I expect Samantha Powers will return to the administration.
It is fairly uncontroversial that the media has demonstrated a disgusting level of sexism in this campaign season, as well as an unfair amount of general anti-Clinton bias. However, the attempts to tar Obama as sexist are unwarranted. Though we would all appreciate his taking a more active step to denounce sexism in the campaign, and give greater attention to women's issues, it seems that Hilary is the more marked failure on both of those fronts.
I guess I'm just disappointed that a woman who was nearly our next President decided to invoke the cause of the suffragettes, but felt she could leave registering new female voters largely up to her supporters' independent efforts.
Conducting a series of debates between only two candidates so that each has to directly debate each other solves and creates some problems.
Candidates should get a roughly equal amount of time.
First tier candidates can't avoid confrontation by hiding in a forest of competitors.
Second tier candidates have an opportunity to directly demonstrate distinction between themselves and the entire first tier. Fewer comments would have to be cut off for the sake of time.
However, this does create a situation where there would be about 28 debates; debates with lower tier candidates wouldn't be watched by people only interested a first tier candidates.
There is a question as to whether these debates would be an arena where substantial issues could be addressed, or whether they'd simply be another parade of painfully asinine questions.
Additional benefit: Kucinich v. Gravel debate: it might not be the most edifying event, but it would be interesting to watch.
are very good points; simply developing strategies than emphasize efficacy could generate alot more participation.
It's one thing to try to generate interest in issues important to young people, it's another thing to make people believe they can do something about it, and then to convince them that what they can do will have a substantive impact.
This quote best expresses the dissatisfaction with Wolf Blitzer's approach to the debate, and a number of the questions presented by the two other journalists.
Biden earns some respect for articulating a desire for more time for issue specific debates.
Dodd: Performed as well as he always has, but hasn't done enough to break out.
Biden: "Dean Scream" has circulated in discussion, but his perfomance wasn't that bad. Making a very good point about how to better structure debate on CNN right now.
Richardson: (current supporter) Corrected mistakes of being too long winded in the previous debate, and made an effort to get his high impact points in early. Still needs to improve his rhetoric substantial, and be more aggressive in grabbing questions, but he can still be competitive in the second tier.
Edwards probably did the best of the big three, Obama was a close second, and Clinton didn't seem to perform very well at all; she certainly was capable (she's still my second choice), but she neither framed her issues well nor provided persuasive argumentation. Richardson was, and is, my first choice candidate, but I agree his debating skills need to be developed substantially.
I thought it was very wise to include the eighth point of his outline; by doing so, Dodd demonstrated that he realizes that only a holistic approach to combatting carbon emissions will be effective, and that will necessarily include looking at petroleum use in agriculture.
However, for those who have read the economist article, "America's Ethanol Drive" (apr. 4, 07), the preceding point is troubling. The essential point of this article is that the current subsidy for corn based ethanol is little more than pork that actually undermines the health of the environment. Corn based ethanol is notoriously inefficient, possibly requiring greater petroleum consumption, rather than less. More efficient sugar based ethanol is scorned because it grows in tropical areas; Congressman exhibit a strong bias towards products that allow them to send cash back to their district, in this case, without regard to how that may undermine the effficacy of the program. Essentially my concern is that while Dodd may be providing a very well thought out program, the enthusiasm generated by such a policy may obscure critical structural flaws in the plan.
Unless there is a radical narrowing of the Digital Divide, can the internet really be considered the answer to the poverty of political discourse on television. At any rate, MORA seems to take the wisest path: combining fairness doctrine restoration with anti-consolidation efforts.