All hail, the queen is… alive. The Eight Democratic presidential candidates met at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire to debate, and it’s never been more evident that the balance of the campaign season for the Democrats is a dress rehearsal to the coronation of the queen (Hillary Clinton) at next summer’s Democratic National Convention.

 
And that queen has already spent eight years in the White House. It brings to mind the old bumper stickers: ‘Impeach Clinton – and her husband.’ The queen reigns over the liberal establishment, and although she looks more and more presidential with each public appearance, her unconcealed socialistic vision for the country comes through with every utterance. She’s dangerous.

 
Watching the Democrats debate is a little like watching Lucy (of Peanuts fame) holding the football for Charlie Brown. We’re all told that this is going to be the time where the other candidates grasp a sense of urgency and come out swinging against the front-runner, who leads (according to the most recent polls) by about two-to-one over her nearest rival.

 
It didn’t happen. Every time, Lucy says she’s going to hold the ball for Charlie Brown to kick, yet time and again pulls the football away. Well, as viewers, we got the football taken away – again – and we all ended up on our keisters because we had faith that she’d finally hold the ball. If the campaign season is going to be all about paving the way for Hillary to ascend to her party’s nomination – and then the presidency -- why don’t we save ourselves millions of dollars and just swear her in right now?

 
I found myself getting angry – not only at the lack of confrontation from her fellow candidates, but also from the fact that there’s no alternative to be found amongst these contenders, to the completely unacceptable top-tier candidates in the Republican Party. There isn’t anyone in the Democratic field who doesn’t portent to be a socialist – and if there’s little talk about limiting the role of government in the GOP, there’s NO talk about limiting a federal role amongst the Democrats.

 
These Democrats love power, they love the federal treasury, and they’re itching to get their hands on your tax dollars to ‘invest’ in the economy and fashion the next great socialistic experiment.

 
The only Democrats willing to take on Hillary are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, both of whom are so far ‘out there’ that they can’t be taken seriously. I’m not in favor of eliminating any of the Republicans from the debates, but certainly these two Democrats have to be shoved to the sides. For one thing, they have absolutely no chance to win, and two, their point-of-view is so askew from the mainstream that even liberals would have a hard time supporting them.

About the only area where the Democrats rank consistently high for conservatives is their defense of individual liberties, but even here there are questions. Are they in favor of individual rights because they adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, or are they toeing the party line on subjects such as closing Guantanamo Bay and torture because they know their leftist base won’t stand for anything else?

 
For a group like the Democrats, who feel so free to ignore the Constitution on a wealth of federal powers, it’s simply unbelievable to think that they’re standing on principle alone. I’ve been a Republican all my life, but I consider myself a conservative first and foremost – but these people just aren’t convincing.

 
When John McCain stands up on stage and says he opposes torture, there’s an instant credibility that goes along with him. John McCain is not a principled conservative, and most conservatives would/could not support him, but when he looks you in the eye and says he wants to protect individual liberties, you believe him.

 
Does anyone seriously believe that John Edwards cares that much about individual liberties? The man who’d spent the better part of two hours attacking the economic independence of every American, and then he says he cares about freedom? It sounds to me like he wants to protect the rights of terrorists more than anything. No wonder the Democrats appear weak on national security.

The question about ‘sanctuary cities’ was also particularly instructive. Not one of the candidates on stage was in favor of enforcing federal law against cities that would choose to ignore the law in favor of the ‘rights’ of illegal aliens. For anyone who accuses Republicans of pandering to a constituency – what about the Democrats? It was a blatant attempt to appease the Hispanic lobby. Sad, truly sad.

But perhaps the single worst offense that these candidates committed was a question about homosexual marriage. Tim Russert read a question about a school district that introduced a book about two ‘princes’ marrying each other, then asked the candidates if they would allow that book to be read to their children.

 
The reaction was absolutely astonishing as John Edwards ‘came out’ in favor of allowing this type of ‘education’ for young children. Barack Obama said that his wife had already introduced homosexual relationships to his six and nine-year-olds. 

 
If you can’t stand the Republicans, all you need to do is watch the Democrats. It goes from a horrible choice to NO choice. It makes you truly fear for this country. The Democrats have no principles other than appealing to their MoveOn.org constituencies, and few of them are willing to stand up for the American ideal.

 
You can’t help but get the impression that these politicians are more than willing to force a liberal agenda down your throat. They’ll allow homosexual relationships in schools, they’re all for nationalized, ‘universal’ health care, they’re wishy-washy on withdrawing troops from Iraq, and they’ll allow taxes to be raised to make up for the deficiencies of Social Security. To these people, ‘privatization’ is a dirty word, ditched in favor of some fictional notion of ‘bi-partisanship’ and other buzzwords that have no meaning and no relevance for anyone who values individual freedoms and economic liberty. 

 

 
Tim Russert moderated this debate, and did a very fine job. Russert is a known Democrat, yet has earned a reputation as host of ‘Meet the Press’ over the years as a credible voice in getting to the truth.  This debate was no exception, as Russert one, asked a number of questions that cut to the heart of the issue, and two, wouldn’t let the candidates get away with not answering the questions.

