Democratic Debate

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I´m not much of a patriot, but I believe in those values, and I think that the government´s encroachment on them should be minimal. Because of this, the latest democratic presidential debate left me a little disappointed.

The candidates were asked ¨What is more important, national security or personal freedom? I don´t recall all of the answers, but I know that Hillary, for one, didn´t hesitate to answer "national security".

I like Barack Obama, and I want to throw my support behind him, but lets me down on questions like this. I like to think that he doesn´t really believe some of his answers. That maybe he knows its necessary to cater to public opinion, and in this time of leadership-through-fear a candidate can´t appear weak on national security. But, that would make him just like every other politician giving his campaign over to pollsters and strategists.

I really like a few of the "fringe" candidates too. When a candidate is behind in the polls and isn´t one of the likely winners, they are more likely to say what they think and not what will attract the most votes. Christ Dodd is one of my favorites in the "not Obama or Clinton" category. I´ve looked at his website and I think that he would make a fine president. Health coverage for all and a plan to restore the constitution and Habeus Corpus. He´s also strong on young people giving a year to national service in exchange for partial college tuition, which I think is a good idea.

Joe Biden is angry. If he´s this angry now, I would hate to see him after a year of presiding.

Hillary. If she were nominated, I would vote for her. But I would be voting against something more than for someone. In trying to move herself to the center, she´s softened some of the stances I would have found most appealing. Universal health care, getting out of Iraq, impeaching Bush/Cheney. She lost her edge.

John Edwards had the best line of the night. He said that it´s important not to replace corporate republicans with corporate democrats. Corporate money is powerful in politics, and a politician who won´t accept money from corporate interests won´t be beholden to those interests during his term. From what I understand, Edwards is the most radical (in a good way) on campaign funding and Obama is pretty good too.

Dennis Kucinich. I think it´s important that he´s a part of the debate. We need the extremes to tug at the center from the left and the right. Kucinich is someone who calls for peace above all else and isn´t afraid to speak for the poor to the detriment of the super rich (tax the bastards).

Where was Mike Gravel? He´s wise, he´s old, maybe a bit cantankerous, but I would vote for him. Actually I would vote for any of the 6 leading democratic candidates over any of the republicans. All things considered (ideas, likability, ability to win) here is my order of favorites:
Obama
Dodd
Gravel
Edwards
Clinton
Richardson
Kucinich

Even though they´re at the bottom, I´d much rather see a bumper sticker that says "Kucinich/Richardson 2008" than "Giuliani/torture 2008"

**Update. I just went to connect2elect.com and completed a survey that tells me my list of candidates, focusing only on issues, should look like this:
Richardson
Kucinich
Obama
Biden
Edwards
Gravel
Clinton
Dodd