is beginning ~ I'm watching ... anyone else?

Sooz

I'm watching.

I will have to wait until Sooz tells us about it. Got no TV here and not enough signal to stream anything.

I've always thought those "debates" were rather silly.

I don't think they are necessarily silly, maybe just not as productive as some of the candidates desire. Having so many people in a debate is messy and only gives a small spotlight for those lesser known candidates, but it is a spotlight nevertheless. For me, it does show personality and able to think fast on your feet, but they are only a small barometer of actual abilities and can easily give way to a personality contest.

With a large field of candidates, this kind of "debate" is more to introduce everyone to the public and see who, if anyone, might steal the show ~ the moderators all tried, and largely failed, to control the panel outbursts ~ here are my personal take-aways about the first group ~

Elizabeth Warren showed her bona fide smarts ~

Julian Castro showed his deep humanity ~

Amy Klobuchar showed her smarts and her sense of humor ~

Cory Booker was eloquent but too long-winded ~

Beto O'Rourke was a disappointment to me, seemed too restrained in both prep and delivery ~

Tulsi Gabbard and Bill DiBlasio were arrogant and rude, and tried to perfect the art of interrupting others ~

John Delaney, who is a former rep from Maryland, frequently talked over others and has strange mannerisms, including looking demented when he smiled ~

Tim Ryan appeared lost ~

Gov Jay Inslee didn't make much of an impression on me ~

The 2d [10] Dem candidates are on tonight ~ I'll be watching ~

Sooz

I should have added in my above post that last night was firmly settled on ISSUES ~ even the few mentions of the DiC were geared to his own version of "policies" ~

Sooz

sooz- I agree with your assessments of the candidates for the most part, just adding I thought Warren came over the best because to me she seemed genuine, not a political animal or tool. She was passionate, and not trying to pander to anyone. She cares a great deal about people who need to be cared about and it showed.

Just to add. . I listened to a few of the analysts after the debate and one said all in all they did not mention trump enough - or denigrate him while they had the chance. I do not agree - putting him down continually is not the way to go - talking about issues is the way to go. It only riles his base when they keep the negativity personally focused on him; the rest of us already know what a corrupt lying ass-wipe he is - so maybe if they concentrate on the issues some of it will clear past clogged eardrums and reach his brain-washed followers.

Totally agree with your "addition" above, KB ~ the [thankfully] few times the DiC was mentioned by name was just tying him to his own "policies" ~ given that he thrives on attention, not surprisingly the DiC tweeted that last night was "BORING!" ~

Sooz

Some levity from one of my all-time favorite satirists ~ ~ Sooz

Satire from The Borowitz Report
Debate Viewers Struggle with Concept of President Without Glaring Personality Disorder
By Andy Borowitz / 10:41 A.M.

MIAMI (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of viewers of a televised debate Wednesday night found themselves struggling with the notion of a President with no visible personality disorder.

In interviews across the country, viewers said that they were having difficulty imagining a President who does not display flagrant signs of malignant narcissism, impulse-control deficit, or rampant paranoia.

“I kept trying to picture whether any of these people would be capable of insulting another country on Twitter to compensate for his or her own pathological sense of inadequacy,” Harland Dorrinson, who lives in Akron, Ohio, said. “None of them showed me that they have what it takes to do that.”

“A President should be ready, at a moment’s notice, to ridicule another person’s face,” Carol Foyler, of Nashville, said. “I didn’t see one person on that stage who seemed up to that task.”

Tracy Klugian, who lives in San Diego, said he was taken aback by the candidates showing off their language proficiency. “Every one of them was fluent in English,” he said. “For a President, that would be jarring.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/debate-viewers-struggle-with-concept-of-president-without-glaring-personality-disorder

I didn't see the debate, but the reports I have seen seem to indicate that Warren put on a really good show.

Perhaps she is a better candidate than I thought she would be.

I'd agree with KB that sticking to policy rather than just putting the boot into Trump is the way to go. Apart from anything else it makes Trump look even more childish in comparison, and I'd like to believe that most people in the US would prefer an adult for President.

The 2d ten D candidates debate begins in a few minutes ~ I'm watching ~ anyone else?

Sooz

I am watching also. .

My personal thoughts/reactions on the 2d ten Dem candidates ~

Kamala Harris was on fire and showed her finely-honed prosecutor skills ~ she's blistering smart ~

Joe Biden started strong but Kamala bested him ~ he stumbled frequently ~

Bernie Sanders started strong but then resorted to yelling ~

Pete Buttigieg did a fine job, even when confronted with the current problems in South Bend ~

Michael Bennet seemed to be thinking/dreaming of being anywhere else ~

Marianne Williamson is an enigma; not sure how she qualified ~

John Hickenlooper was just strange, in his own little world ~

Eric Swalwell tried but was too "cutesy" ~

Kirsten Gillibrand disappointed me last night, seemed lackluster at best ~

Andrew Yang is just weird, seemed too robot-like ~

Personally, I really like Pete Buttigieg, but I don't see him winning this election ~ pros: general demeanor, knows his stuff, very well-spoken, doesn't get rattled when confronted ~ cons: is very young, "some" will have a problem with him being gay ~

Sooz

sooz wrote: "Personally, I really like Pete Buttigieg, but I don't see him winning this election ~ pros: general demeanor, knows his stuff, very well-spoken, doesn't get rattled when confronted ~ cons: is very young, "some" will have a problem with him being gay ~

I totally agree and liked him the best of this group. He was sincere, knowledgeable, and answered the questions head on - not backing away or puffing himself up by putting others down. Unfortunately he may be a hard sell for some, and that is such a shame.

