In my opinion, the one man that was largely overlooked in the debates was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Charles Gibson, the moderator, had to keep remembering to come back to him for certain questions which were directed at the other candidates. Nevertheless, Richardson found a way for his voice to be heard and provided some of the light-hearted comments of the night. One thing he did do though was attempt to stay out of the bickering between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. He kept saying it's that kind of bickering that people don't want to see in Washington. As far as what I understood his strengths to be...he has been Governor of New Mexico and knows how to handle executive office. The fact that the last two presidents were state governors prior to their election shouldn't give Richardson any hope though because he's still a relative unknown to the American people. He has been Secretary of Energy in a previous administration and he didn't let anyone forget it as well as being the only candidate to have prior foreign policy experience. To say Richardson actually has a shot at the White House would be a stretch of the imagination right now, but who's to say he won't end up as a vice presidential candidate? After last night's bickering, it seemed as though at least Clinton was on his side.
Another nominee who was victim of Gibson's small questioning bias was former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. At one point Gibson more or less asked Clinton and Obama to verbally duke it out over their differences, which left Richardson and Edwards out in the cold. Yet, Edwards found a way to make his presence felt in the first "holy crap" moment of the night for me. As he advocated he and Obama were agents of change while Clinton was status quo, he pointed out she suddenly had a problem with Obama's perceived shift in support of healthcare after she finished third to Obama and Edwards, respectively, at the Iowa caucus. I couldn't help but laugh because Edwards stuck it to Clinton and from her reaction one could imply she was relatively shocked. For Obama and Edwards to double team Clinton like that was interesting to see for me, one who hasn't followed this very closely, because I figured Edwards would let Obama and Clinton duke it out and try to slide past them. However, Edwards did look pretty sharp last night and I wouldn't be surprised for him to have another good showing in the New Hampshire caucus as he did in Iowa last week. He phrased everything well without many stutters and he made sure every person knew he was fighting for the middle class and against corporations and their lobbyists. The one reason I'm not convinced Edwards can win this thing is that four years ago he couldn't even beat John Kerry. How can he possibly beat a political heavyweight like Clinton or an up-and-comer like Obama?
For me this was the first time to see Obama in a non-scripted arena and I really wasn't impressed with what I saw. He stuttered a lot and he started sounding like someone running for president instead of someone you want to support no matter what he's doing. One thing that irked me was when Gibson asked the candidates what one thing they said in past debates would they take back and Obama regurgitated Clinton's evading answer. He basically said, "We are much different from the Republican candidates and we should be happy about that." I sat there mentally dropping Obama down in my book because of such a politically correct answer. I wish he'd been more like Edwards or Richardson who actually answered the question honestly. Richardson even got a good laugh out of his and I'm sure if Obama had said something witty, he would have won a few more people who are looking for someone other than a political heavyweight to vote for. Obama did get a laugh when he admitted to not paying close attention to the Republican debate minutes prior because he was watching football. However, Obama has created a widespread web of support as he advocates change. And it's his message of change people are clinging to. He's got all of the other candidates for president, Republican and Democrat, riding his coattails of change.
Clinton claimed she was all about change too, although Edwards contended there were status quo candidates as he pushed his hand in Clinton's direction. Clinton asked the audience what bigger change would there be than to elect a woman president? Valid point. Would have been a stronger point if the person ahead of her in the polls wasn't a man who is vying to become the nation's first black president. Early polls show Clinton and Obama in a virtual tie in the minds of New Hampshire voters, but from what I saw, I think Clinton did what she had to last night in the debates to separate herself from Obama and possibly win the New Hampshire caucus Tuesday. She was the only candidate to address the New Hampshire voters directly. She kept referencing how certain questions affected the New Hampshire voters, while the other candidates seemed to be generalizing the problems for all of America. If I was a New Hampshire voter, I would certainly point to that and say that Clinton is concerned about New Hampshire's problems and if she was to become president she would see to it those problems were addressed. She also may have gotten an added boost from the Edwards/Obama double team because you could make the argument that the all-boys club is trying to push her out of the picture. She just has to show voters she is an agent of change because as the front-runner with the most Washington experience, the novices Edwards and Obama will claim she won't be able to change anything.
Based on what I saw and my lack of knowledge concerning the candidates, I think Clinton will in fact pull away from Obama and win New Hampshire. This would give her campaign a jumpstart and much needed momentum to better combat Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment