Well, I didn't get to watch the first round of Democratic Primary debates, and I have yet to expose myself to the Republican debates, but I got to see round 2 of the Democrats the other day. Basically, I concluded that if I had to pick a Democrat, I'd go with either Rep. Dennis Kucinich or Gov. Bill Richardson. Both are outspoken. Both are passionate about ending the war, healthcare, and the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Richardson's stance on guns, and I'll admit I don't know too much about either one of them at this point, but so far, their my picks. If the Greens come out with some Primary candidates, I'll need to choose between them, but at this point, if the Greens aren't on the ballot in Arizona, I get to pick the primary ballot of my choosing. While it's tempting to pick the Republican ballot and vote for whatever git I think is least likely to do well against the Democrats, I'm not going to do that... maybe.
Some other general notes on the debate:
Obama just didn't thrill me the way he did at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I try to make the excuse for him that being in the top three is forcing him to play cautiously, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of that.
For at least a little while, the strategy of the top three (Obama, Edwards, and Clinton) was pretty obvious: Clinton wanted to blur the lines between herself and the other candidates, especially on Iraq, because if all the Democrats are the same, then the candidate with the most money (Hillary) and the candidate with the most name recognition (Hillary) wins the nomination; Edwards and Obama, on the other hand, seemed to be ignoring Hillary's presence on the stage for much of the debate. They complimented each other and had a back and forth, and only acknowledged the front runner when they were taking swipes at larger groups of candidates. Why? If Obama and Edwards, working together, can knock Hillary out of the top spot, and focus on the
differences between each other, they each have a real shot. With Hillary on top, neither one of them is getting much leverage.
Mike Gravel is crazy. Not Dennis Kucinich style, I have nothing to lose so I'll just say what I think crazy. More like crazy old man Henshaw, who would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.
Is Biden still running? Really?
Chris who?
What, exactly, did CNN think the point was of having the Democrats mostly answer questions about the failings of the Bush administration? I know that none of the Democrats, not even Hillary Clinton, are going to come out and say "I love George Bush." I know all of them are going to race to see which one can appear to be the least like Bush without completely compromising themselves when the general election comes around. I want to know the difference between Obama and Edwards. I want to know the difference between Clinton and Richardson. I got a little of that, but not as much as I wanted. They all want us out of Iraq with varying degrees of urgency. They all want to expand Health Care with various degrees of urgency and various promises about cost. Only Gravel (crazy!) wants English as the Official Language of the U.S. and nobody really wants to answer the question about having 20 minutes to take out Osama Bin Laden. I get it on the similarities. All of that plays into Clinton's hands, in my opinion. I want differences, and I want them in terms I understand. Does anyone out there have a good source to compare healthcare plans or "get out of Iraq" strategies?
Green Bandit Out.
P.S. If you want to donate to Richardson or Kucinich, check the links on the right hand side of the page.
Labels: Debates, Democrats, Politics
