DebateScoop.org: Watt Smith

Watt Smith

By WattSmith 05/01/2007 08:28:04 AM EST

PLEASE COMMENT! LOL jk jk

Tags: Debate

Hilary Clinton seems to really regret her past attempts at a Universal Health Care system, and she seems passionate about improving on her previous failures.
Clinton said that her new plan for health care would focus more on controlling cost, but she does not offer a clear concept of how she wishes to control those costs.
When Clinton said "I don't have enough time to relate all the mistakes I've made", she endeared herself to the audience by showing human frailty.
Clinton said she was not happy with Bush's response to the Virginia Tech incident, and she would react with a sharper focus on gun control as her husband did after Columbine. It seemed like the situation made her explain more than she wanted to on her gun control opinions.
Clinton claims that our government is corrupt, and we need to spend more energy creating alliances, yet she didn't specify either the source of the corruption nor the way to foster alliances.
Obama tends to change the subject rather than describing specific policies. This tactic makes him seem much less credible. Since he could be the first black candidate, America wants to see a man who is strong in his opinions rather than wishy-washy.
Obama seems to deflect from explaining his solutions to problems by focusing on other problems. An example is the fact that he mentioned the teen pregnancy problem multiple times during the debate, even when it seemed off topic.
Obama would rather focus on prevention as opposed to clean up in regards to abortion. His idea to work on teen pregnancy seemed a lot more effective than debating whether or not certain kinds of abortion are morally ethical.
Obama would sell governmental health insurance, which would provide coverage to everyone. He claims that much of health care is beurocracy, but he never proposes a plan that discusses how to eliminate it.
Obama is very interested about involving the Palestinian people in peace discussions. He wants to find a way for America to work together with Islamic countries. He seems very interested in promoting peace.
Richardson tends to talk longer than he should, and this causes the audience to feel like his policies will also be wordy and lack clarity.
Richardson tends to pull statistics that don't seem credible out during the debate. An example is "31 percent of health care goes to beaurocracy". This statistic didn't have any credible source. Richardson just said it.
Richardson's first three priorities are Iraq, alternative fuel sources, and CO2 emissions. He wants to find a new fuel source before capping CO2 emissions so that the economy won't have to suffer as much during our quest for cleaner air.
Since Richardson is from New Mexico, a state that is more cavalier about gun carrying than most, Richardson deflected his gun control question to the subject of mental health.
Richardson's points on mental health were outstanding; however, they would have been more well received if they could have been delivered during the proper time frame.
Kucinich seems a little too ambitious for the presidential nomination. The way he refers to himself as a "healer" makes it seem like he is running for benevolent dictator rather than president. I am scared that he would try and consolidate too much power into his hands.
Kucinich is very honest when he says "any Supreme Court nominees will reflect my thinking". This honesty serves him well because it endears him to the audience on a personal level while not taking a firm stand on a questionable issue.
Obama regrets the stand he took on the Chaivo decision because he thinks that the government should not have been involved. He seems very interested in protecting our individual rights.
Kucinich pulled out a Constitution, which he claims to carry around at all times; however, he fails to cite any part of it. He also fails to relate the Constitution to the question at hand, how he would respond to another Al-Quaeda attack. This ploy, for me, was the lowest point of the debate, and it seriously undercut his credibility.
Kucinich believes that diplomacy can solve the crisis in Iraq at this point. He wants to open channels between Iran and Syria, and he wants to "reject war as an instrument of policy". This tactic is credible because it takes away the risk of war for personal gain. Under Kucinich, war would only be fought for national security.
Dodd wishes to build international support before taking on terrorism. He has a good point when he calls "international terrorism" an "international problem", which all nations need to address together, rather than America acting as a renegade nation. The value in this viewpoint is that the international community will definitely support a fight specifically against terrorism, rather than a war with an entire country.
Dodd seemed concerned with an individual's right to privacy when he stated that he wasn't comfortable with the government being too trigger happy with drug testing. This protecting of personal rights is what Kucinich should have talked about if he decided he had to pull out the Constitution. Dodd's protection of privacy makes him seem like a protector of the people.
Biden explains that our current foreign policy is undercutting our international credibility. The fact that we attack nations after forcing them to disarm themselves is making nations too fearful of imminent attack to comply with our desire to make them disarm. This is a very powerful argument. Biden would try to reestablish America's soft power if he were in office.
Biden wishes to close the gunshow loophole so that Americans can't buy guns without background checks. This seemed like the most obvious stance a person could take on gun control, and I'm suprised that the other nominees didn't make this point before him.
Biden states that part of the formula for better education is better teachers, then he says we will use better teachers to improve education. He doesn't ever indicate how he will make teachers better. This lack of clarity makes his promise for better schools seem very empty.
Edwards had the best response for a hypothetical attack from Al-Quaeda where he would hold the attackers responsible, then modify our intelligence system so that another such attack could not occur. This response is exactly what most of the nominees would agree we should have implemented to 9/11.
Edwards is not afraid to explain his policies specifically, even if it will cost him votes. An example of this commitment was when he said he would eliminate tax cuts for people who made over 200,000 dollars per year. This is a clear and distinct stand that could cost him the votes of the rich, unless they value presidential honesty more than money.
Putin sounded very wise when he said that "power without diplomacy is blind", and such sayings are reassuring to a country that is weary from war. He isn't saying power isn't important, just that it should be tempered with judicial use. Such a philosophy would keep America strong, but value peace much more.
Edwards wants America to be patriotic about something besides war. He wants America to be patriotic about how it could be leading the world in the fight against global warming and capping CO2 emmissions. His standpoint seems like it will really benefit the world by getting the American people involved and excited about the progress we can make as a country. Here Edwards proves that he can be persuasive and an effective motivator of people.
Edwards was the only nominee, who, when asked to limit his answer to one word, complied with NBC's wishes. The constraint he showed indicated that he is willing to play by the rules. If he were elected, it seems as if he would be accepting of the limitations on power that his office brings. This takes away the fear of the prsident violating the rights of the individual by consolidating too much power and infringing on our personal rights. (Patriot Act)
Edwards was very specific on how he would pay for a universal health care plan. This specificity is the reason he seems like a strong leader. No other candidate even attempted to explain how they would pay for their plans.
Almost all of the nominees regretted their decision to attack Iraq. This regret is shared by much of the nation, and it humanized each of them, making them all more amiable in the public eye by showing their fallability.