Candidate debates are about as informative as stump speeches. This isn't a slur. Having run for office (a local one that few voters cared about), I understand candidate forums: what I don't understand is why voters pick candidates based on them.
That aside, the Dems' debate had spicy moments: like when John Edwards mentioned Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's seemingly timid handling of the war-funding bill (and an irritated Obama's retort) (Washington Post). I'm not committed to any candidate, I just found the contentious exchange amusing.
As a Center for Responsive Politics groupie, I was grabbed by one thing during the Q&A: Joe Biden's well-reasoned attack on our campaign finance system--a root cause of so many American political failures. Too bad the moderator let the point evaporate.
Another mentionable: columnist Eric Alterman's arrest after he stumbled into a VIP party without a gold-embossed invitation. It was a bit of an over-reaction, given that Alterman likely wasn't wielding an M-16.
For me, the evening's highlight was reading bloggers' reactions (links below).
Blogosphere Coverage
Andrew Sullivan: Clinton won (despite "robo-lecture act"), but Obama wasn't terrible.
Atrios covered Eric Alterman's arrest.
Crooks and Liars has video of Clinton's comical comment on Bush-style diplomacy & Dick Cheney.
Digby rightly poo-pooed Wolf Blitzer's at-times inane questions.
Gun Toting Liberal questioned Clinton's statement that "we're safer now than before."
Half Nixon compared some of Clinton's and Edwards' statements.
Comments