posted by Rena at 12:06 PM

 

So I caught the debate today, much to my enjoyment. Here's my summary (and Slate's Chris Suellentrop's). To warn you, mine's not so much a summary as an in-depth description. It's VERY long.

Dean was as expected. He had some scripted remarks fitting his typical profile. He bragged about the hundreds of thousands of "grassroots" campaign supporters he has, how they've broken fundraising records with an average donation of about 70 dollars each. He once again scolds Kerry, Edwards, and Gephart for "giving Bush a blank check" to invade Iraq. Personally, I think it's time to give them a break. Nobody's forgotten they supported the Resolution, and we won't forget it. But at the same time, the information we now have is not the same as the information they had a year ago when they cast their votes, due to either Bush&Co lies, unforseeable developments in the Iraq situation, or some combination of the two. All the candidates but Lieberman now claim they would not have supported it if they knew then what they know now. I've gotta say, I do admire him for sticking to his position and not pandering to polls--he has stuck by several unpopular positions. But as Suellentrop says in his Slate dispatch: "I still find it difficult to believe that Democratic primary voters are going to rally behind the candidate who is for war in Iraq and against Hollywood." And there it is. He's great because he says what he believes, and follows his morals, but unfortunately, he's just way too right-wing.

Does anyone else wish the fringe candidates would get out of the way so we can hear what the frontrunners are saying? Nine candidates is too many. I think I'd be happy just to be rid of Carol Mosely Braun. She continues to have no clear platform, and tonight she repeated her assertation that the reason she's the best candidate is that she's a woman. To her I say this: Get off the stage. You're only making it harder for women candidates in the future (ones with political experience and positions on the tough issues.) It's not fair, but women have to assimilate into men's politics. It's not fair, but you have to run like a man, think like a man, and act like a man in order to be successful in American politics. I figure once we acheive a critical mass of women in government, the nature of US politics will shift of its own accord. But I'm not holding my breath.

Kucinich. Sigh. On a few of the issues, he says things that I really like, in a whimsical sort of way. His suggestion of a cabinet-level Minister of Peace, for example. I think that would be fantastic. But it's not really among my priorities for the nation. I'd go with reversing the tax cuts, balancing the budget, getting the economy going again (Bush, your trickle-down economics aren't working!), health care, and education. I don't know what the hell we ought to do in Iraq, but his suggestion that we just get the hell out is so ridiculous it hardly bears discussion. For the most part, Kucinich reminds me of a chihuahua--shrill and essentially pointless.

Gephardt, who I once dismissed as having no personality, is also getting more and more annoying. He did indeed repeat the description of Bush as a "miserable failure". Worse, his gesturing with a pen clenched tightly in his right hand reminds me strongly of Bob Dole. To him I say: where was this clarity on the issues in 2002, when you should have been leading Dems to victories in Congress? Get back to Washington, and do your job. This is someone else's fight.

John "Son of a Mill Worker" Edwards once again had nothing original to say beyond his background. I do appreciate where he's coming from, though, since my dad's family comes from the Carolina hills. My great-grandfather worked in a textile factory. It took three generations for us to get where we are. Edwards did it in one. That's noteworthy, especially for his time. The moderator did go so far as to attack his background, saying that Kennedy and FDR were great leaders coming from great privelege. I didn't follow that logic, but I do think if Edwards wants to be taken seriously he needs to put out some interesting policy. At a meeting I attended last spring, an Edwards representative mentioned a plan for rural America Edwards was designing. Whatever happened to that? I don't think there's any doubt that rural areas are being ignored more and more as time goes on. I'd get behind him for that. As is, my feeling for him remains lukewarm.

Kerry, the once-clear-frontrunner, is now nearly invisible in the debate. He doesn't even seem like a major player. It's just as well; he was really boring.

For weeks, my brother has been saying how cool it would be if Al Sharpton won the nomination. I've been giving him dismissive "yeah, ok" looks. But seeing Sharpton in action today--wow. That man can speak. He said nothing for the first twenty minutes of the debate, then entered powerfully. He defended Edwards on the attack on his upbringing (and did so beautifully, see the Slate article for a quote.) Sharpton doesn't attack other candidates, and he doesn't waste time repeating the same crap over and over. He says his piece concisely and convincingly, and doesn't get into the mud. Why not? He doesn't have to. He's not in the main pack, he's not going to win. So he can say what he wants to. The fact that that means he's defending others (and he did this in an earlier debate, too--you can look it up in the Slate archives if you really want) says a lot about his character, and I think speaks well to how he would act as president. If by some massive fluke he makes it to the general election, I'm campaigning like hell for him.

On Wesley Clark, who I was seeing in action for the first time tonight: he alone among the candidates has a true air of presidential gravity. Many of his remarks were pre-scripted, but he didn't sound rehearsed, he sounded earnest (OK, I stole that word from Slate). He looks the part and makes me want to respect him. Unfortunately, his position on the issues seems very much poll-driven, and I'm suspicious of his late entry into the race.

Side note on that--Hilary Clinton was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart today. He brought up the fact that Arnold just won the governorship easily after a two-month campaign. He then goes on to remark that there's a presidential election coming up ("that's like governor of all fifty states!") and to suggest that if a presidential candidate ("just totally hypothetically, let's call her 'Billary Flinton' ") were to enter the race late, she might have a chance. She made a diversion joke and made no direct response at all. If she enters the race, I'll be pissed. I personally like Hillary (she reminds me a little of myself) but nobody else does, and I think she is SO the wrong candidate for this time. Maybe the wrong candidate always. I do feel for her, though, as she was always the more successful one when she and Bill were young. Nobody thought he'd amount to anything, and they thought Hillary was going places. But now she'll always be in his shadow, and we'll never know for sure if she could have made it on her own, which is unfortunate.

So that's that. I no longer feel as bad for having missed previous debates, as this is all seeming very repetitive already. See Slate's Democratic Debate Drinking Game, cleverly subtitled "Get drunk on political discourse!" God, I love that website.