Recent polls have shown New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton with a sizable lead over her party opponents, and nothing following from this most recent debate in South Carolina would seem to change things.

 
Rumors had it that this debate would be different, that Clinton’s seven opponents would be coming after her in this format, hoping to draw distinction between themselves and the front-runner. Unfortunately, the opposite was true. The final question in the debate was very instructive – a YouTube contributor asked the candidates to look at the person on their left, and say one thing nice, and one thing negative about the person standing next to them.

 
None of them took the opportunity. John Edwards, who had the best chance to say something derogatory about Mrs. Clinton (she was on his left) said ‘I’m not sure about your coat.’

 
Joe Biden openly mocked the question, calling it ‘ridiculous.’ This observer found the obvious contempt from the candidates for the YouTube videos particularly offensive. Sure, some of the ‘citizen’ questions bordered on the absurd, but this format’s questioning was a lot closer to what real people would be asking than some clown from CNN or FOX news would come up with.

 
In my mind, how dare a candidate say a citizen’s question was ‘ridiculous?’ If there was ever a greater example of the utter disconnect between Washington and the masses, this was it. There isn’t much getting done in the nation's capitol these days. The recent immigration ‘debate’ only showed that our representatives in Washington aren’t listening to us. They think we’re ‘ridiculous.’ If only the ballot results would show what we really think of them.

 
Just a couple of the candidates took the opportunity to address the questions directly – Dennis Kucinich, the ‘kook’ candidate of the far left, and Mike Gravel, the ex-Senator from Alaska, who kept reminding the audience that he didn’t have a chance to speak on anything substantive. The rest were carefully controlled ‘softball’ questions for the leading candidates, giving them further opportunities to pontificate the party line and further impress their liberal donors. 

 
Is this how politics has devolved? Or is it a conspiracy amongst the Democrats to appear ‘united’ behind Hillary, in the latest attempt to gain the White House?

 
Conservatives have shown they find little to like amongst the Republicans (even with Fred Thompson in the picture), but voting for any of the Democrats is simply beyond contemplation.

 

 
Winner? Easy, it was Hillary Clinton. She received the meatiest questions, was challenged on nothing, appeared serene and content throughout the two hours. Her makeup made her look twenty years younger, her ‘gentleman callers’ on either side (Obama and Edwards) were prepared to guide her to the dance, and the rest was a formality. 

 
Every challenger (save Gravel) was more than happy to swoon over the Bill Clinton White House, not a single candidate challenged her ‘35 years’ in public service. An outside observer might say that nearly everything she’s ever accomplished was due to her slick husband, but not a peep was heard to question her impending royalty.

 
Barrack Obama, to his credit, tries to draw lines between himself and the Queen, but there wasn’t anything that stood out. Perhaps Obama is playing for second place, but the same could be said for every other Democrat, save Mike Gravel, who is so far off in the distance that he’s treated as a humorous curiosity.

 
Particularly instructive was the question to the candidates on who rode a private jet to the debate, with all but Kucinich and Gravel raising their hands. Gravel said ‘I took a train and a bus.’ It was morbidly funny, as the leading Democrats sheepishly raised their palms in confession.

 
If only one of the enviro-hippies took the time to calculate the pounds of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to fly these hypocrites to the event. Al Gore, eat your heart out.

 

Loser(s)? Everyone but Clinton. 

 
How many chances do these guys think they’re going to get? Edwards and Obama could conceivably gain ground on Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, but they treat her with the deference of a nun at the local parish school. Is it less masculine to attack a woman? Would a candidate be ‘less’ black to come out and wonder why this white woman is engendering so much of the black vote?

 
John Edwards remains the biggest joke of the campaign – a complete study in contradictions, the ‘champion’ of the poor while living the life of a king. He’s made a fortune politicking with the rich and powerful, yet remains attached to the idea that he can take a poor guy from West Virginia’s cleft pallet and turn it into electoral gold (as he tried to do towards the end of the debate).

 
Edwards is a tragic character all to himself. His wife is fighting cancer, he’s sitting on top of a fortune built on the backs of the little guy (a trial lawyer) and he’s crying in the wilderness about the unfairness of the world. It takes a liberal dope indeed to find any value in him whatsoever, and it makes me wonder – if Kerry had chosen a halfway credible running mate in ’04, would things have been different?

 
The Democrats had one heck of an opportunity to unseat a sitting president in ’04, yet squandered the opportunity on a waffling political hack from Massachusetts and a squaw-toothed idiot from North Carolina who has trouble putting a single sentence together that’s believable.  They’ll only have to do marginally better in ’08 against the current crop of Republicans, but even with that low threshold – are any of these people truly going to lead the free world in a year and a half? Ouch.

 
They were all terrible

 
What an opportunity, I thought. A YouTube set of questions asked by people in the hinterlands, begging for these candidates to reach out and grasp the concept that people want politicians to listen to them.

 
Yet time after time, these career politicians took the opportunity to either: a) disregard the question, or b) give a sentence in deference, then launch on a diatribe on an issue that wasn’t at the forefront.

 
How difficult would it be to just address the question at hand?

 
Particularly interesting were the really ‘out there’ questions, such as the man asking about reparations for slavery. Dennis Kucinich was the only one who suggested he’d be open to such a thing, and I’ll give Barrack Obama credit for deftly side-stepping the notion while answering ‘no’ to a constituency that could potentially help him.

