This debate was the strongest one yet - all the candidates were far better tonight than they have been in previous debates, though Obama was a little flat. Earlier I highlighted Richardson and Biden as having the distinction of having cleaned up their act, but it was true of the whole field. Edwards seemed eager for a fight; consider his statement on the Iraq funding vote when he attacked Obama and Clinton in the same sentence. The real question for Edwards: how hard did he kick himself after he realized that he hadn't said getting the troops out of Iraq would be the first thing he would do in office (100 days question)?
I'll be on the look-out for other blogger responses, footage, etc. to follow up on the debate.

P.S. - I listened to a Fred Thompson speech this afternoon, and I think I may have been wrong about him having moderate candidate potential. Absolutely not.

Labels: Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Thompson

Biden has been doing surprisingly well in this debate, and Bill Richardson's performance has been a lot better so far in this debate as he showed off two of his major strengths: immigration and energy. Obama's performance so far seems somewhat mediocre for him. Edwards appears to be trying to create conflict amongst a generally unified group of candidates. I'll have more to add when the debate's over - it's about to start again.

Labels: Biden, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, Richardson

So there's this great piece in the New Yorker by Jeffrey Goldberg about the changing nature of the Republican Party, featuring Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Karl Rove and some of the valuable lessons that Gingrich and Delay learned (and didn't learn) after being shoved out as Speaker of the House. As we all know, Gingrich is one of those undeclared might-run-might-not candidates in the Republican race (along with Fred Thompson), and is quoted in the piece as saying that the only way a Republican can win in 2008 is if they run against Bush (this might explain Ron Paul's burgeoning donations). We have another few months to find out if Gingrich thinks he's that candidate.

Slate has a great piece asking the question of authentic (and not-so-authentic) populism, and why voters turn to some candidates who fake it and not others, the case in point being the gloriously undeclared Fred Thompson. Thompson, as it turns out, is looking less and less undeclared.

Back to Rudy ("Rude") Giuliani: he's gotten his act together, and has even learned how to make nice with voters who don't like him. If only he hadn't. Though apparently, if you ask him about his Yankee championship commemoration rings...

Another sad performance for Bill Richardson on Meet the Press: nothing we didn't know already.

For good laughs: Fox News isn't actually a news station (see Anna Nicole Smith) and DC Needs A Slogan ("The City of Unethical Love", anyone?)

Labels: DC, Fox News, Gingrich, Giuliani, Karl Rove, Richardson, Ron Paul, Thompson, Tom Delay

The Giuliani campaign snubs an Iowa farmer couple involved in planning a rally. Why? They weren't rich enough.

Make fun of Bill Richardson's ad all you want, I love it.

Labels: Giuliani, Richardson

I’ve been thinking about doing a post similar to this one for a while, since it’ll be useful to have to deal with the questions I get about my stance on the 2008 candidate field.

The Question: How do you evaluate the candidates?

In my mind, there’s a serious distinction to be made between the candidate best suited to make decisions about the future of the U.S. and the candidate in the best position to lead the country in a new direction. Were I to make such a decision in 2001 or 2002, the choices in the first category would be obvious: John McCain and Bill Richardson. Of this year’s field of candidates, it is the two of them who stick out as having most astoundingly served the nation, Bill Richardson as a Congressman, US Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and Governor of New Mexico; and John McCain as naval aviator and then a POW for 5 years during the Vietnam War and, later, a Senator representing his state for 20 years.

Is in comparison to the current front runners in both parties that these candidates properly stand out – Rudy Giuliani has never served in office except as major of New York City and U.S. Attorney. Nothing about him qualifies either actually or symbolically for President of the United States. His current stance as front-runner is the sole product of his opportunism in taking something that the United States sees as one its greatest tragedies and using it to launch himself into a position of great power (if you’re a Heroes fan it’s worth noting how Giuliani’s path to Presidency oddly mirrors Sylar’s). Giuliani is also notable for a bit of cronyism and dealing harshly with those (especially the press) who disagree with him (see Ferrets). He has a lifetime muzzle award?

Obama’s lack of true qualification is slightly more benign; he was on track to take the slow and certain path to a Presidential campaign with seven years in the Illinois senate and what was sure to be a noteworthy career in the Senate. Along with this, some aspects of Obama’s biography place him in a unique position to run for president; with his book Dreams from My Father, written before his entrance into politics, he demonstrated a long-standing unique outlook on the nation’s complicated racial politics. Likewise, having chosen to work for Saul Alinsky's coummunity organizing group (which recently received some interesting press attention), it is clear that his plans for himself always involved public service. In some ways, this puts Obama on equal footing with Hillary Clinton, whose own political achievements will always be seen in the shadow of her husband’s. Obama fits into the 2nd category by which to judge the candidates - having seen him in person and followed him closely, I can say with some certainty that he has the ability to provide a type of inspirational leadership that the country currently lacks. The real question to ask is how important this type of leadership is in choosing a president.

Back to the real world: noting that Bill Richardson will probably never make it in with the Democratic front-runners due to his sad lack of charisma and public speaking ability, I have no clear preference between the top three Democratic candidates. I campaigned for John Edwards in 2004, and I like both Obama and Clinton, though I have a slight preference for Obama. My only hope for those three is whichever one of them wins the nomination and possibly the presidency will consider Bill Richardson as their Vice President or Secretary of State.

….Which leaves the Republic field of candidates. Noting my distaste for Giuliani, and considering that Romney has changed his position on every social issue the religious right cares about and has basically no integrity left to throw out the window, McCain is clearly the best candidate for the Republican nomination. Every Republican presidential candidate supports continuing the Iraq war in some form, and McCain is the only one to have clearly articulated an Iraq policy distinct from the status quo (see here). Were McCain to win the election, his career in the Senate acts as proof that he knows how and when to compromise effectively, and that his concerns are not simply partisan ones. His greatest downfall is that of his party: he supports an unpopular and unsuccessful war. With the only good option for an incoming president being to minimize the Bush administration’s damage by withdrawing from Iraq while leaving in place some type of structure that will diminish the blow to the region when Iraq eventually collapses, a Democrat will probably win the 2008 election. But the 2008 election will serve to the international community as a test of the American public on the Iraq war, and for a debate on the issue to happen, each party must put forward its strongest voice. John McCain is the only Republican who can fill those shoes. If he does win the election, those in the U.S. against the war will at least be able to live with hope, knowing that McCain has the experience and wisdom necessary to change his mind.

I know there are some problematic things about McCain's candidacy I didn't cover, but I think this post is a bit on the long side as it is.
Mystery Pollster asks, "Who won the Republican Debate?" The answer: not Giuliani, but Romney

Labels: Edwards, Giuliani, Hillary, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney