Some thoughts on the Democratic debate

I watched the Democratic presidential debate last night on MSNBC. You can find some decent coverage of the debate on The New York Times, and MSNBC, which sponsored the debate, has full coverage here. Here are the transcripts of the debate, and you can find the video here.

My overall impression is that all the candidates did well in the debate. There was no clear winner here, nor was there a clear loser in this first debate. The candidates did what they had to do for this first debate, which really was to introduce themselves to the American public. But I certainly did have some interesting observations regarding the candidates here:

Hillary Clinton: I will admit that Hillary Clinton really looked "presidential" in this first debate. She was articulate, poised, calm, and really didn't make any major mistakes in this debate. But she wasn't really exciting in this debate, almost performing like a robotic politician. And Clinton will still not admit that her vote for the war in Iraq was a mistake, which still pisses off the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Still, this is only the first debate here.

Barack Obama: This is a strange, first impression that I had when Obama answered his first question. When Obama answered his first question regarding the Iraq war was "dumb," all I could think of was that Obama has some pretty big ears! It was a strange, first impression. Obama started out answering his questions with a little nervousness, and perhaps a little unsure of himself here. Then again, Obama is a freshman senator from Illinois, who catapulted into a rock-star, politician status of running for president. So there was a little inexperience here. Obama flubbed the question on what he would do if two American cities were attacked by terrorists. This was really a question of whether he would be decisive ordering a military retaliation against the terrorists. Obama flubbed that question, dancing around with talk of initiating emergency responses and conducting intelligence reviews, instead of actually saying what needed to be said--that the president should act swiftly in retaliation against such terror attacks. Clinton nailed that question, and Edwards responded somewhat in the middle, saying that he would "act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that," while also stressing the importance of strengthening the homeland security system so that such an attack will not take place. Of course, Obama recognized his mistake and went back to the issue saying, "There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military, and in some cases lethal force, to take out terrorists, and at the same time building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years." But even though he may have been a little inexperienced here, Obama certainly held his own here.

John Edwards: John Edwards was smooth. I found it ironic how Edwards quickly shifted the $400 haircut question into his "Two America's" theme of allowing everyone to have a chance at economic opportunities. And Edwards tossed in his own "Two America's" story, where his father took Edwards and the family into a restaurant, and then left because Edwards' father couldn't afford to eat there. Edwards did a couple of flubs--the first was not including the lack of gas refineries being constructed as a reason for the high gas prices. Edwards talked about the increased demand for oil, but didn't realize there was a supply issue here as well. And Edwards tried to shift the question of high gas prices to the issue of climate change. But the bigger Edwards flub was the time it took for him to decide who his moral leader was. Edwards took about 30 seconds to think about that question, before answering it. And what was his answer? His Lord? His wife? And his father? This is a character-driven question, and the final answer the Edwards gave didn't really bother me. What bothered me about Edwards' answer was that Edwards was trying to think too much like a politician here, trying to please everyone or not piss off too many voters with this question. Edwards should have at least said, right off the bat, that his wife was a moral leader to him and then he could have given a few seconds thought before answering with his father and God. Edwards' flub here really signifies a problem that the Democratic candidates have in talking about their own personal faith, their morals, and their values to the American public. The Democratic candidates may be uncomfortable talking about issues of personal morality, or even the bigger issue of their own personal religious beliefs, because they don't want to anger such voting blocs that do not accept, or agree, with their religious beliefs. In other words, the Democrats do not want to legislate morality. And the Democrats may fear that by talking about morality, such talk may cause the liberal wing to fear that the Democrats will legislate their morality--remember, the Republicans love to legislate morality. If Brian Williams asked this question of who their moral leaders were to any of the Republican presidential candidates, you can bet that every GOP candidate would answer this question with God, and their wives--probably in that particular order. And right after listing the names, the GOP candidates would probably go into a tirade about how America is losing their moral values, and that as president, they would try to re-introduce those moral values back into the country. Mr. Edwards, I don't care if you believe that the Lord is your moral leader, or that you go to church every Sunday, or even if you bow down and pray to Mecca five times a day. You can worship your God in any way you choose. My only concern is that you do not attempt to shove your religious ideology and morals down my throat. It is the biggest problem that I have with the Republican presidential candidates, not the Democratic presidential candidates. So you can talk about religion, your morals, and your beliefs if you want to--just don't try to legislate them on the rest of us.

