After watching the Democratic candidates tonight on CNN, no change was made in my thinking about any of the candidates.

I still think Hillary Clinton might win the nomination, which would be really bad, because the Republicans could easily beat her. She has put off as many Democrats as Republicans, so there could be Democrats voting for a moderate Republican if she were the nominee. Thank goodness there are no moderate Republicans so far!

Obama shows calm bearing and intelligence, but I still wonder how many won’t vote for him because of experience level or ethnicity. He would certainly put the best face on us, as a nation, if he was to become president.

Dodd has many good ideas, but seems to get marginalized by the audience and the press. Kucinich is the one I agree with on much of his foreign policy stance, but he just doesn’t look imposing, or presidential, and honesty dictates the admittance that looks are so important. Mr. Gravel, who was an impressive guy in Alaska when I was there as a kid, just seems so far past his best days.

The candidate I am hoping will be the choice is John Edwards. He has ideas I like, has shown the ability to admit mistakes, and has the same calm bearing and intelligence as Mr. Obama. I hope that Edwards will look to Obama as his running mate.

The thing I was concentrating on tonight more than the candidates, was how frustrating this process was. The format is poor. We are in the age of technology and yet we can do no better than this? We still have people talking over each other, in order to complete a thought. Other times candidates talk over someone else to keep the ideas from the original speaker coming into focus.

Why has there been no change in the way these debates are held? If an eye was kept on total time, yet allowing any candidate to complete a thought, two things would be accomplished. Individuals would finish their thoughts, and they would either speak more efficiently, or lose out on one or more of the later questions, having run out of time.

This forced economy of speech would cause more ‘plain talk’ and fewer ‘magic phrases’ being used. If one studies the speeches of Harry Truman, the message was put out in a minimum of time, with little or no ambiguity. This is what should be made the goal.

With debates using this method, time could be used efficiently, and the public would be better informed after the speaking.

Tags: debates, political process, caucus, harry truman, cnn