Late last night I watched episodes six and seven causing me to change me feelings on a few things.
Initially, I had a pretty strong feeling that Steven Avery was framed, however I don't believe it was just the Police. However, the major issue is that there is no concrete evidence to prove this. At the moment, all we have to go on is circumstantial. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych, who both provided matching alibis, and placed Teresa Halbach on Avery's property at the time of her disappearance. However, I felt their testimonies were a little strange. It's plainly clear that Scott Tadych really dislikes Avery, painting him as a terrible person at every opportunity. His testimony also seemed strange, he seemed uncomfortable and not completely sure of his timeline that day. The only thing he really remembers clearly is seeing Bobby Dassey on the road. In contrast to Tadych, I found Bobby was surprisingly calm during his cross examination, he seemed like he was pretty sure of his story. Again, he was most sure of seeing Tadych on the road, relying on the fact that Tadych would somehow remember the exact time. In my own opinion, I found both men very suspicious. Again, the problem is that there is no concrete evidence to suspect them. The Police never really investigated either of them even though they were both around the "crime scene" at the time of Halbach's disappearance. Considering the fact that they both had their alibis worked out, conveniently knowing exactly what time they passed on the road, seems strange to me. No one else can corroborate this information, and it is heavily relied upon by the prosecution.
I believe this speaks to a greater issue of a systemic bias in the American criminal judiciary system. The prevailing ideology is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, however, it seems like the system is set up to favor the prosecution. It seemed to me like the prosecution and the judge basically figured this trial was just a formality, just another positive statistic. The prosecution and the Police are biased in that they seem more interested in getting their conviction as soon as possible rather than pursuing the actual truth. The prosecution built a case based on what they think would allow them to win, rather than what was the truth. This is an issue you see across the whole American judicial system, they're more interested in results rather than ensuring true justice. The judge similarly wants the process to go smoothly, not having to deal with mistrials, etc, risking putting a dangerous person back on the street. They have no interest in a long, drawn out trial, because that just takes too much time. Judge Willis also makes some interesting decisions in that he allows all this evidence to be used even when it shouldn't be allowed under normal circumstances. The DNA test was contaminated, normally we'd say it's inconclusive, but we're going to allow it as definitive proof. The EDTA test is widely known to be unreliable, no one uses it anymore for this purpose, but oh, I will let the prosecution use the test because it will help their case.
Speaking of the evidence, I find it unbelievable that the court would allow the prosecution to submit all their tests even though all their experts said they were done improperly. Starting with the investigation of the burn sites, it was very clear that the Police made critical errors in procedure when collecting the ashes and bone fragments. These errors should have made it impossible for them to determine what really happened to Teresa's body and where she was burned. They really destroyed their own evidence, making impossible to determine whether the body was moved, or if the bones were damaged during processing, but the court didn't throw it out. Next to that you have the DNA evidence from the bullet, which was presented by a very smug and arrogant looking Crime Lab Technician. She admitted to basically ruining the test, and the sample, but yet they were still allowed to submit it as evidence when it would have been ruled inconclusive under normal circumstances. What use are all of these protocols for ensuring accuracy when the court is going to disregard them? Then there is the EDTA test, which was regarded by all experts as being unreliable, being used as a concrete definitive truth. What is worse is that the court did not even allow the defense to run their own test, neither could they have access to anyone to run that test for them. Either way, it should never have been included as evidence because of the tendency to give false negatives.
Another major issue I have with the procedure of the trial as a whole is the fact that they deemed it necessary to hold the trial in Calumet county because of the conflict of interest and fears of bias but yet they still used a jury from Manitowoc... Shouldn't they have assembled a jury of people from a different county as well?
Ultimately, I still feel like this case should have been ruled a mistrial by judge Willis from pretty early on, considering all the procedural errors made during the investigation. However, I'm not completely surprised he didn't. I think my thinking has definitely changed in that I don't necessarily believe this was a set up by the Police to begin with. I'm leaning more towards that someone else killed her, perhaps Bobby and Scott, and then the Police aided in pinning it on Steven Avery. Either way, I don't really think Steven or Brendan really had anything to do with it, at least they didn't kill her. However, I feel like if Steven hadn't actually killed her, but was somehow involved that he would have admitted to it. It wouldn't have hurt his defense if he had, and likely would have helped.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Making a Murderer - Impressions so far
Like many others I've gotten deep into watching Making a Murderer on Netflix...
Last night, I binge watched episodes one through five and it left me with a lot of questions and observations that have been troubling me all day. I felt it would be a good idea to write them all down, as I remember them, so that I can look back and see how my feelings on the case change as the series goes along. Maybe some of these questions will be answered in the later episodes. I feel I should mention that I really have no prior knowledge of this case, or anything relating to it. I'm trying hard not to go off and research the case, to preserve future episodes for myself. I'm basing my observations, conclusions, and observations solely on the material that was presented in the show. I'm also not a lawyer, just a Political Scientist, so I'm not completely familiar with criminal trial procedures and formalities.
