing. He has fought for truth in government and personally helped end the draft. He fought for alternative energy while it was unpopular to do so. He took on the White House and forced them make the Pentagon Papers public. His long service has been exceptional; yet he no matter how much work he has done, nothing seems to change except the faces of the politicians. Many of the same issues he fought for and against at the beginning of his career have again resurfaced as if nothing had been achieve. It would make anyone angry to look back at their career with all the personal and professional sacrifices only to find that so little has changed.
Representative Dennis Kucinich is a one issue candidate. Every issue relate back to the war. His is the only candidate who has consistently voted against the war, but that is all he could really talk about. Every topic was quickly diverted back to Iraq and how he was right. Although he was very passionate, he offered no realistic solutions to domestic or foreign issues. He is strong advocate of civil freedoms, alternative energy sources, and the environment; however, his stances on these issues get lost in the passion to end the war.
The experiment was an over all success. Candidates were able to speak out on the issues and the public was able to get to know them without the preparedness of the traditional debates. Generally the candidates knew what the topics would be, the questions were not screened and their responses for the most part were spontaneous. Although there was some disagreement on the details, all the candidates supported the withdrawal from Iraq, alternative energy, restructuring the educational system and civil rights. Their combined message was that of hope through positive change. For the most part, all the candidates benefited as did the public.