Seeing the last three Democrats standing in the 2008 presidential nominating race participating in a another debate almost makes you miss Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson… almost.

 
Iowa and New Hampshire are behind us, with the rapid rise of Barack Obama and the ‘comeback’ of Hillary Clinton already alternating as news stories of the year. So going into this debate (in Las Vegas, Nevada) you had to wonder what the Democratic candidates would say to help shake loose the deadlock in their nominating race. And in truth, very little was settled. 

 
There was a lot of hot air, but not much substance – which could only add to the global warming that the Democrats are so concerned about.

 
A few things changed. Hillary Clinton was back to her old ‘self,’ which essentially means that tough, antagonistic Hillary was the face she decided to wear on this night – there was no sign of the tearful, ‘human’ Hillary to be found. Perhaps her focus groups said the ‘warrior’ former first lady was the persona they wanted to see.

 
The many faces of Hillary Clinton in her various campaign appearances reminds me somewhat of Al Gore during the 2000 general election debates – first there was ‘mean’ Al, then there was ‘nice’ Al, then there was ‘mean’ Al back again. Common sense says you can’t change your colors that quickly, but somehow these politicians accomplish the feat handsomely.

 
To his credit, Barack Obama hasn’t changed much at all. He’s still congenial and generally positive, seems open to ideas and building political coalitions. It’s very difficult to accept his solutions to issues (because of his liberal personal philosophy), but there’s no doubt that Obama is a likeable human being.

 
John Edwards is probably almost out of the race – and that’s certainly a positive thing for the American political process. The farther that Edwards is away from the general public the better, and hopefully he’ll find comfort holed up in his large mansion, or practicing law. He adds nothing to the conversation due to his non-stop calls for ‘fighting’ the entrenched, unnamed special interests in Washington. One would speculate that you’d have to be pretty angry to vote for Edwards.

 

And he’s not likeable either.

 
Sitting ‘round the table

 
With only three candidates to focus on, MSNBC used a rather informal format, similar to the FOX New Hampshire forum nine days ago – the three candidates were seated behind a table, and the moderators (Brian Williams, Tim Russert and Natalie Morales) presented questions for a ninety second answer and opportunities for a thirty second rebuttal.

 
I’ll say one thing for the Democrats – as a group they seem to stick much closer to the questions asked than the Republicans. The opening segment featured a line of questions concerning the recent racial sparring going back and forth between the Clinton and Obama camps – and neither candidate strayed from their canned answers (reconciliation, uniting the party). These were questions that easily could’ve been condensed into a few seconds, yet they dutifully stuttered on for the full time allotted.

 
It was quite a love-in, which suits the rather ‘loose’ Democrats just fine.

 
Clinton said “neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign.” Well, Hillary, if that’s the case, why do you keep mentioning, as part of the ‘change’ you’ll bring to Washington, that you’ll be the first woman president?

 
The race questions were tired and irrelevant, and someone in the audience even began heckling – which produced a brief awkward pause in the discussion.

 

It was almost welcome.

 
When the Democrats aren’t engaging in class warfare or propping up global warming theory, they’re a collection of empty suits around a table.

 

 
I thought Hillary Clinton won the debate. As mentioned above, when she re-adopts her true (rhymes with rich) persona, she’s a formidable presence. Anger is by far her most effective emotional pitch – and her constant pounding of George W. Bush was probably very effective in reaching the voters she sought to appeal to.

 
Hillary resonates with Democrats, Obama with Independents – which helps explain Hillary’s single-minded focus on Bush. But she looks strong and powerful when she’s in attack mode, which might dispel any notions (if there ever were any) that she’s too ‘soft’ for the job.

 
Nearly every response from Hillary was a vilification of the Bush Administration. Many conservatives would agree with the vilification part, but perhaps on different ideological grounds. Hillary gives no credit to Bush for the rapid expansion of the welfare state, yet heavy criticism comes easily to her – she even called Bush’s current trip to the Middle East ‘pathetic’ as the president talks with the Saudis about increasing oil production.

 
Hillary may have a point (the pathetic part), but the Democrats as a group offer nothing other than alternative energy solutions to the energy equation, neglecting to mention how expensive these ‘solutions’ would be to the American public.