Firstly, I wanted to address what I believe is the greatest grievance in this case so far, Brendan Dassey's initial confession to the investigators. I feel he was treated unfairly, basically coached, pressured, and bullied into a confession. I understand that Police sometimes need to put pressure on suspects or people of interest if they believe that individual has useful information. However, in this case it seemed fairly obvious that Brendan really didn't comprehend the situation he was in. I find it a bit egregious that he was interviewed by the Police a number of times without a lawyer, or anyone else present. I wonder if the Police ever mentioned to him that he had the right to have an attorney present, and if they did, whether Dassey would have understood what they meant. In that sense, I feel it is unfair for the Police to keep questioning him when they know he is unaware of his rights. In all likelihood he was unaware of his rights. We don't really know what happened in the previous interviews before the initial "confession", but it seems clear from Dassey's answers to questions that he was probably just guessing. He seems like at every step, whenever he is presented with information he doesn't understand, he just does what he is told to do. The Police shouldn't have rushed a confession out of him and allowed someone to be present who could explain the situation in terms Brenden could understand. The most heartbreaking moment for me was at the conclusion of the interview, when the two investigators leave the room, Brendan asks about whether he can get back to class in time to hand in his project that was due. That really made it sink in for me that he didn't grasp the gravity of the situation he was in, or what he had just admitted to doing. This too, should have made it clear to the judge that this kid needs a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is mentally fit to give statements or stand trial. It should have been clear that Brendan is unable to make difficult decisions on his own.
Then in the subsequent interviews with his lawyers, investigators, etc, they pray on the fact that they can manipulate him into doing what they want. They all happily let him dig himself deeper into the hole. If they pressure him enough, he just does what they say. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what is being put before him and therefore you can't say he is able to make decisions on his own. Like when he told his Mom in a phone call that he didn't know the definition of "inconsistencies". How is this kid supposed to understand the complex legal jargon, or even more basic terminology, when he doesn't understand that? Yet, he is essentially being forced by his legal team to sign these documents where he is admitting guilt while he maintains he didn't do anything. Though, ultimately, this is what got Len Kachinsky fired as his lawyer.
Speaking of Kachinsky, I got the impression that he was never really interested in listening to Brendan. It seemed like he basically just wanted to get his name on TV and in the papers by accepting a high profile, but seemingly cut and dry, case. Perhaps he figured that he'd just get Brendan to sign the official confession and then plea out, the simplest solution for both the prosecution and defense. It just seemed to me that his legal team had no intention to listen to him when he said he was innocent. An innocent plea would make Kachinsky's job much harder, since Brendan had already "confessed" to the crime. He seemed convinced of Dassey's guilt before even speaking to Dassey. Kachinsky probably wanted to avoid a long drawn out case that he was convinced he would lose anyway, so why go through the trouble of trying to prove his client's innocence and losing? This would certainly not look good if he tried to run for office again.
I also have some procedural grievances with the trial and the judge. Judge Willis, off the bat, should have realized that it was very difficult to insure a fair trail considering the overwhelming publicity of the case in the media. He also made a number of key decisions that I feel really made it very difficult for the defense to try and present a fair case for Avery's innocence. Most notably, the issue of Third Party Liability, which meant the defense had no ability to ever prove that Avery didn't do it because they weren't allowed to blame anyone else. Maybe it's because I'm not a trial lawyer or a judge, but it seems like everyone should be given the chance to argue that someone else did it. The impression I basically got was that Avery's lawyers could say, well, he didn't do it but we can't tell you why because then we'd be blaming a third party. Even when the Police investigation hadn't even explored the possibility of other suspects, and therefore could not concretely rule out that someone else had done it. This all just made it seem as if the trial was just a formality, the Police, State, and Judge all just wanted to get it over with, they got their man, now let's lock him up and call it a day. Another thing I was wondering about was whether Judge Willis may himself be coming from a point of bias. There are a number of opportunities where Willis could have called a mistrial, that I feel would have been warranted, but then chose not to. Especially when presented with statements by the Sheriff saying it'd be easier to shoot Avery instead of framing him.
Moving on, I started thinking about what Avery's motivation would be if he was actually responsible. The theory has been thrown around that Avery's time in prison might have changed him and left him with some psychological damage. If that is the case though, wouldn't there have been some signs visible to his family that he was unstable and might become violent. People don't usually murder others completely out of the blue. Then you think about the letters he sent to his ex-wife while in prison, which were definitely troubling. You could also make a case that he is impulsive, when you take into account his previous criminal exploits. However, If they really thought he is so cold blooded and dangerous, why not subject him to a psychological evaluation? If he is otherwise healthy, then why'd he do it? Did he have any personal issues with Teresa Halbach that have been undisclosed?
