Iowa Democratic Debate

{Pour yourself a nice beverage and get comfortable. This is going to take a while.}

I just listened to most of the Democratic party Presidential debate in Iowa. As in previous election cycles, I am amazed at the media's continued insistence on labeling certain candidates as 'front runners'

It's as if there's a built-in myopia, possibly bred from having a two party system; we don't seem to be able to count higher than 3. (I am forced to wonder if Italians and citizens of other multi-party systems have the same counting problem.) Mass media's focus on only 2-3 candidates is not only unnecessary because of the unbelievably well qualified field of Democratic candidates, but such blindness is also a massive disservice to our nation regardless of party affiliation.

The media's role in a democracy is to help create a well-informed electorate, and one could arguably assert that the deliberate exclusion of certain candidates/candidate views is truly contrary to the media's own reason for existing in a democratic state. Of course mass media also provides entertainment and other, apolitical information, but when media outlets engage in earnest political coverage, a higher standard must be met.

In fact, I would assert that this imperative is stronger now than at any other time in our nation's colorful political history for at least two reasons.
1 - There have never before in our nation's history been so many opportunities to communicate to the electorate. I recognize and am truly thrilled that I live in a time that I don't have to rely on word-of-mouth to decide who to vote for. The concurrent vitality of electronic, broadcast, and print media has created more opportunities to get candidate information out there. It is, then, unconscionable to me that media outlets themselves limit who we hear from, or for how long.
2 - If our nation is going to continue to have such a forward-leaning stance on 'supporting democratization' in other countries, then we should demand that the machinery of democracy is put through it's paces. Our system can not be a beautiful grand piano sitting in the corner for all to admire, we have to actually play the damn thing for people to hear, to become inspired.

My rundown on the debate, as much for anyone else's consumption as to help remind me what I think of these people when voting day comes:
* Dodd impressed me with cogent statements, optimism, and awareness of the issues upon which he was asked to speak. I would like to learn more about how he differs from the other candidates - y'know, aside from being an underdog - on any key policy or leadership issues.
* What the hell was up with the guy from New Mexico? He sounds like I would if I were campaigning - too honest, too humble, too easily able to focus on the wrong thing. I'm a really smart and great person, but I'm no President. And neither is he.
* Clinton just sounded too shrill, too angry all the time, like she was going to bite anyone who got up in her grill. And this hogwash about "all her experience"?? She was a freaking politician's wife for 8 years, and since then has served as a Senator for less than a decade, whoopdeefreakindoo. When I think about the vast experience many of the other candidates bring as Leaders in their own careers, not adjuncts, she looks like an age-aspirational middle schooler, trying to dress like the high schoolers do. And, I'm not sure I'm ever going to get over her vote to essentially abrogate Congress' power to declare war over to the Executive Branch. When I listened to the Senate hearings on Iraq at the time, I knew it was wrong then, and her vitriol at the current President doesn't make up for bad past judgement.
* Biden just hit it outta the park, which I really was not expecting; again, who would've known, given that the media just doesn't report on this guy? Anyway, I know he's an odd cod with a history of "speaking bluntly", as he puts it, but it became overwhelmingly clear with every statement he made that he had been wrestling with and working on each of these issues for decades. He never seemed unprepared, he seemed to be able to speak so calmly, without sounding like he was campaigning. Just sounded really smart, really competent, and totally unflappable.
* Obama was all over the map. Some really strong confident answers, some where I couldn't figure out where he was going or why... He seems to lack depth on some issues, which some might say is synonymous with lacking 'experience'. Perhaps that's true. I will say, however, that it is clear that he gives great consideration to key issues, and I would assume that he would select advisors who would be permitted to develop equally thoughtful policy suggestions.
* Edwards. Umm. Passionate vanilla. Is that possible? And if it's possible, is it bad? Kind of like Gore with more zest. I think our country could do far, far worse. Of course, he voted the same as Clinton on the whole let's-give-the-Executive-Branch-the-power-to-make-war thingy, but there's something about his lack of nastiness about it that makes him seem less like a whiner and more like someone who's going to just move on and do what he can now. It's still a strike against him.
* Oh yeah, that was his name, Bill Richardson. The guy from New Mexico. Despite all his experience, he sounded like a child among gladiators.

If there was anyone else, they didn't make a good enough impression.

And I notice Representative Kucinich was not in the debate. It's too bad, because I remember during the last Presidential election, he made some key points very elegantly. Is he going to be relegated to the "Where is he now?" category? Admirably, Esquire magazine recently dedicated quite a lot of space to covering him in, what I thought, was a very even-handed way. Don't know enough about him to know if I would vote for him, though. I say drop Richardson and include Kucinich.

Scheduled Presidential Debates for both parties

And here's how you know when you'll be voting in your state for some of these people.

If you read this whole thing, you deserve at least a cookie and a bathroom break.