 
Or perhaps they believe the government will subsidize all the energy needs of Americans as well as healthcare and education – that’s probably closer to the truth.

 
Hillary speaks glowingly of growing the economy through ‘green industry,’ yet what exactly does that mean? Does ‘green industry’ include setting fuel economy standards so high that factories must close and the fields return to green?

 
Barack Obama also ‘won’ this debate, in that he reaffirmed his strongest suits as a candidate – namely, his personal manner. Obama’s the perfect foil to Hillary Clinton, as he’s as gentlemanly and congenial as she is… well, you know.

 
Obama said “this election isn’t about who you’d rather have a beer with,” but he already knows the answer to that question – Hillary might do fine behind a lectern speaking about abstract policy, but when the day is done, not a soul really wants to be around her, including her husband.

 

 

John Edwards. 

 
When Edwards comes in third this weekend in South Carolina, you wonder if he’ll finally bow out of the race and spare the American people his phony populist act. He’s repetitious, verbose and stiff at the same time. Add the fact that his accent is annoying and his pretty-boy looks never out of place, and no one could possibly want this guy in back of the presidential seal for four years.

 
Edwards is the embodiment of hypocrisy. When he was asked about the possible expansion of nuclear power as a potential means of becoming energy independent, he not only dissed nuclear power, but coal plants as well. “America is already the worst polluter on the planet,” he said.

 
It really makes you feel good to go out and fire up the car to drive to work, doesn’t it? I hope Edwards feels mighty guilty boarding that private plane to fly to his next campaign destination.

 
Edwards ‘pollutes’ the political debate with his presence.

 

Regrets all around

 
If there’s any one thing this debate will be known for, it’s ‘regrets.’ First, all three candidates expressed regret that race was injected into the contest.

 
Hillary regretted what BET founder Bob Johnson said about Barack Obama the other day (hinted at Obama’s cocaine use as a teenager), but wouldn’t say that Johnson could no longer campaign for her.

 
Obama regrets that their campaign staffs fueled the racial tensions. He also regrets saying ‘you’re likeable enough, Hillary’ during the last debate in New Hampshire. Obama explained that he was only trying to be nice with that comment, and I’m sure he’s on the level.

 
Edwards regrets (he didn’t say it, but you know it) that he’s in a nominating race with two better funded, more popular candidates.

 
They all regretted voting for the current bankruptcy laws. Hillary said she liked some provisions of the bill but not others – but voted for the total package. What a wonderful campaign waffle – she could teach John Kerry a thing or two.

 
Edwards’ solution to the bankruptcy crisis would be to have universal healthcare, raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, transform energy to ‘clean’ energy and to pay for students who work their way through school.

 
John Edwards never met a federal program that he couldn’t snuggle up with. It’ll be nice to think of John doing something else by this time next week.

 
The Democrats – Big government’s best friends

 
George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled congress betrayed the country with their vast expansion of government over the past seven years. It was an egregious betrayal of the public trust – especially since they’d promised to govern as conservatives and try to limit the size and scope of government.

 
In contrast, the Democrats make no such promises – every aspect of their message just reeks of bigger, badder, more expensive government.

 
All of them want universal healthcare – and there’s no talk of any kind of free market solutions. All of them want to dump money into the mortgage crisis. All of them want to dump federal money into education – Barack Obama even said that he’ll put billions into early childhood education. All of them want to cancel the Bush tax cuts – at least the ones that truly promote economic growth.

 
All of them tirelessly pit the lower economic classes against the wealthy (again, faceless attacks).

 
Hillary Clinton said she would push for a federal registry of gun ownership (amongst other things).

 
John Edwards wants the government in every aspect of our lives – though he did make a nice pitch for protecting 2nd Amendment rights.

 
The merciful end

 
Democrats again proved in Las Vegas that the 2008 presidential election will provide one of the most difficult choices ever for conservatives – there just aren’t any good options on either side of the party coin.

 
The Democrats basically offer one candidate who will guarantee a non-stop, drag-down ideological and political battle for four years, and another candidate who will certainly move the country to the left, but at least seems like someone you can speak with in a civil manner.

 
It’s turning out to be what we all feared – another contest between the lesser of two evils. The only question is how much time, money and energy that conservatives will be willing to expend to defeat the Democratic nominee.