The biggest question I have though is why didn't Avery destroy the evidence? I mean, sure, it's clear that neither Avery nor Dassey are criminal masterminds, but even the most simple minded criminal with a car crusher could put two and two together. Avery crushes cars for a living, that'll be the first thing he thinks about doing. You're not going to put the car off in a corner and cover it with branches. That just makes no sense. You also won't just leave the key laying open on the floor. It also seems strange to me that they would then try to burn the body in the backyard rather than move it somewhere far away. There is just too much damning evidence on the property that it just seems odd. Then again, Avery is no criminal mastermind so it is conceivable that he may have panicked and not been able to think.
The evidence just doesn't seem right, but neither does the sequence of events from the moment it was found through the Police searches. Obviously, there is a very easy argument to be made that the Police have a major conflict of interest. The also have a motive to want to get put Avery in jail. It is also quite clear that the Sheriff really dislikes Avery for whatever reason. As do other Officers under the Sheriff's command. It can't be easily discounted that they have plenty of reason to interfere with the investigation, even if they themselves didn't facilitate a set up. For one, you have to wonder why it took four searches to find a car key that was apparently out in the open. Then that car key had no other dna on it other than Avery's. Then the car, also had no other evidence other than a few drops of Avery's blood. If Avery was smart enough to wear gloves, or perhaps scrub his prints out, or whatever, then he'd have been smart enough to clean the blood. Or, you know, crush the car. It is also strange that the Police had basically unlimited, unmonitored, access to the property for a number of days. Who knows what happened within that time? A time when Avery himself wasn't even in town.
I'm trying to view this case as objectively as possible, not allowing myself to fall into the bias that he was set up or is innocent. Though, I feel like the number of procedural errors made in the investigation should have prompted the judge to rule a mistrial. This seems like the most fair thing to do.
Last night, I binge watched episodes one through five and it left me with a lot of questions and observations that have been troubling me all day. I felt it would be a good idea to write them all down, as I remember them, so that I can look back and see how my feelings on the case change as the series goes along. Maybe some of these questions will be answered in the later episodes. I feel I should mention that I really have no prior knowledge of this case, or anything relating to it. I'm trying hard not to go off and research the case, to preserve future episodes for myself. I'm basing my observations, conclusions, and observations solely on the material that was presented in the show. I'm also not a lawyer, just a Political Scientist, so I'm not completely familiar with criminal trial procedures and formalities.
Firstly, I wanted to address what I believe is the greatest grievance in this case so far, Brendan Dassey's initial confession to the investigators. I feel he was treated unfairly, basically coached, pressured, and bullied into a confession. I understand that Police sometimes need to put pressure on suspects or people of interest if they believe that individual has useful information. However, in this case it seemed fairly obvious that Brendan really didn't comprehend the situation he was in. I find it a bit egregious that he was interviewed by the Police a number of times without a lawyer, or anyone else present. I wonder if the Police ever mentioned to him that he had the right to have an attorney present, and if they did, whether Dassey would have understood what they meant. In that sense, I feel it is unfair for the Police to keep questioning him when they know he is unaware of his rights. In all likelihood he was unaware of his rights. We don't really know what happened in the previous interviews before the initial "confession", but it seems clear from Dassey's answers to questions that he was probably just guessing. He seems like at every step, whenever he is presented with information he doesn't understand, he just does what he is told to do. The Police shouldn't have rushed a confession out of him and allowed someone to be present who could explain the situation in terms Brenden could understand. The most heartbreaking moment for me was at the conclusion of the interview, when the two investigators leave the room, Brendan asks about whether he can get back to class in time to hand in his project that was due. That really made it sink in for me that he didn't grasp the gravity of the situation he was in, or what he had just admitted to doing. This too, should have made it clear to the judge that this kid needs a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is mentally fit to give statements or stand trial. It should have been clear that Brendan is unable to make difficult decisions on his own.
Then in the subsequent interviews with his lawyers, investigators, etc, they pray on the fact that they can manipulate him into doing what they want. They all happily let him dig himself deeper into the hole. If they pressure him enough, he just does what they say. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what is being put before him and therefore you can't say he is able to make decisions on his own. Like when he told his Mom in a phone call that he didn't know the definition of "inconsistencies". How is this kid supposed to understand the complex legal jargon, or even more basic terminology, when he doesn't understand that? Yet, he is essentially being forced by his legal team to sign these documents where he is admitting guilt while he maintains he didn't do anything. Though, ultimately, this is what got Len Kachinsky fired as his lawyer.
Speaking of Kachinsky, I got the impression that he was never really interested in listening to Brendan. It seemed like he basically just wanted to get his name on TV and in the papers by accepting a high profile, but seemingly cut and dry, case. Perhaps he figured that he'd just get Brendan to sign the official confession and then plea out, the simplest solution for both the prosecution and defense. It just seemed to me that his legal team had no intention to listen to him when he said he was innocent. An innocent plea would make Kachinsky's job much harder, since Brendan had already "confessed" to the crime. He seemed convinced of Dassey's guilt before even speaking to Dassey. Kachinsky probably wanted to avoid a long drawn out case that he was convinced he would lose anyway, so why go through the trouble of trying to prove his client's innocence and losing? This would certainly not look good if he tried to run for office again.
