An Appetizer of a Debate: Suozzi vs. Spitzer

[gristy]

I love this guy!!

www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27thu5.html

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the first debate between the two Democrats running for governor of New York was that it was good television. The exchange between Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi was full of worthy political tidbits. And New Yorkers who tuned in could actually recognize differences between two members of the same party.

In a political era when watching candidates debate can be something akin to eating wheat germ, this one left us hungry for more.
<snip>

Both men confessed to having smoked marijuana, gambling and speeding at some point.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Spitzer shows class by even agreeing to debate in the first place...

Suozzi is no more a serious candidate than Katherine Harris in Florida or Rick Tarrent in Vermont (you know, the millionaire running against Bernie Sanders).

Glad you din't play it safe and ignore your primary opponent as you so easily could have. It speaks to your character.

[Jim Lane]

2. Not really

Spitzer would open himself up to severe criticism for "dodging debates" if he tried to duck entirely. Instead, he did the next-best thing. As the Times noted, "Mr. Spitzer agreed to just this one debate, and it was held seven weeks before the Sept. 12 Democratic primary, at a time when many voters have yet to focus on the race." In other words, Spitzer acted in his own political interest.

I haven't picked a candidate in that race yet. More debates would be helpful. For example, until I read about this one, I didn't know that the candidates differed on the death penalty (Spitzer for, Suozzi against) and on legalizing medical marijuana (Spitzer against, Suozzi for). I guess Spitzer's positions will be more defensible if he tries to run for President down the road, but I happen to agree with Suozzi.