Kucinich really owned the debate, all things considrered. Clearly he’s in a position where he can say things like he’ll immediately repeal NAFTA and not have to later do that. He’s not looking for moderate appeal, he’s not doing much except for camping out on the left-wing, but his responses played well to the audience, and even at some points, to me. Clearly it’s sad that he’s a lost cause, but he is. He had the funniest line of the night though with the “I’m the Seabiscuit of this race.”

Obama stood his ground on Pakistan, which is interesting. He played it off well, who knows how long he rehearsed the answer to the inevitable question, but in a nation sick of being at war — threats towards our allies are not going to be well-received, except for perhaps Bush-weary moderate Republicans. He came off strong-willed and not wishy-washy, but it will probably still hurt his chance at then nomination.

Hillary ignores the lobbyist thing again, to her discredit. I know she can’t have a satisfying answer, given that she does take money from them and everything, but — talk about avoiding the question. She did well with audience reponse.

Edwards should have owned this audience, and could have owned this audience. He was right where he should have been on the issues, but he lacked the articulation the other candidates seemed to have in this particular debate. His comment about not being big businesses candidate and not being on Fortune magazine (Like Hillary Clinton), would have been perfect had she not been so poised in responding.


I know it seems to be a Hillary vs. Obama race, and that it seems quite likely that one of them we’ll get the nomination, and potentially the presidency, but after watching the debates, I can’t say I truly prefer either of them. I mean, personally, I will be supporting the winning Democratic candidate. I’m just not blind to the faults of the people most likely to take it.

Hillary is not going to offer universal health care. It isn’t part of her plan, even though she’ll cite her “battle scars” from the last time any time it’s brought up and skirt the issue and not come out and say that she won’t offer it. She doesn’t want to offend us the growing percentage of people (especially the democrats she needs for the nomination), but no, she won’t be providing it. Republicans can at least breath a sigh of relief about that for her, I guess, but for me, that’s a deal-breaker. My other issues with her include her original support of Defense of Marriage Act, and her only being for civil unions, rather than full marriage benefits for gay couples, though I feel that she could open up on that eventually.

I certainly don’t agree with Satan in a pantsuit descriptions by the far right, but Hillary doesn’t have my vote this primary season. Honestly, I think the left has more to fear when it comes to her than the right. She’s hardly a liberal (even she rejects the term), or, considering her opposition to universal coverage, even a “progressive” as she calls herself.

Obama is also against gay marriage. He has even said that he, personally, believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Seriously, even typing it I keep wondering how it’s possible that in 2007, I have to say this about a Democratic candidate. The whole gay marriage argument is clearly a debate for another thread, but Obama is supposed to be the everyman candidate, or at least that is how he wants to paint himself, and it’s hard to accept from someone who discounts the rights of some men and women. It would be one thing (though still not perfect), if Obama said that civil unions were more feasible for the country right now, but his personal objection to gay marriage makes me feel queasy. A part of me thinks this springs from his religion, which is fair, it’s his choice, but someone who lets his personal beliefs dictate others lives when it doesn’t effect him at all isn’t somebody I can support when I have better options.

Obama’s health care plan is certainly more extensive and efficient than Hillary’s, but it’s still not truly universal. At this point, health care has become one of the most important domestic issues, and he’s still not willing to step up and offer America truly universal health care, which makes it very hard for me to support him.

Once again, I’ll support either of them, if I must. Of the two, I prefer Obama, slightly.

Kucinich charmed me somewhat with his outlandish behavior at the debates, but lets be completely honest here — he doesn’t have a chance. He’s currently getting about 1% of the vote, and, even if he was a major candidate, there is no way he could unite the country. Part of me wishes America was ready for a guy like him, but then, part of me thinks that he’s able to say pretty much whatever he wants when he doesn’t have to actually enact any of this later.

Who am I rooting for? John Edwards. I really wasn’t that impressed with him in 2004, but he’s won me over, and I never expected it.

[1] He’s going to offer truly universal health care.
For Five Decades, Jamees Lowe lived in the richest nation in the world, unable to talk because he couldn’t afford the procedure that would allow him to talk. When are we going to stand up and do something about this?
– John Edwards

[2] He is honest about being unsure about gay marriage (or marriage equality, as he calls it, and it’s my new favorite term), but is opposed to Constitutional Amendment banning it. No, it’s not the best progress. But he isn’t hiding behind pretty pre-constructed statements for his belief, he’s a normal person like us working out their beliefs, and on this one, I can let that slide, and hope that, being reasonable, he’ll come to fight for marriage equality. He is, of course, for complete Civil Unions with equal rights.

Like I said before, I don’t want to put to much energy into building up a hate for Hillary or Obama. Despite my issues with them, I’ll embrace them for their positives and hope to GOD that they change their minds on some things if one of them gets the nomination, but… I’d simply prefer someone else.