I also have some procedural grievances with the trial and the judge. Judge Willis, off the bat, should have realized that it was very difficult to insure a fair trail considering the overwhelming publicity of the case in the media. He also made a number of key decisions that I feel really made it very difficult for the defense to try and present a fair case for Avery's innocence. Most notably, the issue of Third Party Liability, which meant the defense had no ability to ever prove that Avery didn't do it because they weren't allowed to blame anyone else. Maybe it's because I'm not a trial lawyer or a judge, but it seems like everyone should be given the chance to argue that someone else did it. The impression I basically got was that Avery's lawyers could say, well, he didn't do it but we can't tell you why because then we'd be blaming a third party. Even when the Police investigation hadn't even explored the possibility of other suspects, and therefore could not concretely rule out that someone else had done it. This all just made it seem as if the trial was just a formality, the Police, State, and Judge all just wanted to get it over with, they got their man, now let's lock him up and call it a day. Another thing I was wondering about was whether Judge Willis may himself be coming from a point of bias. There are a number of opportunities where Willis could have called a mistrial, that I feel would have been warranted, but then chose not to. Especially when presented with statements by the Sheriff saying it'd be easier to shoot Avery instead of framing him.
Moving on, I started thinking about what Avery's motivation would be if he was actually responsible. The theory has been thrown around that Avery's time in prison might have changed him and left him with some psychological damage. If that is the case though, wouldn't there have been some signs visible to his family that he was unstable and might become violent. People don't usually murder others completely out of the blue. Then you think about the letters he sent to his ex-wife while in prison, which were definitely troubling. You could also make a case that he is impulsive, when you take into account his previous criminal exploits. However, If they really thought he is so cold blooded and dangerous, why not subject him to a psychological evaluation? If he is otherwise healthy, then why'd he do it? Did he have any personal issues with Teresa Halbach that have been undisclosed?
The biggest question I have though is why didn't Avery destroy the evidence? I mean, sure, it's clear that neither Avery nor Dassey are criminal masterminds, but even the most simple minded criminal with a car crusher could put two and two together. Avery crushes cars for a living, that'll be the first thing he thinks about doing. You're not going to put the car off in a corner and cover it with branches. That just makes no sense. You also won't just leave the key laying open on the floor. It also seems strange to me that they would then try to burn the body in the backyard rather than move it somewhere far away. There is just too much damning evidence on the property that it just seems odd. Then again, Avery is no criminal mastermind so it is conceivable that he may have panicked and not been able to think.
The evidence just doesn't seem right, but neither does the sequence of events from the moment it was found through the Police searches. Obviously, there is a very easy argument to be made that the Police have a major conflict of interest. The also have a motive to want to get put Avery in jail. It is also quite clear that the Sheriff really dislikes Avery for whatever reason. As do other Officers under the Sheriff's command. It can't be easily discounted that they have plenty of reason to interfere with the investigation, even if they themselves didn't facilitate a set up. For one, you have to wonder why it took four searches to find a car key that was apparently out in the open. Then that car key had no other dna on it other than Avery's. Then the car, also had no other evidence other than a few drops of Avery's blood. If Avery was smart enough to wear gloves, or perhaps scrub his prints out, or whatever, then he'd have been smart enough to clean the blood. Or, you know, crush the car. It is also strange that the Police had basically unlimited, unmonitored, access to the property for a number of days. Who knows what happened within that time? A time when Avery himself wasn't even in town.
I'm trying to view this case as objectively as possible, not allowing myself to fall into the bias that he was set up or is innocent. Though, I feel like the number of procedural errors made in the investigation should have prompted the judge to rule a mistrial. This seems like the most fair thing to do.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Thoughts on the First Democratic Debate
The leading Democratic candidates held their first debate last night and I wanted to give my impressions on how I feel they did.
First off, I'll say my overall impression was that the candidates performed pretty well. I really appreciated that the general tone of the debate was professional and civil. Though, these debates are generally well practiced and negotiated in advance so that might have been agreed on beforehand. The Democrats as a whole know they need to distance themselves from the behavior of the Republican candidates. Indeed, I find the Republican debates hard to watch because they never discuss policy but basically just spend the whole time insulting each other and trying to convince people they love God and America more than everyone else. A highly scripted affair which basically amounts to a campaign advertisement for the front runners rather than a real debate of their platforms and views. Anderson Cooper actually grilled the candidates and gave them good questions. My main criticism with the format was the fact that it turned out to essentially be a back and forth between Clinton and Sanders, with occasional appearances by O'Malley. I'm never really a fan of focusing on just the poll front runners. The point of these debates should be precisely to give the other candidates an opportunity to defend their platforms, at the very least to make people aware of what their platform is.
