Shades of Blue the Democrats Debate

While I try to stay on top of some of the local issues here in Chesterfield, and lately there have been plenty, I am not deaf to whats going on on the national scene. I have to admit that at times it drives me crazy that people pay so much more attention to Washington and all the media plaugued politics than they do there own backyard and whats impacting their neighboorhoods, schools, workplace and simply their quality of life. Washington's not addressing that so much these days. We need to look to our local leaders for alot of our concerns and force them to put pressure on the people they need to to make things happen. ie transportation and roads where our local leaders should be putting pressure on our State Senators and Delegates to bring the funds to Chesterfield and Richmond.

Instead people worry about pointless things like how much John Edwards paid for his haircut, How John McCain appears so tired, How Obama is becoming an electrifier or whether Thompson or Gingrich enter the race ...honestly I'm following that one cuz I likem both alot. So in an effort to get in touch I watched the debate of the Democrats Sunday and will watch the Republicans tonight.

What did I learn from the Democrats? First and Foremost Not all Democrats are Alike! There are indeed different Shades of Blue.

First in formeost that the guy probably most qualified to actually be presidential has little chance. Bill Richardson appears to have all the goods but little charisma and delivery. His experience as Governor, Secretary, Ambassador are undeniably impressive. The only one real issue I found completely dissappointing was his ideas on immigration, but given the fact he has no chance of winning the nomination what other perspective is he going to have coming from New Mexico. I found the others, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, to be for the most inexperienced politicians with alot of rhetoric but little substance. Biden delivered I think some reality to the bunch on exactly what is required to get the thing done others were proposing. His vote not in line with the others was statesmanlike....as long as there are boots on the ground he is going to get them what they need..ie funding.

The funding issue for Iraq was probably one of the one topics I felt made the stage pretty transparent. Biden voted his conscience and to his credit went against the majority of those on the left. John Edwards has been outfront since the beginning on this issue in demanding that the funding be withdrawn and the war ended. Edwards made a call for all his supporters and called on MoveON to influence all of its memebership to call on the Reps in the House and get them behind withdrawing funding and used as much free media to get his views out. While I do not support Edwards on this issue, he in effect has earned my respect for taking a leadership position, albeit on the other side, of this issue. Obama and Clinton were very disappointing. Not in the debate per say mind you, but in their continual lack of leadership on any issues. Obama has great presence and is a great speaker, but as of yet has been short on substance...other than his vote against the war initially in the Senate. His Healthcare plan seems no more visionary than Clintons back in the 90's....universal designed and guided by the insurance companies. Clinton at this point is gun-shy on healthcare...still after ten years...and copped to the country not having the "political will" to get it done during Bill Clinton's term. Seems to me she has been the one to lose the political will. In her years in the Senate has she proposed a single meaningful bill in committee or the floor on healthcare. This was her major issue as a First Lady and she has left it like a bad habit.
Both Obama and Clinton, as pointed out by Edwards were MIA on leadership for the Iraq funding vote, waiting til the last votes to cast their own. Now that was simply politics at its best. They both were either waiting to see what each other were thinking or waiting to see the vote count before the cast theirs; either way that NOT leadership and I agree with Edwards. The moderator seem to play to the top three in Clinton, Obama, Edwards but occaisionally would let Gravel or Kucinich chime in with could only be defined as "political realities". Honestly I think these guys would be great anchors covering politics becuase they are great at calling "Bull**** as Bull****" from the others as they play politics. I thought Chris Dodd was the most improved from the last debate and he got a little more time I think.

So in the end: I thought

Edwards: did quite well as the attack dog defining that the next leader will have to deal with Iraq,Healthcare,Global climate change, Korea, etc A-

Obama: articulate, challenged/defended his positions well, but nothing new B+

Richardson: very statesman like , has a firm grasp on most of the issues but will not crack to top three B
Biden: experienced politician, defended his votes/views, outlined governement reality, armor for troops and is leadership on that B

Clinton: the front runner I felt defended her ground, but still references what she feels were the Clinton days too much (thats the past we are talking about the future) good speaker I think but never says too much about what she "would" do....too much we all need to talk and get together as one in the world and in America...and then refuses to go to the Black Caucas debate on Fox. B-

Kucinich/Gravel: interesting television. I think Kucinich would be great for a national Libertarian Party but as Democrat at the national level he's dead in the water. C/D