Democrats Running for President

Democrats a few days ago had their first debate of the presidential race. Now there were eight candidates at this event, one of which I'd never heard of before. It brought to mind the debate of four years ago, with a slew of candidates, some unknown, half of which had zero chance of making the White House and were seemingly there just to make the event look like a circus. But times change. Four years later, most every candidate on the stage was cool, collected, focused, and presidential. 99% of the time they refrained from attacking each other, and laid the grand majority of their ire on Bush's doorstep. It was nice to see them expressing their differences and at the same time not hunting each other down. It was also nice, considering Mitt Romney's comments a few weeks ago during that goofy media inspired "fight" between Obama and Clinton over something I can't even remember now because it never mattered to begin with. Romney said something like 'you'll never see Republicans act like this, and man it's great to watch them go at it like that, I love it." Of course the statement was ridiculous, as weeks later the Republicans were sniping at each other, and the Democrats were never really fighting to begin with.

Returning the focus to the debate, there were eight contenders at this debate: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and the until now unknown Mike Gravel. Many of these candidates are more or less interchangeable with regards to their positions. But a few of them stand out for a variety of reasons.

Dennis Kucinich - I didn't really care much for him in 2004. He's idealistic, which I have no problem with, I even applaud it. But he's not realistic, which is utterly necessary for any leader. The big problem with President Bush is that he can't see reality, he acts in some sort of imaginary bubble, thinking that his military answers to every problem will pound his problems into submission. But Kucinich make the same mistake back in the other direction. He more or less pledges to never use force, ever. He wants to end the use of the military as an arm of foreign policy. The problem isn't that the military is an arm of foreign policy, it's that the military is the end result of failed foreign policy. Refusing to use the military isn't just irresponsible or unrealistic, it's stupid. Sometimes you just have to use force. You don't need to invade, but sometimes surgical strikes are necessary, sometimes blockades and no-fly zones are necessary. I wonder how Kucinich would have helped the Kurds in the early 90's when Saddam tried to wipe them out. Was he going to talk Saddam out of his genocidal aims? He isn't realistic, and his attitude on foreign policy makes his position on everything else irrelevant. Biden called him out on it, indirectly, at the end of the debate, more or less saying he lives in a fantasyland, and that you sometimes need force, and he's right. On a note of lesser importance, the guy is tiny. He's like a foot shorter than whoever that girl he was with, be it his wife or daughter, either way he's tiny. 75% of my criteria for a presidential candidate is their stance on issues. The other 25% is how much I trust them, a gut feeling, about how presidential they are, because when it comes to dealing with Congress and foreign powers, those things matter. He doesn't seem presidential at all.

Mike Gravel - As it stands, I won't be voting for him, and frankly I don't even know if he'll be on the ballot to vote for at all. But there's one thing I have been dying to hear in American politics, and that is candor. Gravel is oozing candor. The problem with that is compared to the canned scripted behavior of his opponents, he sounds a bit crazy in comparison. But he is bluntly honest. I don't necessarily agree with what I heard him say, and I think some of his hyperbole was over the top, but I want to hear more from him, regardless of what it is. He has my attention, and even if I don't want to vote for him as president, I want him talking, and I want someone to give him a platform to speak on. I look forward to hearing more about him, and now that I know who he is, I plan to seek out information on him myself. Gravel stands as one of a very tiny minority of Americans in government who call a spade a spade. I am sick of spin, I am sick of talking points, I am sick of catchphrases. I want to reward candor and honesty, and that means rewarding Gravel.

Bill Richardson - I've had my eye on him for sometime. I like his experience as a governor (the only one in the race on the Democratic side), and I like a lot of what he did there. I like what he has to say on taxes, I love what he has to say on health care, which falls most in line what what I personally believe we need as a solution. Focus on prevention, focus on efficiency, focus on cutting waste out of administrative costs. He has immense foreign policy experience and has numerously been nominated for a Nobel Prize. He's underrated in my opinion, and I'm glad he got a lot of screen time tonight. I think he held his own, and I think he came closest to matching Gravel's candor and honesty, though perhaps much more reserved and professionally. I hope he can find a way to get traction in this race and move into a top tier spot, and I hope we can hear more of his great ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say on the environment, energy independence, and foreign policy.

Barack and Hillary both sounded presidential to me, and I perhaps I alone in the world find something very compelling about Hillary Clinton. She seems honest and smart, and I know many don't agree with that, I still can't help but feel a spark of hope whenever she speaks. Their policies are well known and I won't go into them. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are the other two senators running for the office, and both are probably less well known. Biden I think came out stronger than the two. He seems more youthful and charismatic, and also I thought a lot of his answers came out more off the cuff and honest rather than canned and scripted. And that leaves John Edwards. Personally I think he had his shot and missed it, but that's not really how presidential elections work. I don't know if he has the experience or not, but he's young, and earnest, which earns him some points. And he's also fairly specific with his ideas, which I also like. All in all I have a more favorable opinion of him after this debate than I did before.

So there you have it, the eight men and woman who would be the Democratic party's leader have spoken. One wonders how the debate would have fared if Al Gore was in it, but that's something we might not see until October or November. The man has the name recognition power and the positioning to wait that long, and save both the time, money and stress of not being bashed on for the next six months. If he jumps in at the last moment, everything could change, but we'll see. Until then it's a long road, and I already like how it's going.

On Thursday, May 3rd we'll get to see ten Republican candidates square off in the same style of debate also on MSNBC at 8PM (and that's not including Newt Gingrich). Now it is going to be fascinating to see them attack both Democrats and Bush, and somehow distance themselves from both groups. This country by and large dislikes Bush, and Republicans are running from him like they are trying out for the Olympics (except for McCain, which has hurt him seriously), but they aren't running to the Democrats, they are running to, well, even they aren't sure. They're running scared, I think that much is clear. A perhaps scary sign of things to come, is that Democrats are raising serious money for the Congressional elections in 2008. When they won both houses in 2006, they raised million less than the Republicans, who by leaps and bounds have historically always out raised the Democrats. As of April 2007, Democrats have out raised Republicans by millions. Money matters, and it should scare the hell out of Republicans that their traditional advantage has eroded and disappeared. Now much of that money is because Democrats are in charge of Committee Chairs now, and they have a natural advantage to raise more money because of their powerful position, but money is pouring in from elsewhere, as best evidenced by Barack Obama's $50 million raised from tens of thousands of individual donors. Republicans are looking to lose the White House and even more ground in the Congress.

Part of me worries that if the Democrats take over the entire government, the Right will do something drastic and dangerous, but mostly I figure they will do what Democrats did for six years, which is complain a lot, but accept the consequences, because it is the Republicans who dug their own grave. They had six years to do more or less whatever they wanted, and they are paying for how they chose to use that power. We're only a few months away now from January 2008's de facto national primary, and by then we'll know the candidates for 2008. The road from here to there should be very, very interesting.