An issue I have with modern American televised debates is that they still try too hard to make it entertaining. Politics is not supposed to be entertaining like going to a concert or watching a movie. It's serious business, these people could potentially wield a lot of power and make important decisions that affect our daily lives. We shouldn't lose sight of that and turn this people into actors/entertainers. We shouldn't need famous grammy winning artists to come out and sing the national anthem. I guess this is more an issue with American society and their political engagement. The main issue is the fact that in order to get people to actually watch the debates, we need to turn it into a spectacle. No big TV network is going to broadcast a debate unless people watch it, it'll cost them too much. Leading to another big issue in modern politics, money. What we need are difficult but fair questions. A debate is a test of knowledge and how well the candidates can defend their positions and policies. Overall I feel like last night's debate did deliver with some good questioning and pressing candidates to answer the questions rather than sidestep and deflect.
Now for my impressions of the individual candidates:
Hillary Clinton
I think Hillary performed as expected, which is to say she did well. She has experience with debates and is a true politician, she was prepared, calm, and well composed. Her policies are designed to be mostly inoffensive and will be accepted by moderates and isn't a hard sell to the more progressive voter. It was very clear that she was trying to drive home the point that she is a woman and a grandmother, and electing her would mean electing the first female president. As nice as it would be to say that the U.S. finally elected its first female President, I really hope that isn't the main reason people will vote for her. There are more important issues that need to be focused on. However, I think my main concern with Hillary is that she epitomizes the old political elite of this country. She has no real incentive to tackle the systemic problems in our Government and political process because she also directly benefits from it, it's responsible for her success. So I doubt we'd get any meaningful action on issues such as campaign finance reform or Citizens United. She also stumbled a bit when pressed by Anderson Cooper about her reputation for her changing positions on issues, and not being willing to take a view on others, like legalization of marijuana. She had trouble defending herself on that and basically admitted that her stances are generally whatever is politically convenient, unwilling to take a firm stance on an issue.
Overall, I think she performed well but I wouldn't vote for her. She came across as the stereotypical practiced and rehearsed American establishment politician, pandering to the base voter with popular yet inoffensive policies. Willing to do or say anything for your vote, while at the same time, she is really only serving herself and her friends. She is part of the American political dynasty, the small circle of the elite who call the shots in Government through lobbying and back room deal making. Sometimes that's what you need to get things done, but at the same time, our political system needs to evolve away from that, away from special interests and dynastic nepotism.
I don't necessarily agree that Clinton 'won' the debate, she did well in style, but showed her weaknesses as a true establishment candidate, one chooses her positions based on political convenience. She also did not provide the best answers for how she will actually accomplish what she wants to do, or what it really is she wants to do.
Bernie Sanders
Out of all of the candidates I feel like Sanders came across as the most normal as a person and not a politician. He was imperfect, but in a genuine way. At the start of the debate, Sanders did not look too comfortable and at times almost sounded like the confused, angry old man on the street corner yelling at everyone to slow down. Though, he became more comfortable as the debate wore on and he settled in. With him it is clearly obvious that he was trying to hammer home that he cares about inequality and wants to fix the country's socioeconomic system. He wasn't very subtle about this, and that for me can get a little off putting. You already told me you think this is a problem, now tell me how you plan to solve it. On some questions, such as those about foreign policy and trade deals, he'd revert back to the importance of solving inequality rather than producing a solid answer on the actual subject. It was obvious that he is not as well versed on foreign policy issues as Clinton, but then again, she did serve as Secretary of State. One moment that I appreciated was how strongly he spoke out against Clinton's email "scandal". He wants to focus, rightfully, on the actual issues and not manufactured scandals. However, if you're thinking of political strategy, this only helps Clinton by taking some pressure off of her. I personally hope that his is just a sign that Sanders isn't interested in playing games and sideshows, but rather just wants to do his job.
He did stumble when pressed on his views of gun control and whether gun shops and manufacturers should be held accountable in mass shootings. Both Clinton and O'Malley were able to put him up against the ropes and challenged his conviction towards tougher gun laws. Sanders was unconvincing that he would want, or be able, to enact better gun control legislation and challenge the NRA influence.
Overall, I think Bernie wasn't bad but he wasn't flawless either. While I think he certainly has good ideas about reducing inequality, protecting the middle class, and decreasing education costs, he was somewhat unconvincing in how he'd actually manage to accomplish this. His views are going to be tough sell to moderates and conservatives. Clinton brought up a good point when Sanders mentioned we should look towards Denmark and Sweden as examples when it comes to socioeconomic policy; those countries are smaller than we are. Yet, the United States Government has the financial resources to fund any universal healthcare program if it really wanted to. Sanders could do well to avoid allowing his opponents to take easy shots like that when he makes a valid point.
Martin O'Malley
O'Malley had a decent showing as well, he had his strong moments, but also didn't get a lot of time. As I mentioned, the majority of the debate was a back and forth between Sanders and Clinton. However, O'Malley was able to interject on certain topics and differentiate himself. The best moment being his taking on Sanders and Clinton on gun control, backing himself up by stating his accomplishments in passing tough gun control legislation in Maryland. He correctly stated that he was the only candidate present who actually has did what the others say they want to do. Other than that O'Malley didn't really stand out in any particular way, no major mistakes, mainly because all the attention was on Sanders and Clinton.