One thing Edwards did was to clearly state that the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If a Republican is elected president, then that Republican will select one--if not two--Supreme Court justices over the course of the next two presidential terms (assuming the Republican presidential incumbent is re-elected). This is going to tip the court to a very conservative stance, perhaps to the point where Roe verses Wade will be overturned. That has been the Religious Right's wet dream of outlawing abortion, ever since Roe was declared constitutional.

Mike Gravel: Mike Gravel was such fun on the debate! I think the best thing to do here is to show this YouTube clip on Gravel's comments:



Would I vote for Gravel? Of course not--Gravel is very much a loose cannon to be elected into the Oval Office. But the thing that Gravel brought to this debate was a raw anger that is directed against the politicians for getting us into this war in Iraq. And this anger is certainly not just directed at Bush, but also at Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd for voting to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq. Gravel did a great job at stirring the pot up here, and tapping into that raw anger. I'd love to see him in the next Democratic debate to stir the pot even more.

Joe Biden: Joe Biden gave the best one-line answer in the entire debate, perhaps even the best one-line answer from a politician in any debate. From YouTube:



Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Bill Richardson: Bill Richardson was an interesting candidate. One thing I liked about Richardson is that he clearly stated the policies he would do, as president, on an issue. More than that, Richardson numerically listed his policies--This is what I will do as president for this issue--one, two and three. The other candidates waffled here, talking a little about the issue before giving some quick and dirty policy campaign promises. The details of these campaign promises that Richardson, or the other Democratic candidates presented were very sketchy. And I haven't researched into these promises yet. But it was an easy-to-understand presentation that Richardson gave to the American public.

Of course, this also led to a problem with Richardson's presentation. Richardson would ramble on in giving campaign promise after campaign promise, before running out of time, and having debate moderator Brian Williams to basically tell Richardson to shut up now. While his points were easy to understand, it appeared that Richardson was both hurried and disjointed in the delivery of these points. I don't think Richardson is a strong enough candidate to become president. But I do believe he has the policy skills to work in a cabinet level position within a Democratic administration--I've heard plenty of rumors in the liberal blogosphere about Richardson being selected as Secretary of State, or even as Vice President.

Christopher Dodd: Christopher Dodd nailed it on the abortion question. While Edwards, Obama, Biden and Kucinich talked about abortion in terms of legal, social, constitutional, and policy issues, Dodd stated that abortions are a symptom to a larger policy problem of unplanned pregnancies. Find working policy programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, and you will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Provide women with additional choices so that they are not "faced with just the choice they have today."

Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich use to be Democrat's most liberal candidate in the campaign, but after Gravel's lively performance, Kucinich seemed almost a moderate in the debate. It is interesting that Kucinich is the only congressman willing to support an impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Then again, Kucinich is a House Representative, in which the House is responsible for drafting the articles of impeachment against the vice president, while the Senate is basically the jury in the impeachment trial on the vice president. Kucinich was involved in a nice little mini-debate with Obama, where Kucinich told Obama to "quit using war as an instrument of policy....." Obama responded by saying that a war with Iran would be a mistake, but also that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and is a state-sponsor of terrorism. This brought Gravel into the mini-debate, asking Obama, "Who do you want to nuke?" That was a fun mini-debate.

That is a round-up of the thoughts I had on this first Democratic presidential debate. The Republicans debate next Thursday, May 3rd. That should be interesting to watch.