I need to get better on following through on my promises. I said I was going to write about the debate and now it's almost too late. I'm going to give my thoughts anyway. (By the way, this photo is not from the Jan. 31 debate, but I think it represents what I'm about to say, so I'm using it anyway.)The media is abuzz with disappointment about the civil debate. (Immediately following the event, it was funny to watch CNN's Anderson Cooper and Candy Crowley try to analyze it. He asked what the biggest moment was, and who won. Neither of them could really answer. It was quite amusing, actually.)
It was civil because for the first time in a month, or so, they weren't just playing politics. They talked about the issues and we all were reminded that they agree pretty much on everything. Their differences on health care aren't huge. He gets to hammer her for on Iraq (and rightfully so) but everyone knows that by now.
The difference is not in policy; it's in philosophy. That's what this debate was about. That's what the choice is for voters. People will argue that someone who doesn't mandate health care for everyone doesn't understand what it will take to fix the system. Or they will say that anyone who trusted Bush and voted for Iraq clearly doesn't have the necessary vision to lead us in this dangerous time.
But I think the debate reemphasized that the choice isn't about health care or Iraq. It's about bringing in a new voice, and trying something different, and bringing in a new manager who knows what Washington looks like from Pennsylvania Avenue. That's the real choice, and I love it.
1 comment:
Agreed. As it stands, in today's election process, we get so little actual information, that we are left with what amounts to little more than a character contest. There are so many ways to avoid answering crucial questions, its the artful dodgers who make it to the convention and the most well rounded, well liked person who gets elected.
Post a Comment