I didn’t see the first Democratic debate, figuring the daily media dose of anti-Bush/Republican sound-bites coming from the candidates would be enough to garner where their positions lie.

 
The second debate affirmed my earlier impressions. While I would have a hard time supporting any of the ’08 Republican candidates, I can say without reservation that I would never vote for any of these Democrats. What seems clear – while the Republicans under George W. Bush have lost their way in terms of spending, an over-reaching foreign policy, corruption and a non-stop assault on individual liberties (as a short-list of abuses), these Democrats offer absolutely nothing to conservatives on issues that matter most – limiting the role of government, immigration, controlling spending, addressing entitlements, judicial activism, protecting constitutional rights, economic freedom, protecting life, etc…

 
While the Republican candidates are vying for the title of ‘most conservative,’ the Democrats don’t care about conservatism, and I don’t think the words ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ were uttered a single time during the two hours of debate. They want to be the most ‘liberal’ without portraying themselves as liberals. It’s a Bill Clinton sell-job with these people, proving that any government that involves this total lack of ideological foundation is hopelessly dangerous.

 
Which just goes to show, conservatives are in a real quandary – to support the lesser of two evils, or face being manipulated by one of these Democrat/liberal goons for a minimum of four years..

 
The Democratic candidates took many opportunities to bash the Bush administration on just about every point – and why shouldn’t they, since only a quarter of the country supports the incompetent president? There isn’t a single Bush supporter in the country who would consider voting for any of these candidates, so what have they got to lose in playing to the other 75%?

 
Smart strategy. But at the same time, in an effort to play to the left-wing ‘base’ of the Democratic party, while also trying to influence moderates and conservatives in the general election, they’re trying to have it both ways.

 
I find it funny that there wasn’t a single mention of abortion, evolution, the confederate flag… the Democrats are given much better opportunities to talk about ‘real’ issues (not that abortion isn’t important, but being asked about abortion really addresses a candidate’s view on the Supreme Court rather than the issue itself – no one’s going to say they’re FOR abortions), no matter how poorly they go about explaining them.

 
Winners? I can only go on my own impressions, and not a single one of them would earn my vote on what they said – but the only candidates that came across as ‘likeable’ were Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

 
Joe Biden was very forceful and articulate. Maybe he was tapping into his vast library of ‘borrowed’ plagiarized quotes, but for one night, he gave the impression that he was up to the job. The fact that he was the only Democrat up there who voted to fund the troops, yet was able to explain why he did it, was very convincing. 

 
Losers? John Edwards. I’ll give Edwards credit for trying to make points against the others, but his pretty-boy constant plays to a populist message and ultra-hypocritical rich vs. poor comparisons – he’s the worst kind of insulting. Imagine, a trial-lawyer trying to sit at the table of someone who sweats for a living. Your $400 haircuts and stupid Mayberry appeals to ‘average’ Americans… Edwards makes my skin crawl in ways that only Al Gore and John Kerry can rival. Bill Clinton was horrible, but the ‘ultra’ hypocrites in the Democrat party are absolutely nauseating. When they’re in the room: ‘Warning, if you’ve eaten in the last half hour, stay away.’

 
Chris Dodd. He’s like Jim Gilmore on the Republican side – why is he there?

 
Dennis Kucinich. Clearly being toyed with as the candidate for the left-wing ‘kook’ fringe. Like Ron Paul, he’s great to have around because he’s clearly got nothing to lose and steers the debate away from the mindless campaign bullet-points that the top three candidates are spouting.

 
Mike Gravel? Had some funny lines, but who is this guy?

 
Hillary Clinton neither won people over nor turned them off more than they’re already repelled by her – something that was very noticeable was her complete unwillingness to stand on the Clinton presidency as a foundation for what she would do if she were elected. Maybe her advisors are telling her not to talk about Billy, but with the American electorate’s short attention-span, it would seem to her advantage to talk up big Bill and the ‘glory’ years of the 90’s.

 
One hilarious point – when the candidates were asked how they would ‘use’ Bill Clinton if they were elected, Hillary said she would sendhim around the world! I was bent over laughing – basically, she’s saying she would banish the guy from her house!!!! Didn’t anyone pick up on this?

 
Format: The first half of the debate, just as it’s been for the Republicans, has been very nearly a complete waste of time, since the standard media-speak talks about Democrat ‘softball’ issues like the War in Iraq and socialized healthcare. The second half of the debate, which was composed of the ‘citizen’ concerns, brought up a series of great questions – especially the one regarding ‘who do you consider ‘rich?’’ FINALLY someone asks them, and they stumbled over themselves to come up with something that disguised their typical class-warfare rhetoric.

 
Here are some individual observations on each of the candidates:

 
Barack Obama – Looks young. Looks attractive on camera, seems generally well spoken, and clearly trying to play to more moderate Democrats. He seems afraid to really go after the others for positions that would separate him. One thing that struck me – he’s running before his time. Maybe this is just a pre-cursor to a future run – I don’t see him knocking off the older candidates, though he seems well versed on issues and more focused on solutions than mindless campaign rhetoric. If Obama were conservative, he would have a real shot at the big office. 

