Democrat debate

There were a few good answers and some light moments, but they made clear that getting out of Iraq and restoring our prestige around the world were front and center issues.

Iraq was a no-brainer since it's Bush's weakest spot but it did cause some angst on stage, weirdly illustrating Saddam's lingering nefarious influence on our lives. And if the candidates' wild spin was any indication, his legacy of lies, obfuscation and misdirection is alive and well with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich.

Each hopeful was trying hard to be seen as the anti-wariest of them all, especially Hillary who labeled Iraq as "Bush's War" even though she recently took flak for failing to read the 2002 NIE before voting 'yea' on the resolution and refuses to apologize for it. Perhaps she knows that too many archives exist to make such an apology anything more than a pandering joke, which the Repubs would surely tar her with.

She was strong On Iran by proclaiming a "no nukes" policy while Edwards used the Wesley Clark carrot top and stick strategy but also failed to take violence off the table. I agree with Joe Biden that Iran is politically weak and are years away from nuclear weapons. He said he'd take them out if necessary and I think he meant it.

Regards spending, Mike Gravel had the biggest moment of the night by ripping the current Congressfolk new bungholes for talking about new spending programs with a deficit as large as ours. An outraged Hillary piped up and reminded everyone that her dear husband balanced the budget in the 90s, to which Gravel shot back was only a parlor trick using the Social Security trust fund. Pow, zam.

On the subject of Darfur Blitzer tried to coax a show of hands as to whether they would place US troops in the middle of the Sudanese civil war. To their credit they raised a ruckus and refused to play, led by Hillary who said such hypotheticals were unproductive. Hopefully that carries over to the Repub debate. Richardson's solution to leverage China (possibly boycotting the Olympics there) was interesting and I agree we shouldn't engage militarily (not even NATO) because Darfur is not a direct threat to our security. But I'm skeptical we could influence China enough to make a difference based on our fiscal and trade position.

But the highlight of the night was the obligatory "we've got 20 minutes to fire on bin Laden" scenario question. Recall that uber-expert Michael Scheuer believed strongly that we should have blasted binny to Hell back in the 90s no matter how many civilians got turned into the desert along with him. Blitzer asked them all to raise their hands if they approved of such an action and it appeared they did, but Hillary jumped in and stopped the bleeding by reminding everyone that her dear husband tried to kill UBL back in the day and it just ain't easy. This was perhaps a jaw-dropper for some who thought "The Path to 9/11" was just a pack of Neocon lies.

Kucinich was actually asked the question first and gave a stock moonbat answer, basically saying he'd send bin Laden to the Hague for trial (hinting that Bush should join him) without bothering to tell uis how he might catch him. It certainly wouldn't involve shooting him, though. That produced an opening the size of Texas to which Barack leaped through with a cape by correctly pointing out that bin Laden is an enemy target not a head of state. So long, Dennis, we hardly knew ye. Poof.

Of course, Barama then quickly backtracked into a Bush-blame for letting UBL slip away at Tora Bora, claiming we were "distracted". Hmm. By what? We weren't in Iraq yet. Oh well. Then he blamed Iraq for the GWoT, which of course is just a bumper sticker. That reminds me, I didn't hear anyone ask Edwards about that. Maybe I missed it.

+++++++++++++++++++

The post-debate interviews by Anderson Cooper and Larry King were bland but Cooper did produce some classic TV when he spoke with Richardson. Bill lamented not getting his Iraq message out, which is to remove ALL troops (no residuals) from Iraq by the end of the calendar year (not sure which one). Cooper then pointed out Richardson's stated concern over Darfur and asked whether we might create a new one by leaving too soon? He stumbled from that body blow but fell over like a heavyweight when Cooper mentioned that Richardson discussed how critical it was to stay in Iraq in his book.

From watching the Biden interview I truly believe he lives for this stuff and is having the most fun, if that means anything.

Dodd has absolutely no chance with southerners because he talks way too fast, a problem shared by Giuliani as well. In a moment of candor he admitted to not reading the 2002 NIE but said it wouldn't have changed his vote anyway. Good thing, because the overwhelming message from that report was that Saddam was one dangerous sucka.

But hey, if all these Senators didn't read the report yet voted yea anyway doesn't that seem to prove that Bush didn't manipulate the intelligence to sway their votes? Just asking.

Overall I think CNN did a professional job and asked fairly tough questions. The back and forth format was better than previous debates. Let's see how they do with the Republicans.