Oh, the Democratic candidates' debate wasn't that bad, actually. The raving lunatic fringe was well represented by former Senator Gravel, who ranted, raved and waved his hands about like someone's kooky grandpa who'd been at the cooking sherry, but he probably won some new fans with his willingness to come out swinging at the other candidates, most of whom were frantically making nice with each other.
Dennis Kucinich did his bit for the quietly demented, with perhaps his high point coming when he held up "My pocket copy of the United States Constitution which I carry with me always." The maddening thing about Kucinich is that he's right about some things (don't ask me to be specific at the moment, but he is), but probably does those causes more harm than good because he's so clearly a space cadet. I don't remember dropping acid with him back in the 60s and plotting to remake the world by abolishing money and getting everyone to love each other, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that I did.
Edwards didn't do himself any favors, but probably suffered no real damage, either. He was slightly blindsided by a question about what good hedge funds did for America, and didn't improve matters by a folksy story about how his hardworking dad couldn't afford to take his family out to a restaurant. He's still going nowhere unless Clinton and/or Obama screw up royally.
The rest of the candidates were/are insignificant minnows. Somebody needs to tell Bill Richardson to shut up and go on a diet, but he probably figures - correctly - that he hasn't got a chance, so why put himself through the trouble. Why are Chris Dodd or Joe Biden even in this thing? Beats me, unless it's part of a strategy to pad their résumés for post-Senate employment.
That leaves Hillary, who did slightly better than I expected (not well enough to win me over, but I'm no longer promising to leave the country rather than vote for her), and Obama, who didn't do quite as well, largely, I think, because he kept himself on too tight a leash for fear of goofing up. He'll need to show a bit more confidence to get his message across.
All the candidates were lacking when it came to Iraq, falling over each other in their hurry to have been more against the war than anyone else and at an earlier date, an especially difficult feat for those who actually voted for it. But as much as the American public have turned against the war, none of the candidates has offered anything in the way of a solution apart from a Vietnam-style cut-and-run. The only debate is over how fast we should retreat; not a word was offered on what might happen to Iraq and its people in the wake of our withdrawal or what longterm consequences that might have on global or national security.
It's possible that there is no alternative, especially as long as there's no national will nor presidential leadership capable of seeing things to a more successful conclusion. But the Democrats' Congressional strategy of scheduling America's defeat a year or so in advance offers the worst of both worlds. If they're certain - as many of them are arguing now - that we've already lost, why one earth leave troops there to be sitting ducks for another year? And if there's still a chance that we can accomplish something there, why announce to the enemy the date on which we plan on surrendering? George Bush has undoubtedly made a colossal mess of this war, and unless he can pull some astounding rabbits out of a presently invisible hat, will go down in history as a disastrous president. Looking bad alongside the record he's compiled is no mean feat, but the Democrats are making a pretty good run at it.
Dennis Kucinich did his bit for the quietly demented, with perhaps his high point coming when he held up "My pocket copy of the United States Constitution which I carry with me always." The maddening thing about Kucinich is that he's right about some things (don't ask me to be specific at the moment, but he is), but probably does those causes more harm than good because he's so clearly a space cadet. I don't remember dropping acid with him back in the 60s and plotting to remake the world by abolishing money and getting everyone to love each other, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that I did.
Edwards didn't do himself any favors, but probably suffered no real damage, either. He was slightly blindsided by a question about what good hedge funds did for America, and didn't improve matters by a folksy story about how his hardworking dad couldn't afford to take his family out to a restaurant. He's still going nowhere unless Clinton and/or Obama screw up royally.
The rest of the candidates were/are insignificant minnows. Somebody needs to tell Bill Richardson to shut up and go on a diet, but he probably figures - correctly - that he hasn't got a chance, so why put himself through the trouble. Why are Chris Dodd or Joe Biden even in this thing? Beats me, unless it's part of a strategy to pad their résumés for post-Senate employment.
That leaves Hillary, who did slightly better than I expected (not well enough to win me over, but I'm no longer promising to leave the country rather than vote for her), and Obama, who didn't do quite as well, largely, I think, because he kept himself on too tight a leash for fear of goofing up. He'll need to show a bit more confidence to get his message across.
All the candidates were lacking when it came to Iraq, falling over each other in their hurry to have been more against the war than anyone else and at an earlier date, an especially difficult feat for those who actually voted for it. But as much as the American public have turned against the war, none of the candidates has offered anything in the way of a solution apart from a Vietnam-style cut-and-run. The only debate is over how fast we should retreat; not a word was offered on what might happen to Iraq and its people in the wake of our withdrawal or what longterm consequences that might have on global or national security.
It's possible that there is no alternative, especially as long as there's no national will nor presidential leadership capable of seeing things to a more successful conclusion. But the Democrats' Congressional strategy of scheduling America's defeat a year or so in advance offers the worst of both worlds. If they're certain - as many of them are arguing now - that we've already lost, why one earth leave troops there to be sitting ducks for another year? And if there's still a chance that we can accomplish something there, why announce to the enemy the date on which we plan on surrendering? George Bush has undoubtedly made a colossal mess of this war, and unless he can pull some astounding rabbits out of a presently invisible hat, will go down in history as a disastrous president. Looking bad alongside the record he's compiled is no mean feat, but the Democrats are making a pretty good run at it.