Stylistically I feel he tried a little too hard to show that he was a good family man, to the point that it seems disingenuous and scripted. Why do we Americans want our politicians to keep parading out their families to show they are good people who understand us? I don't doubt that you do love your family, but that doesn't prove you can empathize with other people, or understand their problems better than a unmarried candidate. It certainly doesn't give you solid morality, as many politicians have proved in the past.
Overall a decent showing for a candidate that hasn't gotten as much exposure as he perhaps deserves. Is O'Malley a serious contender? I believe he can be.
Jim Webb
There is not a whole lot to say about Jim Webb other than I believe he had a somewhat difficult night. He had to fight for his time, trying to muscle his way into to back and forth between Clinton and Sanders. At times it was obvious he was getting frustrated by not being allowed to interject his opinion and ideas on certain issues. It was frustrating not to be able to hear a lot from both him and Chafee during the evening as we don't really have a good idea what they're all about. Webb was able to talk about his experience when it comes to defense and intelligence issues. I felt he showed a decent understanding of the need to balance protection of personal liberties and security when it comes to the NSA. He also talked about his understanding of immigrants and the value they bring to nation, mentioning how his own wife was an immigrant from Vietnam.
However, Webb had the most awkward moment of the night that kind of summed up his performance. When the candidates were asked "Which enemy are you most proud of?" the others talked about their political enemies, the coal lobby and special interest groups, Webb said "I'd have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me. But he's not around right now to talk to.". He then had a sort of awkward, proud grin on his face, the kind that says, "I showed him!". It seemed way off the mark for me. That's not something I'd want my President to say, is that how he'll act if he has to take the country to war? Certainly alluding to the fact that you literally killed your enemy is no laughing matter? Anyway, I don't mean to denigrate his service in anyway, far from it because I can't begin to image how difficult it must be to serve in combat. Which is exactly why I don't think wars and death should ever be seen as laughing matter by those in power.
As you may guess, I personally don't believe Webb is great candidate, he allowed himself to lose his cool a bit with the format of the debate. He also really should have done better with the enemy question.
Lincoln Chafee
Chafee also had a difficult night. He also didn't get to say a lot, the only positive being that he highlighted the lack of scandals during his 30 year career in public service. Which was in reference to Clinton, who has been somewhat plagued by scandal, albeit most of those scandals are really just the Republican party blowing certain things way out of proportion. Chafee was also pressed on whether he was actually a Democrat as he was previously a member of the Republican Party, and also ran as an independent. This makes it somewhat clear that he has no real political allegiance, but rather floats down the center of the aisle. For all intents and purposes you can probably call him a very moderate Republican.
However, Chafee really stumbled when grilled about his voting record. Particularly, when asked why he voted for Glass-Steagall he essentially replied with the popular excuse, "it was my first day!". He said it had been his very first vote. Chafee left himself exposed and Cooper did not hesitate to grill him, asking "Are you saying you don't know what you voted for?" This is where Chafee really stumbled for me as he again said that he had just arrived in the Senate and that Cooper was being too hard on him. I think Cooper's questioning was legitimate, it is crucial that you know what you are voting for before casting a vote. You can't just brush that off by saying it was your first day, essentially that you didn't know what you were doing. Chafee showed his weakness in not being able to come up with a good answer, but rather just saying the moderator is being too hard on him for asking him a very legitimate question.
Chafee showed that being scandal free doesn't necessarily mean you are a good leader. In my opinion I want to be assured that my President is actually reading the things that come across his desk and not just putting his signature on it, especially not on his first day. Whoops, I accidentally declared war on Russia, well, it was my first day!
Who would I vote for?
Based on this debate, I'm not sure actually. I think Sanders and Clinton are both front runners obviously.
I lean sympathetically towards Bernie, I think he represents more closely my own beliefs when it comes to economic and social policy. I also think he is the most relatable, most 'normal' person. My main concern is that I'm not sure he'll actually be able to accomplish what he wants to do. I'm also worried that more moderate Democrats and swing voters may see him as too much of an 'extremist' and a socialist, in the negative sense.
Clinton is an obvious strong politician, she knows what to say, and I do believe she'll know how to get things done as President. However, what is is that she really believes in? Her strength is that she knows how to work the system, but this also means having to do favors for special interests. This is also one reason I'm no so keen on voting for her.
O'Malley seems interesting to me and might have the potential to be a good President, however I don't know enough about him to form a true opinion.
First off, I'll say my overall impression was that the candidates performed pretty well. I really appreciated that the general tone of the debate was professional and civil. Though, these debates are generally well practiced and negotiated in advance so that might have been agreed on beforehand. The Democrats as a whole know they need to distance themselves from the behavior of the Republican candidates. Indeed, I find the Republican debates hard to watch because they never discuss policy but basically just spend the whole time insulting each other and trying to convince people they love God and America more than everyone else. A highly scripted affair which basically amounts to a campaign advertisement for the front runners rather than a real debate of their platforms and views. Anderson Cooper actually grilled the candidates and gave them good questions. My main criticism with the format was the fact that it turned out to essentially be a back and forth between Clinton and Sanders, with occasional appearances by O'Malley. I'm never really a fan of focusing on just the poll front runners. The point of these debates should be precisely to give the other candidates an opportunity to defend their platforms, at the very least to make people aware of what their platform is.
