Some Thoughts on the Democratic Debate

-Tim Russert looks like The Penguin from Batman. Someone should set his hair on fire.

-I missed the first half hour or so of the debate, but from reading other blogs it doesn't seem like I missed much in the way of substance. Basically questions designed to allow candidates the opportunity to attack each others' character in petty, stupid ways, which no takes the bait to because they don't want to look like an asshole.

-The economy is not a great area of confidence for Barack Obama. I love the man, but its just a fact. He sounds more hesitant when he speaks about the possibilities of a recession, as though he's afraid of saying something that isn't true. By contrast, he knows exactly what he wants to say when talks about foreign policy. He is, perhaps, at his best when speaks about his plans for the educational system. Edwards talks about the fight for the working man being "personal" to him. For Obama you can see his deepest convictions showing forth when he discusses education.

-The candidates have a very substantive discussion about Iraq. It is substantive BECAUSE it is a discussion. They have differing viewpoints, but rather than arguing with each other they actually try to find common ground. In terms of public image this is good stage-setting for the national election. Any voter, regardless of their viewpoints, when watching both parties debate cannot avoid the gaping asymmetry between them. It is true that the primary process helps to "vet" the nominee. That being said, when a clueless viewer sees the democratic candidates debate, he will see a group of individuals who, while pointing out their disagreements, project an image of unity. As we have seen for the last thirty years with Movement Conservatism, the image of a unified party can speak to a voter's mind in ways that the "issues" have trouble doing.

-Hillary Clinton is a military hawk. No doubt about it. "We haven't talked much about national security in these debates." She also implied that a new president would be more likely to face a terrorist attack because of what happened in England when Gordon Brown took over. Never mind that it was a half-baked terrorist plot that the police were all over before it got off the ground. Never mind that it was foiled rather easily. I'm not a Hillary hater, she scares me a little in the general election because of her divisiveness, but I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would actually be better than a Bill Clinton presidency. Which wasn't that bad when you look back on it. No one is talking about it now, but back when Bill got elected it was pretty clear that she was more progressive than he was. And yet, like the Republicans, she shows a discomforting comfortability with scaring the shit out of the American public by invoking global threats of terrorism.

-Redundant statement of the night. Tim Russert: "The leading cause of death among young american men is guns, death, homicide."
He's speechwriter Bush always wanted but never had!


-Amazing coincidence: When asked about when they decided to run for the presidency, all three candidates said in late December 2006. What a wacky world! Its so spontaneous that it almost feels contrived!