Really Late Political Punditry

I, like Pressed, watched the Democratic Debate on January 22. I love debates, and this one was pretty good — although not as exciting as when the candidates are on opposite sides of the aisle. Since Pressed already gave a nice summary of each candidate in the post linked above, I'll just hit the high spots on who I thought won, etc. (This was originally written mostly on the 22nd, but I didn't have time to finish it, so here I am.)

1. Lieberman: As I told Pressed, this is a guy I could almost vote for. I liked him in 2000 when he was running for veep, and I like him now. He has reasonable policies and presents them in a likable way. Concerning Iraq, I don't mind people who didn't support it, however, I do find Edwards and Kerry annoying for dropping support once we started — that isn't good. Lieberman supports the sanctity of marriage and the ousting of the USA PATRIOT ACT too. Unfortunately, the fact that he's pro-choice tarnishes an otherwise good choice.

2. Dean: I think he came out good tonight. He kept himself under control, presented the case that he'd “been there, done that” to all the things that the others talked about doing in the future, etc. His temper definitely would make him a dangerous president though, I'd guess. The “Think with my heart, not my head” quote looks bad, although I think I do understand what he was trying to say.

3. Edwards: Edwards seems energetic, excited, and optimistic. He's very electable, unfortunately, he's a standard liberal. Edwards did really bad with the Sanctity of Marriage act. I mean, this guy talked about what it “would do” as if it wasn't passed (and demonstrated zero knowledge of what it would do or is doing anyway).

4. Clark: Clark has a lot going for him – good credentials, good at talking and appearing on TV (good experience from CNN), etc. But, he doesn't seem to really be very good policy wise. He comes across as someone who just is a bit unprepared. He also appears confused on his opinion concerning the war – why did he write good things about it in the Telegraph if he was against it?

5. Sharpton: He may not know what he wants to do with Greenspan, but at least he added some humor to the debate. I enjoyed his comment to Dean, which in effect said he understood Dean's performance in Iowa. “If I had spent as much money as you did and came in third place, I'd still be hooting and hollering,” he told Dean. Sharpton appeared to be in another world, for the most part, not really usefully, at least, participating in the debate. Sharpton's other major problem was morality and family values. He suggested that the Democrats were actually the “moral” party and that the Republicans had stolen that item. The part that was hard to swallow was when Sharpton tried to suggest his pro-choice views were a strong component of this morality.

6. Kerry: He appears very arrogant every time I see him, including this time. He appears very wishy washy about his voting record on Iraq. He just doesn't have much to offer and I honestly am puzzled as to why people like him.

7. Kucinich: No offense to Rep. Kucinich, but he too appears to be somewhere else – maybe with Sharpton. His plans don't sound very reasonable, and his timetable for withdraw from Iraq is irresponsible to say the least. Let's just say I understand why this fellow isn't doing better than he is.

So that was my take on the Dems performance last Thursday. Lieberman is only slightly more problematic than Mr. Bush, whereas the others have significant issues.

Although, perhaps Howard “the Doctor” Dean/Jesse “the Body” Ventura ticket could be highly entertaining. Hey, rather than going to an undisclosed secure location, Jesse could actually go fight the terrorists for us. What do you think? Dean-Ventura '04, anyone?