Some thoughts about last night's debate ...

Brokaw did a good job. Some of his questions displayed a depth of understanding on issues that surprised me. He also called out the candidates for not answering the questions.

I think the Congressional candidates are going to have a difficult time justifying their voting record on the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, especialy given their current stances. I understand that the complexity behind a lot of Congressional votes, where side deals are common place. Looking at any one vote in isolation may not yield a clear picture. Having said that, voting for the Patriot Act was a noticeably bad decision and shows a decided lack of judgement. I expect more from Congress and even more for Presidential candidates.

IIRC the Patriot Act was strong armed through Congress in the aftermath of 9/11 without proper review and oversight. It was also still early in the Bush presidency, so an argument could be made that the true character of the Bush Admin was not understood. The same can not be said for the Iraq War vote. The nine months that preceded that vote saw Bush announce that Iraq was part of the Axis of Exil, the US would act unilaterally if need be, the UN and NATO were no longer relevant, Saddam and OBL were working together, ad nauseum. Kerry et al are now saying that even though they gave Bush a blank check they did not expect him to spend him. Beyond credible. They knew the Bush Admin lacked diplomacy and would not overnight change. They knew that the Bush Admin was dancing around the truth to justify the Iraq War. Knowing all this, they still gave him a blank check. IMO with this vote, the Congressional candidates must share some of the responsibility for the Iraq War.

I think the two above votes are working in favor of both Dean and Clark. Dennis Kucinich also benefits, but his campaign is weak and his positions may be too liberal for the general electorate.

The two issues of most concern for me are the rising deficit (and associated long term debt) and post war Iraq.

Wesley Clark appear to have the best ideas wrt rebuilding Iraq. We need to admit publicly that an extended stay is required and plan for it. His idea that our troups should be taught Arabic was notable.

Kucinich was completely clueless wrt Iraq. He wants to cut and run in 90 days. This may a good sentiment for some but a terrible policy to follow.

Edwards and some of the other candidates wanted to turn the Iraq occupation over to UN/NATO multi-natioanl forces ASAP. This is a good idea but makes for a superficial policy. If there are going to 100,000 troups in Iraq for the next 5 years or so, I just do not see other countries significantly reducing our troup count or our financial responsibility. The consequence would be that while the transition to democracy for Iraq may be smoother with an international face on the occupation forces the US commitment in dollar and lifes would not be significantly reduced. In a sense not mentioning the consequences of their stated policy does not differentiate them much from Bush.

My second issue, the rising deficit, was only addressed in the debate indirectly wrt the latest Medicaid bill. If not in this debate, I know I have heard most candidates say that they will repeal Bush's tax cuts (or at least the portions targeted at the super weathly). Repealing the tax cuts is only the first step.

Dealing with the health care costs is also required. I know the candidates have discussed the health care costs issues in their campaigns. I just don't know where their level of commitment is or the quality of their ideas. Dean appears to understand the issue and has successfully dealt with it as govenor of Vermont.

Other thoughts ...

Clark appeared to be the best candidate for dealing with the War on Terror, rebuilding post-war Iraqi, and other foreign policy issues. Clark's knowledge of domestic policies was lacking. This may relegate to running for the VP.

Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton are not electable and should make their way to the exits ASAP.

Richard Gephardt is the poster child for all that is wrong with the Democratic Party. His poor leadership going into the midterm elections cost the Democrats Congressional seats. Whenever I hear him mentioned how closely he worked with Clinton, I cringe. He makes it sound like it was his idea to run a surplus in the late 90s.

Dean did not impress. He also has not impressed in any of the debates I have seen. This may be his debate strategy, seeing that he is the front runner. I did pick up a bit of arrogance from Dean, not to Bush-ian extents though. He does not like to admit he has made a mistake, but that came across as "my way or the freeway". He does appear to be the best candidate for ripping GWB a new hole. I just wish he would add a more positive message to balance himself out. (I do think that Edwards is right that Americans want their president to be positive and uplifting.)

Kerry was solid. He has problems with Senate voting record. His Vietnam War background and distguished service to his country afterwards are major posiitves. I think like Gore Kerry will have a problem with being in Congress for a long time and its associated extensive voting record. The electorate has a track record of favoring Govenors over Senators for President. Having executive experience as governor is a plus, but I think that Congressionmen as par for the course have too many horse trading votes, which draws into question the level of commitment to their views.

Edwards was also solid. His one term in the Senate is a plus viz-a-viz Kerry. He was the only candidate that attempted to keep on a positive message, only bashing Bush a bit. I noted a similarity between Edwards and Clinton in their campaign style in this regard. Edwards does lack Clinton's charisma. I suspect that Edwards plans to make a respectable showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. Afterwards the field should narrow by half. With a smaller field and Southern primaries in the mix, Edwards may be able to pull himself back into the race.

I was disappointed with the lack of long term perspective from all of the candidates. Rebuilding Iraq will likely last longer than the next presidential term. The ~2010 social security and medicare budget crisis was also not addressed substantially. I would hate to think if elected that any of them would buried their head in the sand and leave it to someone else to fix.

 

I don't remeber Liebermann being mentioned in the debate. He might have been mentioned after the debate by Chris Matthews.

I also do not recall the Energy bill being mentioned.

All the candidates hated the new Medicare bill. Most mentioned that the winner of the bill was the pharmacuetical companies and the losers were the medicare recipients. Most also mentioned that the side effect for this bill may be the demise of Medicare itself.

 

Kinda true. I suspect that the spin doctors from the Kerry and Gephardt camps were making more out of this than was really there. I suspect that both Kerry and Gephardt both were trying to bring front runner Dean back closer to the field.

I mentioned Dean's arrogance. I suspect that the other candidates are trying to get Dean flustered and have a "special moment" which would sink his campaign.

 

Sharpton is much more than say the media makes him out to be. No surprise to me. I remember hearing Jesse Jackson's stump speech for the first time at a televised Democratic Convention. I was completely floored. JJ was charismatic and could work the crowd better than the candidates. JJ had no realistic chance of winning so I guess the mainstream media punted on covering him.

Sharpton would absolutely slay GWB in a debate, though he would have no chance of winning the general election.

BTW, I boldly predict that GWB will only debate the Democratic nominee if he is dramatically behind in the polls.

 

I forgot to add that both Gephardt and Clark had major gaffes. Gephardt made a non-diplomatic reference to the leader of North Korea. Clark implied that it was OK that the US was losing the software industry to India.