Like much of Dartmouth's student body, I was amazed and intrigued by the fanfare surrounding Wednesday's Democratic debate. I was blown away by the number of satellite trucks, media pundits and students rallying for their favorite candidate. I, along with countless others, was the guy holding the cell phone up to his ear jumping up and down behind the "Hardball with Chris Matthews" set, trying desperately to get my parents to see me on national television. I even got to meet Tim Russert, who engaged in some playful banter with a good friend of mine. Upon seeing my friend's Dartmouth Diving shirt, Russert asked him if he was a Dartmouth diver. My friend replied that he had actually stolen the shirt from a fraternity brother. "Oh," Russert replied, "so you're a Dartmouth thief?" Classic.
For one night, the Dartmouth campus was consumed with politics. Even the majority of Wednesday night's Greek meetings were postponed in light of the debate. Don't get me wrong, some Dartmouth students managed to find a way to incorporate drinking into the debate. Drink every time Hillary laughed before answering an entirely different question than what was asked. Drink every time a candidate references his or her seemingly inevitable presidency. Drink for the entire duration that former Sen. Mike Gravel speaks. I think that in whatever way students participated in the debate, whether it was spending months planning the Watch Party or simply grabbing a drink and watching with a group of friends, bringing the debate to campus was a great success. I say this because it managed to get even dispassionate students like myself interested in politics. And yes, Dave Glovsky, those of us who are not members of a particular political support group have the right to vote. Without further ado, here are my thoughts on the debate.
It is difficult to declare any one candidate the winner of the debate. It seems more and more that each speaker was concerned with not losing the debate. Frankly, I think all the candidates need, to borrow a phrase from MTV's The Real World, to "stop being polite and start getting real." Despite the multitude of opportunities for the candidates to differentiate themselves from frontrunner Hillary Clinton or criticize one another for misjudgments, most of the competitors chose to play it safe. It is unfortunate that the only participants willing to directly challenge a rival were Gravel and Kucinich, who unfortunately have no chance of winning the nomination. Barack Obama, considered to be the anti-establishment candidate, seems conflicted on how to challenge Clinton without contradicting his pledge to avoid Washington mudslinging politics. Just remember, there is a clear difference between personal attacks and pointing out specific and accurate differences in policy. The latter is certainly something that is missing in Obama's approach.
Another aspect of the debate that made an impression on me was the contrast between Hillary's non-committal, scripted answers and John Edwards' specific and well-defined proposals. While Clinton continuously dodged the question of Social Security reform, Edwards proposed increasing the cap on taxable income while introducing a protected window between $97,500 and $200,000. I considered this to be the most innovative solution. While neither competitor would commit to a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq by 2013, Edwards at least promised an immediate recall of forty-thousand troops. While I would not say that Edwards won the debate, I certainly believe that he did the best job of differentiating himself from Clinton and proposing actionable reforms, regardless of whether I agree with them.
My final observation concerns the performance of the so-called second tier candidates, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. I was very impressed with these two men, who clearly demonstrated their arguments, accomplishments and experience. The politicking that existed with the top three candidates seemed absent in their approach. Instead, they focused on providing their unapologetic opinions in a logical and composed manner. It is unfortunate that these candidates seem to lack the charisma to generate the support and attention that they need to challenge Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
The Debate at Dartmouth College was a great experience for the students. It was an opportunity for those students who are not particularly politically inclined to participate in the campaigns and learn about the issues that will determine this nomination and ultimately this election. Moreover, the media interest and video montage of campus that preceded the debate reminded the nation of the beauty and uniqueness of this College on the Hill. For the first time in a while, the media coverage of this school was positive.