 
Joe Biden took his time to deride the gun owner who called his assault rifle his ‘baby.’ Biden and the rest of the liberals completely miss the point in favor of advancing positions that will only restrict freedom further – how could a conservative consider voting for these people?

 
In my opinion, Barrack Obama’s the only one on stage that seems to carry with him the gravity that’s needed for the presidency. Hillary’s a legacy choice, Dodd’s a career politician without any kind of institutional backing, Biden’s forceful, but also comes across as somewhat of a lunatic. Edwards…? I just don’t get him. No real political record, no credibility from the far left, does he have anything to offer but the sad story of a critically ill wife and a fondness for 60’s era ‘we shall overcome’ politics?

 
The biggest disappointment of the evening was Bill Richardson, who up to this point had at least showed a willingness to gravitate to the political center – but in the face of sagging poll numbers has gone back to the liberal party line, hoping to get enough smiles from the audience to attract the attention of Hillary Clinton, who just might toss a Vice Presidential nomination his way.

 
Seeing how Dick Cheney has made the Vice Presidency into a very powerful office, the Old Executive Office Building is nothing to sneeze at any more. Certainly worth more than a ‘bucket of spit’ these days.

 
Some thoughts on the candidates

 
It’s curious that this was the first debate ‘sanctioned’ by the Democratic Party, because it was hardly distinguishable from anything else the party puts out. The establishment clearly favors the Clinton dynasty, and seeks to suppress any voices in disagreement.

 
Mike Gravel – He’s gone from ‘who’s he?’ to ‘what will he say next?’ Hillary and Edwards talked in an open microphone a couple weeks back about limiting the exposure of the ‘lesser’ candidates, but Gravel is the one voice on stage who keeps things fresh. It’s hard to understand, much less agree, on anything he’s talking about, but his willingness to take on the party establishment warrants his inclusion in these farce debates. He’s got lots of funny lines, too.

 
Christopher Dodd – The ultimate party hack. Spouts on and on about his record, but he’s bound to be consumed by his completely partisan tendencies in Congress. His ‘White Hair’ YouTube video was funny, but… who cares? He did much better this time out than in previous debates, but he’s still just garnish to the main dish.

 
John Edwards – It’s hard to pick out any words that would differ from those above. Edwards is a candidate in the mold of John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis, someone who clings to supposed liberal values, has no personal background to back it up, and is appealing to an ignorant electorate to buy into his boyish looks and stupid country-boy accent to appear attractive. Edwards is the worst of the Democrats running, a shining example of everything that’s wrong with electoral politics in America. The moment he opens his mouth is the time when he says something wrong.

 
Hillary Clinton – Hillary’s best moment came during the question about Obama being ‘black’ enough, and Hillary being ‘feminine’ enough. She said ‘isn’t it wonderful that we’re talking about women’s issues?’  Is that it? Her husband was the champion of the worthless cause, and if Hillary hopes to succeed where he’s left off, she’s well on her way. HRC claims to be running on her own, independent of Bill’s record, but why isn’t anyone asking her any substantive questions about her role in the Clinton White House, healthcare 'reform,' or anything else? She’s public enemy number one, which puts conservatives in a quandary as to what needs to be done to try and stop her.

 
Barack Obama – Obama’s the leader in Democratic fundraising, and in some ways, it’s easy to see why. He carries with him a stature that all the others lack, and, if you block out completely what he says, you get the idea that this man can lead. But unfortunately, when you turn the sound back on, you get a series of jumbled, confused diatribes on race, gender, sex, and whatever the Senator can seem to put together at any one time. Obama’s a guy you’d like to invite over to watch the Super Bowl, but would you want him to be president…? 

 
Bill Richardson – Richardson’s a likable personality. Unfortunately, any common ground that might have been found with the man from New Mexico has been lost. Richardson said he’s for health care for illegal immigrants, for a ‘minimum wage’ for teachers, and for getting the Republican Party to stop ‘suppressing’ minority voters. Richardson proved himself a ‘kook’ in the same vein as Dennis Kucinich tonight. Goodbye Bill, see you appearing with Hillary as the 2nd choice.

 
Joe Biden – The Senator from Delaware actually comes across as likable, until you listen where he’s coming from. By far the most arrogant candidate in the Democratic field, Biden feels free to comment on the ‘stupidity’ of questions, then will happily yield his own views on many of the issues. Biden’s garnered a reputation for ‘borrowing’ speeches from other sources, yet when he speaks, you sense a real conviction from him. He differs from the others on Iraq, amongst other things, yet the look in his eye is hardly presidential. Is this the man you want standing across from other world leaders? I think not.

 
Dennis Kucinich – He’s the Ron Paul of the Democrats. Kucinich is completely off the wall, and you have no idea where he’s going to come from next. CNN’s Anderson Cooper said ‘I don’t know if we could find anyone to your left’ at the end of the debate – and Kucinich took it in good stride, but still proceeded to answer with a left-wing answer to the question. Kucinich, no matter how far ‘out’ he is, could never garner enough support. He’s a distraction to the candidates who’ve already raised millions.

 
Final impressions: Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls, and is capitalizing on two things: residual, misguided infatuation with her husband, and the solid unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. 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. Conservatives do, and should have serious issues with Thompson or any other candidate, yet the Democratic field leaves much to be desired.