Something new I noticed in personality similarities watching the Dem NH debate.

[robertpaulsen]

Having the cast of onstage characters cut to four certainly allowed for greater focus on them as individuals. I say that swallowing more than a gallon of bitterness knowing that they could have very easily allowed for a five person debate. God forbid Dennis Kucinich be permitted to speak on a network!

But having no personal stake in how a candidate performed allowed me to just relax and watch four people interact with eachother. What really struck me in a surprising way were the similarities in personality between Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, and even more surprising between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Obama and Richardson both seemed to be cool as cucumbers, each trying to out-diplomat each other by handling the debate with the greatest finesse. Edwards and Clinton both allowed their passions to dictate their responses when the situation warranted it. Also, I witnessed both Edwards and Clinton attempt to push another candidate's buttons to try to elicit an emotional response, to completely different reactions. With Edwards, I felt he tried to push Clinton's buttons when he highlighted her behavior in the wake of her third place Iowa finish. Obviously, he succeeded. With Clinton, I thought her "reality check" comment in the wake of Obama's personal story about his mother having cancer was an attempt to push his buttons. If so, Obama handled it with cool finesse.

So now it's time for my own "reality check". If one of these four (three?) candidates is going to be our nominee, should I value any of these qualities over another? What do I want more in a President, someone who is cool under fire, or someone who is passionate? If I choose passion, is it more important that their passion is focused on their defense of the issues or defense of their record? If I choose cool under fire, am I going with style over substance, or reason over recklessness? Does having a diplomatic nature allow for too much compromise to trickle in when dealing with an opponent, or does an abundance of passion in politics create intransigence so that society does not progress in solving the issues we are most emotional about?

And do any of my questions of values matter if, come this November, we still haven't fixed THE GODDAMN VOTING MACHINES?!

[twenty4blackbirds]

1. Ari Emanuel: elect someone who actually knows the right answers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/in-a-multiple-choice-worl_b_79265.html

Let's pick someone who can handle a pop quiz where you have to fill in the blanks.
...
Next time, let's elect someone who actually knows the right answers, and doesn't feel compelled to cheat off the Dick sitting next to him.

[robertpaulsen]

2. The right answers? That would be Kucinich.

Too bad Disney/ABC refused to let him say the right answers on live TV!

[rosesaylavee]

3. K & R

[robertpaulsen]

4. Belated thank you.

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

5. I watched the debates twice.......

and initially I thought that Clinton and Edwards had outperformed the others.

However, on replay, I found a totally different conclusion. I realized then that if Obama is the nominee, that guy is really smart as hell. What I saw was intelligence not surpassed by any candidate on that stage. He was able to articulate in less words exactly what the others would drone on about, and he usually spoke first (especially when they were talking about Foreign affairs/Pakistan). They said basically the same thing Obama did, he just said it better and with more confidence. He "owned" all that he spoke. He rarely said "as President, I would...."...he consistently simply stated what needs to be done or what he had already been working on. It was fascinating on 2nd view....because there was so much I didn't pick up the first time around. He was calm, cool, articulate, humorous, confident, pensive and certainly the leader in the room....

of course, IMO.

[rockybelt]

6. I believe that now is the time

for passion. It has been far too long since a politician has raised himself to the level of statesman. To rise to the level of statesman requires a passion that is burnt into the soul. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. are the last two that I remember and King was not really a politician. Of course John Kennedy is the man I remember most as being passionate (No pun intended) and being able to communicate with the people in a language that transcended cultural, ethnic and political differences.

I believe that John Edwards has those qualities. I believe that, after the field of candidates reduces itself through caucuses and primaries, that this will come to light during the remaining 1,000 or so debates. People will start to pay attention to his message and his record. On that subject, I would much prefer Dennis Kucinich to be the demo. candidate for president. I could see him as VP. He is a good man. I could also see Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards as the ticket.

With people like Kucinich, Biden, Todd, Wexler, Webb and others to choose from, wouldn't it be a wonderful dilemma as to who should fill what cabinet post?