An issue I have with modern American televised debates is that they still try too hard to make it entertaining. Politics is not supposed to be entertaining like going to a concert or watching a movie. It's serious business, these people could potentially wield a lot of power and make important decisions that affect our daily lives. We shouldn't lose sight of that and turn this people into actors/entertainers. We shouldn't need famous grammy winning artists to come out and sing the national anthem. I guess this is more an issue with American society and their political engagement. The main issue is the fact that in order to get people to actually watch the debates, we need to turn it into a spectacle. No big TV network is going to broadcast a debate unless people watch it, it'll cost them too much. Leading to another big issue in modern politics, money. What we need are difficult but fair questions. A debate is a test of knowledge and how well the candidates can defend their positions and policies. Overall I feel like last night's debate did deliver with some good questioning and pressing candidates to answer the questions rather than sidestep and deflect.
Now for my impressions of the individual candidates:
Hillary Clinton
I think Hillary performed as expected, which is to say she did well. She has experience with debates and is a true politician, she was prepared, calm, and well composed. Her policies are designed to be mostly inoffensive and will be accepted by moderates and isn't a hard sell to the more progressive voter. It was very clear that she was trying to drive home the point that she is a woman and a grandmother, and electing her would mean electing the first female president. As nice as it would be to say that the U.S. finally elected its first female President, I really hope that isn't the main reason people will vote for her. There are more important issues that need to be focused on. However, I think my main concern with Hillary is that she epitomizes the old political elite of this country. She has no real incentive to tackle the systemic problems in our Government and political process because she also directly benefits from it, it's responsible for her success. So I doubt we'd get any meaningful action on issues such as campaign finance reform or Citizens United. She also stumbled a bit when pressed by Anderson Cooper about her reputation for her changing positions on issues, and not being willing to take a view on others, like legalization of marijuana. She had trouble defending herself on that and basically admitted that her stances are generally whatever is politically convenient, unwilling to take a firm stance on an issue.
Overall, I think she performed well but I wouldn't vote for her. She came across as the stereotypical practiced and rehearsed American establishment politician, pandering to the base voter with popular yet inoffensive policies. Willing to do or say anything for your vote, while at the same time, she is really only serving herself and her friends. She is part of the American political dynasty, the small circle of the elite who call the shots in Government through lobbying and back room deal making. Sometimes that's what you need to get things done, but at the same time, our political system needs to evolve away from that, away from special interests and dynastic nepotism.
I don't necessarily agree that Clinton 'won' the debate, she did well in style, but showed her weaknesses as a true establishment candidate, one chooses her positions based on political convenience. She also did not provide the best answers for how she will actually accomplish what she wants to do, or what it really is she wants to do.
Bernie Sanders
Out of all of the candidates I feel like Sanders came across as the most normal as a person and not a politician. He was imperfect, but in a genuine way. At the start of the debate, Sanders did not look too comfortable and at times almost sounded like the confused, angry old man on the street corner yelling at everyone to slow down. Though, he became more comfortable as the debate wore on and he settled in. With him it is clearly obvious that he was trying to hammer home that he cares about inequality and wants to fix the country's socioeconomic system. He wasn't very subtle about this, and that for me can get a little off putting. You already told me you think this is a problem, now tell me how you plan to solve it. On some questions, such as those about foreign policy and trade deals, he'd revert back to the importance of solving inequality rather than producing a solid answer on the actual subject. It was obvious that he is not as well versed on foreign policy issues as Clinton, but then again, she did serve as Secretary of State. One moment that I appreciated was how strongly he spoke out against Clinton's email "scandal". He wants to focus, rightfully, on the actual issues and not manufactured scandals. However, if you're thinking of political strategy, this only helps Clinton by taking some pressure off of her. I personally hope that his is just a sign that Sanders isn't interested in playing games and sideshows, but rather just wants to do his job.
He did stumble when pressed on his views of gun control and whether gun shops and manufacturers should be held accountable in mass shootings. Both Clinton and O'Malley were able to put him up against the ropes and challenged his conviction towards tougher gun laws. Sanders was unconvincing that he would want, or be able, to enact better gun control legislation and challenge the NRA influence.
Overall, I think Bernie wasn't bad but he wasn't flawless either. While I think he certainly has good ideas about reducing inequality, protecting the middle class, and decreasing education costs, he was somewhat unconvincing in how he'd actually manage to accomplish this. His views are going to be tough sell to moderates and conservatives. Clinton brought up a good point when Sanders mentioned we should look towards Denmark and Sweden as examples when it comes to socioeconomic policy; those countries are smaller than we are. Yet, the United States Government has the financial resources to fund any universal healthcare program if it really wanted to. Sanders could do well to avoid allowing his opponents to take easy shots like that when he makes a valid point.
