The format was interesting as it seem designed for them to attack each other, rather than to actually present their positions. It was interesting that although the moderators complained, it was clear that they felt free to go over the time limits.
I can't imagine what it would be like for the old money Republicans watching this spectacle. Neither Romney or Gingrich acted in a way that could be called Presidential, likable or inspiring. Romney seemed on edge with a simmering anger that he had to be there. Gingrich seemed smug as his blows hit others - likely reminding some of Republican comments earlier in the week that he goes for personal destruction.
I am impressed with Kerry's position. To truly believe in democracy around the world, you really do need to accept that other peoples will sometimes make choices that we would prefer they didn't. Here, it is better to meet and to get the commitments that he did that they will respect the other parties and past treaties. I am sure that Neither Kerry nor Obama are naive - they will watch to see if actions follow words. We know the problems that exist with imposing a US approved strongman. In all countries where this happened, they invariably suppress the people and take as much of the wealth of the country as they can. This leaves us supporting unpopular dictators.
The strange thing is the position this puts the Bush/neo-con people. Their stated goal to the American people starting in January 2005 was that they were "spreading democracy". One of the earliest things done was to push an election that both the UN and Israel wanted delayed - that resulted in Hamas winning. They have since taken credit for the Arab spring. I don't believe that all of these resulted from attacking Iraq and creating a thriving democracy there - for one thing, it is not thriving democracy. I think it is a result of life becoming impossible because of the economic downturn and the natural resentment against the dictators in power. The question for the Republicans will be do they believe in democracy for everyone or just people who would chose what they want.
I wonder if Egypt and Libya will become part of the 2012 election. Israel clearly will be and Gingrich has staked out a very irresponsible position that breaks with US policy at least since Carter. It is also not in Israel's interest. Israelis know that they can not hold all the land they do and be both a Jewish state and a democracy where everyone has the same rights. Most American Jews favor the two state solution as the only way to have a Jewish state. Many, but not most, young American Jews have moved away from a two state solution to a one state solution where everyone has rights.
But, it is not the Jewish population fought over here - it is the evangelical Christian population - many of whom have already demonized Islam. It is also likely a variation on "who lost China" - which ignores the reality of our position in the Middle East for at least the last decade. It also ignores that Obama got Osama and has been more effective towards Al Quaeda. It also ignores that we ARE more respected in the world than under GWB.
= new reply since forum marked as read