 
John Edwards – Just like in the ’04 campaign, will never answer a direct question, which is incredibly distracting. This is a ‘top tier’ candidate who’s running in third place and wants to gain ground, and attacks his opponents for a lack of ‘leadership’ on issues, when he only served one term in the Senate and his current occupation is full-time politician and hot air smokestack for stump issues like global warming. Well, he brought nothing to the Democrat ticket in ’04, is perhaps the biggest hypocrite in America with his ‘two Americas’ slogans, and his stupid country-boy accent is distracting at best and annoying at least. He says in his first hundred days he would ‘travel the world’ to tell foreign cultures about American values. When he has zero credibility on American values here on native soil, why would anybody else believe him? The world would laugh, literally. The fact he’s a favorite amongst the liberal blogs shows just what kind of a candidate he is. Don’t be surprised if he starts sounding a lot more like a left-wing, populist Gomer Pile out on the campaign trail – it seems to be catching on with liberal freaks.

 
Hillary Clinton – Hillary’s looking good these days, isn’t she? The Clinton machine is alive and well. Her crack on Dick Cheney was catchy, and effective. We saw no sign of her notorious temper, and the way she would slap-down Wolf Blitzer over his ‘hypothetical’ questions – she’s basically saying ‘don’t pick on me, I’m a woman. We don’t HAVE to take a position, Wolf!’ She defends her vote to authorize the war despite admitting she didn’t read the intelligence report… Hillary, you either love her or you hate her. It’s particularly astonishing that she refers to her previous attempts to socialize health care – referring to herself as a crusader on the side of good – ‘we failed before, but we’re smarter now, and we’ll get it through this time.’ Would this woman be in a prominent place but for her husband? She’s not likable. She’s phony. Refers to Barry Goldwater – on the ‘gay’ question, but I doubt she’d be forthright about supporting Goldwater all those years ago. At the same time, she seems like a lock for the Democrat nominee. The Republicans would do well to really start hammering her…

 
Dennis Kucinich – Blamed the War in Iraq on Bush, but also on Democrats who voted to fund the war. He has a point, since Democrats ran in ’06 on a platform of ending the war – but doesn’t really offer an alternative ‘vision’ to the debate. Ron Paul drew controversy by saying an over-aggressive American foreign policy contributed to a radical Islamic view of the west, but Kucinich doesn’t really put forth anything other than ‘peace, man.’ Don’t we all wish the world could be like Kucinich envisions it? There wouldn’t be any bad guys, and we wouldn’t need good guys, either. On health care, he wants to turn the American health system into a ‘single payer’ system. Scary.

 
Joe Biden – Forceful, strong. Looked like he knew his positions and would beat the snot out of anyone who disagreed with him. Came across as somewhat of a raving lunatic, however, feeling it necessary to start shouting to get his points across. But he stood out. His best line of the night came when he was talking about immigration: “being Commander in Chief requires that you occasionally need to be practical.” Funny. His comrades were giving him some interesting looks, and the audience laughed. It was a slip of the tongue, but gives you a window into the Democrat mindset. Biden reminds me a lot of Jerry Brown from California – direct, intellectual, but perhaps a little too abrasive to gain traction. Probably not nationally elect-able, either.

 
Bill Richardson – He’s the Mike Huckabee for the Democrats – governor of a small state, has had some experience in the Clinton Administration, is a minority, and generally comes across as a nice guy. His stance on immigration won’t play – too liberal, too lenient. Hillary Clinton went out of her way to say nice things about him – here’s to predicting a Hillary/Richardson ticket. Was the only one who hinted he might allow ‘choice’ for Veterans in health care – what a taboo for Democrats. He’s a liberal that you just have a hard time hating because he seems like such a decent guy.

 
Chris Dodd – You had to love his answer on the citizen/earmarks question, and whether he’d veto any bill with unauthorized pork spending. Um, no, he wouldn’t. Dodd is embarrassing, another of the candidates you just wonder why he’s there. It’s a shame that no one asks him about his outspoken role during the Clinton impeachment. He was asked about what he’d do to help with gas prices, and he starts talking about global warming! He did admit that his policies would be MORE expensive for the average citizen… you just shake your head whenever Dodd talks. 

 
Mike Gravel – He reminded me of Admiral Stockdale during the VP debate with Gore/Qauil in 1992. Very candid, which was nice, but who is he? Are they serious? One of the only candidates on stage who wasn’t afraid to take on the established candidates, yet every time he spoke, you wondered about what was coming next. He was right on with earmarks, but a lot of what he said was right out of the left-wing handbook. A non-entity, not worth wasting editorial space over.

 
Final impressions: Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls, and is capitalizing on two things: voters' residual, misguided infatuation with her husband, and the solid unpopularity of George W. Bush. Most experts think the Democrats are a solid favorite to win in ’08, and they’re trying hard to engender that 50% that will get them over the hump. 

 
There’s still ample room for the Republicans to challenge this slate of Democratic candidates. The entrance of Fred Thompson into the race brings another interesting aspect to a very difficult search for the right person to try and clean up the mess that is/was George W. Bush.

 
We’re a year and a half away from electing someone new – the search continues…