I was disappointed in Biden, Sanders, not for anything in particular it was just same old, same old. Oddly in the last election if they had run - I would have gladly voted for either of them, but for me now it feels like their time has passed, even though Biden is probably the most electable at this point.

My opinion and strong reaction of Harris is not the popular one at the moment. Granted she was forceful which seems to be what was focused on and seemed knowledgeable, but it appeared to me like she could not wait to take the opportunity to attack Biden. Her wording especially had a rehearsed feel to it, her timing was suspect also - she went off the question to make sure to get her accusations against him in. Sure Biden is the the front runner and open to criticism where other candidates want to put him in a lesser light so they can shine brighter, but there is a way to do it where it has some class to it, not grandstanding. She came across to me more than the others as overly ambitious and would put those ambitions above anything else if push came to shove. She is smart, slick, but too self serving a politician imo I simply do not trust her all that much. After watching her in the debate I had a sense she is playing the game and playing her part cleverly. That is my problem with her, she is too calculating - I did not see any real sincerely in her. Not even in her racial trials and tribulations stories, I saw them as her tool to use, just like so many other politicians do in their background stories or ones where they use constituents stories.

Edited to add. . Just read this article and made me feel I am not so alone in my observations of her as I thought. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/zmp ... 9bhPvW7JUg

I have to admit I didn't watch either of the debates. Not even sure if I could have. I'll wait until the field narrows down to a more manageable level. It would have been best if a bunch of them had bailed already. All this infighting is just giving the Repubs ammunition for the big fight. It's amazing, though, Sooz, how close your impressions are to the ones being bandied about in the press. That's pretty astute.

I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em, jim ~ but thanks for the compliment! ~

KB, much of how you describe your feelings about Kamala describe exactly what I called her "finely-honed prosecutor skills" ~ personally, I didn't sense she was play-acting/phony ~ but she clearly went into last night with a goal of breaking thru Biden's big lead, and largely succeeded ... especially with the limited time alloted ~ FTR, she will apparently be on with Stephen Colbert tonight ~

Sooz

I did not mean she was exactly play acting, but playing politics very cleverly and ambitiously. I like your description "finely honed prosecutor skills" in that context - you put it better than I did She did carry out her agenda well. I just have a sense there is some shadiness there and I am not completely comfortable with her supposed sincerity or trust worthiness, as I am with Warren and Buttigieg.

Boils down to who can whump Trump (unless he's in jail) 16 months from now.

This is true and it will have to be someone people on the right can back however grudgingly.

Seems my opinion of her appear to be not so far-fetched. Two articles - one where she takes back her raised hand as she misunderstood the question or some such excuse (only one of two candidates who raised their hand) to get rid of private insurance for medicare for all - which is not a popular stance. In the second she is already selling t shirts for a hefty sum with the the words she used in her confrontation with Biden "That little girl was me." That was fast - preplanned? Maybe so.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... c-n1024756

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/0 ... /23759240/

A few random, stream-of-consciousness thoughts ~

My biggest fear is a repeat of the 2016 election when an enormous number of Ds/libs did not vote because they were pissed off that Hillary won over Bernie ~ that was the key factor that gave us the DiC ~ we can't afford to repeat that enormous blunder ~

I see myself as a progressive liberal ~ I don't believe for a nanosecond that a "perfect" candidate exists anywhere ~ politics, especially at a national level, is a tough and frequently dirty game ~ we can count on every candidate touting what they see as their own strengths/positives/successes and, at the same time, attempting to hide their weaknesses/negatives/failures ~ we ALL have done/said things we now wish we never had done/said ~

I strongly believe in and strongly support diversity and we finally have the most diverse slate of candidates in our lifetime ~ young/old, male/female, black/white/Hispanic/Oriental ~ favorites and long-shots ~ we're still meeting/learning about the candidates ~ personally, for a variety of reasons, I'd love to see OVER half of the 20 Dems in the first debate bow out gracefully ~

More to come ~

Sooz

The Dems don't just need a candidate no matter how smart or how good his/her policies. They need a candidate that not only doesn't sound crazy (in American terms, like AOC) but can also spark the listeners' imaginations and stand-up (in a classy way) to Trump. It's like that Williamson woman said. It's not so much what the policies are, it's how they're delivered.