Hillary Clinton sounded fantastic and I'm not a Clinton supporter at all. She sounded like she had the best grasp of policy matters, and was just generally on her game. That said I think she learned all the wrong things from the failure of health care reform. I really feel like she's overcompensating on security matters too (perhaps smartly so, being one of those puny woman and all). I think her handling of the Walmart question was pretty good, obviously it was relevant because she used to be on the Walmart board of directors.
Kucinich and Edwards were the only ones who make any sense on health care, which in my opinion, needs to be single-payer or pretty close to that in order to cover everyone and still obtain major cost reductions from reduced bureaucracy. Edwards didn't have enough time to speak about his plan and a lot of the other ones didn't say anything at all about it.
Former Senator Mike Gravel: WOW this guy is a loose cannon. He really upset the formal Washington conventions of sober, respectful debate. That said he was extremely entertaining. He suggested filibustering Iraq war funding. He accused the top tier candidates of supporting preemptive nuclear war with Iran, stating that "All options are on the table" is code for warmongering. I don't buy this at all. Only the most extreme Neoconservatives are pushing for surgical strikes to take out their nuclear program, and no one seriously thinks we could easily invade and occupy a country like Iran. At any rate, he kind of had an over exaggerated sense of importance (complaining at one point for getting less time than the other candidates) for someone who suggested at one point he isn't even in it to win it.
Governor Richardson: Wants to defund and deauthorize the Iraq war, interesting position policy wise but unlikely politically. I wasn't aware that he had the top rating of any presidential candidate (including Republicans) from the NRA, that's kind of alarming. I don't approve of that talking point he keeps using on Democrats always wanting to raise taxes for new programs (in terms of health care). That said, he has a very impressive resume and a strong record as governor of New Mexico.
UPDATE: Apparently his choice for model supreme court justice was one of the original dissenters from the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. I also strongly disliked his "candor" about why he held off on calling for Alberto Gonzales' resignation: because he's a fellow Hispanic. That should not have factored into his decision.
Senator Chris Dodd: I think Williams was right in noting he's the most "Washington" of the candidates. Everything he said reflected mainstream Democratic consensus and he didn't really add anything to the debate.
I think they all handled the partial birth abortion question pretty well, particularly Senator Joe Biden. Speaking of Biden, his idea of splitting up Iraq into a loose federation with autonomy according to sectarian divisions is interesting, but I'd be worried about the potential Iranian domination of the Shiite areas. Brian Williams asked him if he could reassure the American people that he wouldn't make so many verbal gaffes as president (see clean, articulate Obama and Indians at Dunkin Donuts). He simply said "yes" and it was pretty hilarious. I think he was correct about the use of force "happy talk" coming from Kucinich and Gravel; it is sometimes necessary (see Afghanistan) although I'm not sure about unilaterally sending troops into Darfur.
NBC Evening News anchor Brian Williams asked the candidates if they believe in the use of the term "global war on terror". I think everyone raised their hand except Edwards and Kucinich but I couldn't see what Gravel thought.
P.S. I thought Williams did a pretty good job as moderator although the questions he asked were sometimes frivolous "gotcha" quesions.
Representative Dennis Kucinich: This is his 2nd quixotic run for the White House. He was asked about his resolution to impeach Dick Cheney. Kucinich's stunt with declaring he keeps a pocket-sized constitution thing with him all the time was ridiculous. Yes, Cheney deserves impeachment, so does the entire Bush Administration, but its NOT going to happen and it's distracting from other issues so why waste time? Gravel and Kucinich are fundamentally wrong about the Iran threat. The sanctions we've had in place are not enough.
Senator Obama: To be honest, he simply didn't impress me. He's inspiring, was amazing at the 2004 Democratic Convention, but he didn't strike me as having a deep grasp of the policy or even being so articulate (Biden's comments aside) compared to the other candidates. To be honest, he simply seems too inexperienced. I think he'd make a great presidential candidate in 2016, once he's been around a while.
Senator Edwards: As with before the debate, he is still my favorite candidate. The frivolity of the $400 haircut thing astounds me. On the upside, he understands how much it is hurting us that the world distrusts America. I love how he didn't pander on the war on terror question (he responded the way he believed) but still sounded strong on national security with the simultaneous Al-Qaeda attacks on US cities question (UPDATE: Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich all also did not raise their hands). I just get the sense that he really knows he made a mistake with his Iraq vote and now that he's out of the Senate he can say what he thinks and just be authentic and follow his conscience, damn the consequences. He's also willing to take risky positions by saying he'll raise taxes (on the rich) for universal health care, a position Americans actually support. It's hard to explain, but he just sounds the most presidential to me.
At the risk of sounding cliche, it is really early in the campaign season and everything can change between now and next year. But did anyone else watch it or have any thoughts?
