Tuesday, November 04, 2003
I just finished watching the Democratic candidates, minus Richard Gephardt, debate in Boston before a youthful audience. I can't fully analyze the debate, but here are some impressions that I formed:
John Kerry is placing serious emphasis on his resume. This is, perhaps, his greatest strength, but it did lead him to go over time on a few occasions. But his resume does give him a wedge of sorts against Howard Dean, particularly on the issue of gun control. Also, he capitalized on a softball thrown to him by a baseball fan; by answering a question about the Red Sox, he managed to seem more like an ordinary guy.
John Edwards waxed wonkish this evening - he was fairly willing to enunciate his specific plans and his agenda. His presentation was fairly enthusiastic and vigorous. And, I think he did score off of Howard Dean on his comment about Confederate flags. Leaving aside the issue of whether invoking that is insensitive to African-Americans, it's fairly clear that it is fairly condescending to Southerners. By saying that, Dean probably cut into any potential base he may have in the South and Edwards was right to call him on it. The vast majority of Southern Democrats who do not fly Confederate flags are likely to resent being caricatured by a smug guy from Vermont.
Howard Dean was emphatic but didn't react well to attacks made on his flag remark by Edwards and Sharpton. Mostly he just responded by making points that no one would disagree with. He seems careless enough to let his mouth run and cocky enough not to want to revise things he's said. I'll admit that I'm not that fond of him, since I think he's the poster child for smugness.
Can someone ring a gong and have Dennis Kucinich removed from the stage? When asked about the wisdom of substituting the UN for the US in Iraq, he seemed utterly clueless, blathering that if it was wrong to enter Iraq, it was therefore wrong to stay. The point of UN incompetence in the 90s - particularly in the Balkans - was lost on him. Nor do I think he's familiar with the graft that occurred under the UN's management of the Oil For Food program.
Carol Mosely-Braun may not be a viable candidate, but she really exudes passion, common sense, and good humor. Watching her up there makes me sad that she didn't win reelection in 1998.
Wesley Clark was wearing a strange shirt but seemed plain-spoken and relaxed up there. The question of his policy on the war wasn't explored that deeply, but it probably remains his Achilles heel, since it's not really clear what it was.
Richard Gephardt should not have missed this debate. He's emerging as a frontrunner, and more than anyone else speaks to the blue collar wing of the party, plus he may be capitalizing on his forthright support for the war. I almost turned off the TV when I realized that he'd be absent.
Joe Lieberman was good but not great. Likeable but not remarkable.
Al Sharpton is some kind of onstage color commentator. He's funny, but when candidates start going into resume mode, I wonder if he should be citing his contributing role in the Crown Heights riot or being sued for slander in the Tawana Brawley affair. He and Kucinich are the two candidates whose nomination would make me consider voting for Bush.
