The Third Estate
What Is The Third Estate?
What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order?
What Does It Want To Be?

Experience Matters

Thursday, April 26, 2007
It seemed very clear to me that experience in high-profile political debates matters. I thought Edwards was extremely poised in this debate and that Obama was very hesitant early (although he warmed up over time). Overall I thought Edwards did the best job, getting in very subtle jabs while moving smoothly from point to point. But then Edwards is the only one who has run for President before, so I'm surprised. So in my opinion: advantage Edwards. But of course only 9 people were probably watching the thing. It's the media's perception, related to reality or not, that will determine how this debate is perceived tomorrow.
Posted by Arbitrista @ 8:30 PM
  • We started to watch, got fed up with Gravel and just read the highlights on the net the next day. It was repeated today on MSNBC, and we were able to just hit mute when Gravel spoke.
    Anyway, I didn't much care for Obama's response of seeking out terrorists - or was it just bad people in general. I have always liked Edwards - he is direct and kinda cute. It will be hard for me to pick between him and Hillary in the primary.

    By Blogger Penguin, at 9:09 PM  
  • Yes, experience matters, but I am beginning to realize that the way we define "experience" now is horribly skewed by today's media. The person I want to be president is the person who has the most experience, or the most judgment, to realize that we are currently living in a 6-year-old constitutional crisis, with the Iraq war constituting the most obvious product of that crisis. All the other candidates except Gravel seem to know understand this fundamental reality, but then Gravel has the least chance to win as of this very moment, thus freeing him to see the Truth. I may actually have to watch more debates if Gravel will be in them because otherwise the debates will be an exercise in delusion. America is ready for radical change. Obama and Clinton offer gender and racial change, and some policy change. Edwards offers some policy change to compensate for his lack of gender and racial change. But Gravel - he seems to know what's truly wrong with the country: the military-industral complex has almost completely taken over, and has destroyed any semblance of real democracy. I looked at Gravel's web site. His proposals seem to be perfect for the country right now: A Progressive National Sales Tax instead of the silly income tax that hurts only middle class people like me. A national initiative system that creates truly citizen-legsilators. Complete withdrawal fom Iraq, and National health care as a bonus. Since he is single-handedly responsible for ending the military draft, I guess I also owe him thanks. He's suddenly made the 2008 election truly important, because at least the winning candidate can adopt some of his proposals.

    By Blogger Marriah, at 12:02 AM  
  • Penguin: I'm trying to stay open to all of the candidates. But ss the fact that Edwards is "cute" really a good reason to vote him though? :)

    Marriah: Gravel? Are you kidding me? He's a nut. He's everything that a lot of people suspect about liberals. Why in the world would be want to run someone who will remove all doubt?

    By Blogger Arbitrista, at 10:48 AM  
  • I think you're forgetting that Reagan was also called a nut in 1980. He was considered too conservative to be president. However, after the Carter disaster, he was elected in a landslide, creating a realignment. I haven't actually seen Gravel debate yet, but everything I have read sounds perfectly good for the country, especially the national citizen initiative. He doesn't have a chance to win right now, so he is free to speak the truth. In 2008, you can run the most liberal candidate and he/she will still beat the Republican nominee.

    By Blogger Marriah, at 12:21 PM  
Post a Comment
<< Home

:: permalink