PunditGirl was all snuggled in bed, with dreams of scary pirates and chocolate candy dancing in her head.
I was ready for the latest installment of the Democratic debates. I’ve watched some of the others, but often it was with one ear on the audio while folding laundry or multi-tasking in some other way. Last night, I was fully focused and ready for the brawl!
Sure, I already have a preference as to who I’d like to see get the Democratic nomination for president, but I still want to hear what everyone has to say.
Except that Hillary didn’t really say anything. Dodd and Biden and Edwards and Kucinich and Richardson and Obama each had questions where they were clearly “on” with proposals and ideas — concrete visions for their priorities. Not for each question, of course — they are politicians, after all!
As for Hillary, lots of words came out of her mouth and she was pretty animated. But I’m not sure she really answered any questions in a straightforward manner.
The thing that really struck me was Hillary’s well-developed ability to talk in vague generalities and not get tied down to a position on most topics.
There was a lot of talk from her about appointing bipartisan commissions on Social Security and using fiscal responsibility to fix our budget problems, but nothing concrete. She kept assuring us she has “plans.” Tim Russert tried his best — and he is the master of pulling out past statements to nail down the candidates if there’s any flip-flopping — but where were the Clinton specifics?
You remind us often about your commitment to children and women, but could you mention in one debate just one specific program you have in mind? I really think that would go a long way to sway some of the undecided women out here.
Hillary, I want to be able to support you if you are the eventual nominee. And I want to be excited about talking with PunditGirl about your campaign — she’s a little worried about you because she thinks the “boys are picking on you.” But you’re not giving me a lot to work with here.