Dissecting the Debates, Part 1

It has now been 24 hours since the YouTube/CNN Democratic Debates, and I'm finally putting in words what my opinions were of the debates. It's a shame that half the questions were posed directly to Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. I think (as a member of a third party) debates are often the only chance for lesser-known candidates to get a word in edgewise (when was the last time you saw front page news about Mike Gravel or Ron Paul?). So, while I thought the format was generally very creative, I thought questions aimed specifically at the front-runners ought to have been cut back.

I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.

That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.

My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.

I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.

Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.

Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.

Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.

John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.

Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.

I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.

Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!