 
The ‘rules’ were established early when Russert posed a question to Hillary Clinton about the possible sanctioning of an Israeli military strike against Iran, which the front-runner tried desperately to avoid. Russert tried not to let her lapse into a diatribe of political speak, but in the end, she didn’t end up answering the question.

 
Russert deserves credit for trying to get her to answer, but she kept avoiding the issue because it was ‘hypothetical.’

 
Russert dispensed with any kind of opening statement from the candidates, and kept things moving nicely, and to the point. There were questions about many of the salient issues of the day, though it would be instructive to hear the Democrats’ views on abortion and the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court.

 
We all know the answers, but it would be useful to have these candidates speak about life and the role of courts in American society. The average voter cares about the federal role of Congress and the President in our political system – wouldn’t it be nice to hear about what these people think?

To the benefit of viewers, there were several breaks in the debate, which made it much easier to watch, and follow. All and all, MSNBC did a very good job with presenting this debate.

 

Winners/Losers?

 
There was no doubt that Hillary Clinton won this debate.  Maybe she’s been taking a page from her husband on public speaking, but every appearance she makes seems to reassure the Democratic base that she’s up to the job. 

 
She seems to shrug off any tough question, and her somewhat sinister sounding cackling laugh can and will become noticed in the coming general election campaign, but she’s becoming very comfortable in her role as presidential front-runner, even distancing herself from husband Bill in the latter part of the debate. “He’s not here right now, I am,” she said, when disagreeing with her husband on the matter of torture.

 
Hillary seems like the most capable candidate on stage, painful as it is to admit. Bill Richardson also comes across well, though he seems to be running for the same liberal vote that John Edwards is trying to hard to court.

 
One point that Hillary made was kind of odd. She said ‘I want to be the healthcare president,’ which to me sounded like an allusion to George H.W. Bush’s victory speech, when he said ‘I want to be the education president.’ Does she really want to sink her fortunes into one issue where she's failed so miserably before? Most people’s association with HRC and healthcare is a negative one – that seems like an awful rickety wagon to hitch your horse to. 

 
Losers? Barack Obama. Obama is the best looking candidate of the bunch, and seems to be the most intellectual as well. But compared to Clinton, he’s a shell of a politician, not nearly polished enough and comes across as too young to handle the rigors of the job. Both Clinton and Obama are trying to appear tough on foreign policy while also attempting to appease their liberal base, and Hillary walks the fine line much more effectively. 

 
Joe Biden continues to speak ‘plainly’ about the issues, but he also seems kind of nutty. Christopher Dodd makes references to his white hair, but at the end of the day, can you remember a single thing he stood for? Kucinich and Gravel had their most memorable moments while trying to explain away their personal failures as politicians, and both make a mockery of the political system that allows value-less shills to maintain a presence on stage.

 
Both Kucinich and Gravel came out strongly for maintaining illegal immigrant rights. These guys are SO far removed from the opinion of the mainstream that they just need to carry signs on the fringes and leave the serious debate to someone else. Gravel even said that he was justified to cheat credit card companies out of tens out thousands of dollars because of their support for corporate interests. The man should probably be locked up, but what purpose would that serve? 

 
Other observations

 
Has debate in America come so far to the left that people are willing to accept the notion that government will control nearly everything meaningful in our lives? 

 
The Democrats were asked about their views on raising the Social Security withholdings caps on high earning Americans, as an alternative to raising taxes or reducing benefits. Some of the candidates came right out and said they’re willing to consider raising the caps, others claimed that a ‘bi-partisan’ coalition needed to be formed to deal with the issue.

 
Not a single one said that private individuals should be allowed to manage their own retirement formula. Where’s the outrage?

 
My grandfather was a particularly instructive example of someone who relied on the government's promises to his detriment. A long-time New Deal Democrat, he kept his life’s earnings in a low-interest savings account, and asked me as a young law student what he should do to ensure that his retirement savings were safe.

 
Unfortunately, he didn’t ask me until a few years before his death. If he’d invested his retirement savings in any number of private investment accounts in the past three decades, he would’ve died a rich man. But instead, he relied on Social Security and the two-percent he earned on a regular savings account to make sure he didn’t die in a destitute situation.

 
How many more are like my grandfather, and how many more are relying on the empty promises of this Democratic field that they’ll use ‘bi-partisan’ leadership to deny any kind of personal responsibility for personal accounts and use government authority to ensure that no one gets the benefits of their life-long savings to enjoy in retirement?

 
These Democrats can’t be trusted. They’ll nationalize healthcare, they’ll raise taxes, they’ll appoint judges who will uphold gay rights. Conservatives should be scared to death to even think about voting for any of these people.

 

 
The Republicans are bad, the Democrats are worse. It’s a horrible choice between the two, and the best hope as a conservative is to try and pick the best of the conservative candidates (if there are any), and support them with effort and treasure. One way or another, the debate has to shift towards a Reagan-like limited government vision, and until that happens, we should regard all of the candidates from both parties with the requisite suspicion that they deserve – and demand more.