Sunday, August 05, 2007

Presidential Forum at the Yearly Kos

High Sensibility T.V. For Everyone!

On the wonderful Star-Spangled Haggis blog, I recently (inadvertently) dissed webhostess E's tastes in low-relevance TV by mentioning that I watch only "High-Sensibility TV". When challenged about that, I found it (HSTV) on the internet, and I was gratified to see that it's accessible to everyone with wide-band Internet access. I'll link it here.This is a discussion among some self-selected 2008 Democratic presidential candidates who appeared at the recent Yearly Kos convention in Chicago. In inviting any of my readers to take valuable minutes out of their surfing, I caution them to skip a third of the way through the introduction of the moderator, Mat Bai. Bai is a favorite writer of mine and I think he performs a superlative job of moderating these raucous and spirited Democrats.

Of them Dem's, let me opine that all of the hard core were in attendance except for Joe Biden. Not that neither of the sitting white male senators are credible 2008 candidates, but I will further opine that I would happily suffer 100 Joe Bidens to one Chris Dodd; the latter is a hopelessly unimaginative bore who speaks only of cliches and platitudes, but the former is a responsive speaker who addresses specifics with a colorful attitude and eloquence.

Except for the poorly-cast Senator from Connecticut, all of the candidates appeared friendly, likeable and (hooray!) competent. I was not surprised when two on the dais emerged from the 'debate' as my favorites.

I also have to say, I enjoyed the interactive atmosphere in this Yearly Kos Presidential Forum. Some statements from these candidates I found to be sensational, superficial, and insubstantial. But I am not looking for elaborate platforms and policy specifics. When I am watching a candidate debate, discussion or forum, what I am really after is making a judgment on the person. I want to determine the experience, intelligence, confidence and courage of candidates. These words are not always subjective:
  • Experience: what, objectively, has a candidate done or said, on the record at critical points in his/her career or in the nation's history?
  • Intelligence: how well does a candidate respond creatively, cleverly, imaginatively and reasonably to an unrehearsed and unscripted prompt from moderator, questioner or adversary?
  • Courage and Confidence: How readily does a candidate appear to risk a politically incorrect malapropism or faux pas?
These criterion are what separates the JFK’s, RFK’s, and the Al Gore’s from the Nixon’s and the Bush’s. Everything else is the distracting static, chaff and flack of American politics.

At this point, I am confident I have found my RFK for 2008.

8 Moderated Comments:

Blogger Commander Zaius said...

Had to drop back a to E's site and read what the hubbub was about. Calling Michael Savage low-relevance gives him too much credit.
Not to dis the man but didn't Joe Biden have some sort of plagiarism issue when he last ran for Pres?

8/05/2007 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Beach, your point is well-taken on Biden. I hope I made it clear that I did not hold that Biden is a credible or electable candidate. Neither is Gravel. (I could add Kucinich.) But I feel both have authentic voices as well as well-founded ideas to contribute to the debate

8/06/2007 12:13:00 AM  
Blogger Commander Zaius said...

Sorry Vigil, you were clear I was just asking. And you are right about Dodd as well.

8/06/2007 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Sapo said...

I'm playing candidate hopscotch again.

My candidate of the week is John Edwards. By Friday, I will have found ten things I don't like about him (in addition to his anti-impeachment stance, his opposition to gay marriage, and his "mistake" on the Iraq war.

I've eliminated Obama (warmonger) and Clinton (in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch). They are dead to me.

Last night I was thinking: an Edwards/Dodd ticket.


This morning, thanks to your post, that seems kind of "Bleh".

It's slim pickins.

The perfect ticket:

Al Gore/Elizabeth Edwards?

Better yet:

Elizabeth Edwards/Al Gore!

8/07/2007 07:03:00 AM  
Blogger E said...

Oooh. MD. An intiguing combination.

I too am at a loss for a candidate. I think Hillary is unelectable, but what do I know. Whatever I feel for her I know is a Transference of My Love For Bill to her. That can't be healthy...

8/08/2007 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Pink Liberty said...

I get excited about Edwards/Richardson--but I don't know that much about Richardson (not a bad thing in a V.P.) I didn't watch Dodd the other night but I originally thought he was too lazy...but I now admire his unapologetically liberal views. Who in the world will Republicans pick for their VP, it makes me think of Dan Quail (sp?) all over again. Kudos to blogger for underlining my misspelled words, thanks!

8/08/2007 04:02:00 PM  
Blogger Emily said...

Caller named Andy on the Ed Schultz Show just said he was voting for Kucinich because he could really get into watching Elizabeth as the First Lady for eight years. He said,

If Dennis could get her to marry him, who knows what he can't do as President?

or, words to that effect.

8/10/2007 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Emily said...

Another observation: in his new book, THE ARGUMENT, Matt Bai appears to diss the Peace movement portion among Democratic Progressives as

like a high school project on the meaning of America. . . . . a just and peaceful world founded on truth.

8/12/2007 01:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home