I try to watch the debates whenever I can, from any party. I just turn on the tv and see what I can see. Last night, I turned on the tv about halfway through the Dem debate in South Carolina and was appalled enough to turn it off about 20 minutes later.
Here's my critique:
1. First and foremost, where were the other two Democratic candidates who are still running for President? Only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were in this debate. Missing were Kucinich and Gravel. What the hell kind of debate is that?
It's this kind of "steering of opinion" from the major media that I dislike. The media shapes voters' opinions in this manner, by only showing certain candidates, and that is just plain wrong.
This issue alone discredits the entire debate, right from the start.
2. All three candidates stated their disapproval with our justice system in that more black people are incarcerated than any other color.
Well, my question is what are all those black people doing to become incarcerated in the first place? That's the justice system's fault? I don't think so.
I think black people are capable of understanding that they are responsible for what they do. Assuming that they don't understand such a concept and trying to shift the blame to the justice system is nothing more than pure racism.
3. Clinton declared herself the best choice to "take on" the Republicans. Edwards took it a step further and declared himself the best choice to "take on" specific Republicans, like McCain.
What I want to know is why we need a candidate who is going to work "against" others in our government instead of working "with" them? Why would we want a candidate who's ready to fight other officials instead of trying to make something work? Are these adults or 5 year old kids we are electing? Did they not learn the lesson of playing nice with others?
Obama isn't any better. He talks a big game about bridging the divide, but his response to "taking on Republicans" was that he saw an opportunity to "bring more people in to the Democratic Party", whether independents or republicans.
So, bridging the divide means getting people to convert to your way of thinking? What happened to working with others while respecting their point of view? What happened to creating solutions based on everything that is brought to the table?
My vote is still with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul believes people should be responsible for the choices they make, no matter what color they are. He believes in hearing all opinions (a.k.a. - all candidates should be a part of the debates), which could be why he is one of the ones the mainstream media excludes from debates, like Fox did recently. And, Ron Paul never attempts to "fight" others in our government. He simply uses the Constitution as a sounding board.
If anything good was said in the debate, I missed it. The 20 minutes I saw was enough.