YouTube debates: Clinton and Obama are slick
by
Adamatari
07/24/2007, 10:37 PM #
Clinton and Obama were pretty slick, which is why I don't trust them. Seeing them up there I came to hate them both, as their answers always seemed to conceal some loophole. They were the most professional, which is to say, they were the most untrustworthy. They both blew hot air but made sure it had a sweet enough scent that nobody would notice they didn't exactly answer the question. Not only that, Obama's "no special interests" talk doesn't answer the question posed by that loony guy they let on stage. These two are bad news. Why does it seem that I'm the only one that sees this?
Of the others, only Edwards and Joe Biden really stand out (well, good old loony Kuchinich did too, but not really in a good way). Both of them seem to have real goals as to what course the administration should take, and Edward's progressive talk seems to have some sincerity behind it (when Clinton says progressive it's a slogan, unrelated to her real views and unrelated to the real meaning of the word). Joe Biden was the only one who glued his answers to earth and reality. I didn't like him for every minute, but I would be willing to trust him. What he said about Dafur counts for a lot to me as well; diplomacy takes time and in some cases that time just doesn't exist. I think his answer to the gun lover's question will go over well in the coastal cities, but it's actually a blunder elsewhere... In any case, though perhaps both of them have the wrong personality to become president, both of them seem to have a real personality.
Clinton and Obama are ciphers. Their real personality is somewhere else, their real views are hidden.