P.S. The format was really atrocious, 90 seconds wasn't enough to respond to all the questions. It was good to see the little candidates get as much time as the front runners though.
P.P.S. You can watch the MSNBC debate here if you missed it.
Kucinich and Edwards were the only ones who make any sense on health care, which in my opinion, needs to be single-payer or pretty close to that in order to cover everyone and still obtain major cost reductions from reduced bureaucracy. Edwards didn't have enough time to speak about his plan and a lot of the other ones didn't say anything at all about it.
Former Senator Mike Gravel: WOW this guy is a loose cannon. He really upset the formal Washington conventions of sober, respectful debate. That said he was extremely entertaining. He suggested filibustering Iraq war funding. He accused the top tier candidates of supporting preemptive nuclear war with Iran, stating that "All options are on the table" is code for warmongering. I don't buy this at all. Only the most extreme Neoconservatives are pushing for surgical strikes to take out their nuclear program, and no one seriously thinks we could easily invade and occupy a country like Iran. At any rate, he kind of had an over exaggerated sense of importance (complaining at one point for getting less time than the other candidates) for someone who suggested at one point he isn't even in it to win it.
Governor Richardson: Wants to defund and deauthorize the Iraq war, interesting position policy wise but unlikely politically. I wasn't aware that he had the top rating of any presidential candidate (including Republicans) from the NRA, that's kind of alarming. I don't approve of that talking point he keeps using on Democrats always wanting to raise taxes for new programs (in terms of health care). That said, he has a very impressive resume and a strong record as governor of New Mexico.
UPDATE: Apparently his choice for model supreme court justice was one of the original dissenters from the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. I also strongly disliked his "candor" about why he held off on calling for Alberto Gonzales' resignation: because he's a fellow Hispanic. That should not have factored into his decision.
Senator Chris Dodd: I think Williams was right in noting he's the most "Washington" of the candidates. Everything he said reflected mainstream Democratic consensus and he didn't really add anything to the debate.
I think they all handled the partial birth abortion question pretty well, particularly Senator Joe Biden. Speaking of Biden, his idea of splitting up Iraq into a loose federation with autonomy according to sectarian divisions is interesting, but I'd be worried about the potential Iranian domination of the Shiite areas. Brian Williams asked him if he could reassure the American people that he wouldn't make so many verbal gaffes as president (see clean, articulate Obama and Indians at Dunkin Donuts). He simply said "yes" and it was pretty hilarious. I think he was correct about the use of force "happy talk" coming from Kucinich and Gravel; it is sometimes necessary (see Afghanistan) although I'm not sure about unilaterally sending troops into Darfur.
NBC Evening News anchor Brian Williams asked the candidates if they believe in the use of the term "global war on terror". I think everyone raised their hand except Edwards and Kucinich but I couldn't see what Gravel thought.
P.S. I thought Williams did a pretty good job as moderator although the questions he asked were sometimes frivolous "gotcha" quesions.
Representative Dennis Kucinich: This is his 2nd quixotic run for the White House. He was asked about his resolution to impeach Dick Cheney. Kucinich's stunt with declaring he keeps a pocket-sized constitution thing with him all the time was ridiculous. Yes, Cheney deserves impeachment, so does the entire Bush Administration, but its NOT going to happen and it's distracting from other issues so why waste time? Gravel and Kucinich are fundamentally wrong about the Iran threat. The sanctions we've had in place are not enough.
Senator Obama: To be honest, he simply didn't impress me. He's inspiring, was amazing at the 2004 Democratic Convention, but he didn't strike me as having a deep grasp of the policy or even being so articulate (Biden's comments aside) compared to the other candidates. To be honest, he simply seems too inexperienced. I think he'd make a great presidential candidate in 2016, once he's been around a while.
Senator Edwards: As with before the debate, he is still my favorite candidate. The frivolity of the $400 haircut thing astounds me. On the upside, he understands how much it is hurting us that the world distrusts America. I love how he didn't pander on the war on terror question (he responded the way he believed) but still sounded strong on national security with the simultaneous Al-Qaeda attacks on US cities question (UPDATE: Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich all also did not raise their hands). I just get the sense that he really knows he made a mistake with his Iraq vote and now that he's out of the Senate he can say what he thinks and just be authentic and follow his conscience, damn the consequences. He's also willing to take risky positions by saying he'll raise taxes (on the rich) for universal health care, a position Americans actually support. It's hard to explain, but he just sounds the most presidential to me.
At the risk of sounding cliche, it is really early in the campaign season and everything can change between now and next year. But did anyone else watch it or have any thoughts?
P.S. The format was really atrocious, 90 seconds wasn't enough to respond to all the questions. It was good to see the little candidates get as much time as the front runners though.
P.P.S. You can watch the MSNBC debate here if you missed it.