Martin O'Malley
O'Malley had a decent showing as well, he had his strong moments, but also didn't get a lot of time. As I mentioned, the majority of the debate was a back and forth between Sanders and Clinton. However, O'Malley was able to interject on certain topics and differentiate himself. The best moment being his taking on Sanders and Clinton on gun control, backing himself up by stating his accomplishments in passing tough gun control legislation in Maryland. He correctly stated that he was the only candidate present who actually has did what the others say they want to do. Other than that O'Malley didn't really stand out in any particular way, no major mistakes, mainly because all the attention was on Sanders and Clinton.
Stylistically I feel he tried a little too hard to show that he was a good family man, to the point that it seems disingenuous and scripted. Why do we Americans want our politicians to keep parading out their families to show they are good people who understand us? I don't doubt that you do love your family, but that doesn't prove you can empathize with other people, or understand their problems better than a unmarried candidate. It certainly doesn't give you solid morality, as many politicians have proved in the past.
Overall a decent showing for a candidate that hasn't gotten as much exposure as he perhaps deserves. Is O'Malley a serious contender? I believe he can be.
Jim Webb
There is not a whole lot to say about Jim Webb other than I believe he had a somewhat difficult night. He had to fight for his time, trying to muscle his way into to back and forth between Clinton and Sanders. At times it was obvious he was getting frustrated by not being allowed to interject his opinion and ideas on certain issues. It was frustrating not to be able to hear a lot from both him and Chafee during the evening as we don't really have a good idea what they're all about. Webb was able to talk about his experience when it comes to defense and intelligence issues. I felt he showed a decent understanding of the need to balance protection of personal liberties and security when it comes to the NSA. He also talked about his understanding of immigrants and the value they bring to nation, mentioning how his own wife was an immigrant from Vietnam.
However, Webb had the most awkward moment of the night that kind of summed up his performance. When the candidates were asked "Which enemy are you most proud of?" the others talked about their political enemies, the coal lobby and special interest groups, Webb said "I'd have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me. But he's not around right now to talk to.". He then had a sort of awkward, proud grin on his face, the kind that says, "I showed him!". It seemed way off the mark for me. That's not something I'd want my President to say, is that how he'll act if he has to take the country to war? Certainly alluding to the fact that you literally killed your enemy is no laughing matter? Anyway, I don't mean to denigrate his service in anyway, far from it because I can't begin to image how difficult it must be to serve in combat. Which is exactly why I don't think wars and death should ever be seen as laughing matter by those in power.
As you may guess, I personally don't believe Webb is great candidate, he allowed himself to lose his cool a bit with the format of the debate. He also really should have done better with the enemy question.
Lincoln Chafee
Chafee also had a difficult night. He also didn't get to say a lot, the only positive being that he highlighted the lack of scandals during his 30 year career in public service. Which was in reference to Clinton, who has been somewhat plagued by scandal, albeit most of those scandals are really just the Republican party blowing certain things way out of proportion. Chafee was also pressed on whether he was actually a Democrat as he was previously a member of the Republican Party, and also ran as an independent. This makes it somewhat clear that he has no real political allegiance, but rather floats down the center of the aisle. For all intents and purposes you can probably call him a very moderate Republican.
However, Chafee really stumbled when grilled about his voting record. Particularly, when asked why he voted for Glass-Steagall he essentially replied with the popular excuse, "it was my first day!". He said it had been his very first vote. Chafee left himself exposed and Cooper did not hesitate to grill him, asking "Are you saying you don't know what you voted for?" This is where Chafee really stumbled for me as he again said that he had just arrived in the Senate and that Cooper was being too hard on him. I think Cooper's questioning was legitimate, it is crucial that you know what you are voting for before casting a vote. You can't just brush that off by saying it was your first day, essentially that you didn't know what you were doing. Chafee showed his weakness in not being able to come up with a good answer, but rather just saying the moderator is being too hard on him for asking him a very legitimate question.
Chafee showed that being scandal free doesn't necessarily mean you are a good leader. In my opinion I want to be assured that my President is actually reading the things that come across his desk and not just putting his signature on it, especially not on his first day. Whoops, I accidentally declared war on Russia, well, it was my first day!
Who would I vote for?
Based on this debate, I'm not sure actually. I think Sanders and Clinton are both front runners obviously.
I lean sympathetically towards Bernie, I think he represents more closely my own beliefs when it comes to economic and social policy. I also think he is the most relatable, most 'normal' person. My main concern is that I'm not sure he'll actually be able to accomplish what he wants to do. I'm also worried that more moderate Democrats and swing voters may see him as too much of an 'extremist' and a socialist, in the negative sense.
Clinton is an obvious strong politician, she knows what to say, and I do believe she'll know how to get things done as President. However, what is is that she really believes in? Her strength is that she knows how to work the system, but this also means having to do favors for special interests. This is also one reason I'm no so keen on voting for her.
O'Malley seems interesting to me and might have the potential to be a good President, however I don't know enough about him to form a true opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)