[tweaked 1/12/08]

I hope you saw some of the two, back-to-back debates last Saturday. (And very little of the professional prattle of Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolus).

The very best idea of the evening was to have all of the candidates (whom ABC deemed worthy) standing on the stage together, Democrats and Republicans. It was a little odd how they paired up, with Ron Paul and Richardson together, for example, but it was a good, symbolic gesture.

Another good thing about the debates was having everyone seated and allowing a longer period of free-form discussion. The classic Q&A that is usually called “debate” for candidates is woefully inadequate. Kudos to everyone.

On the negative side, it was weird to watch several Republican candidates snip and snipe at Romney, in between sneers of Hilarycare. They looked juvenile, though Romney sometimes looked a little too pompous and rigid. I was actually shocked the Huckabee was part of that — he’s not the nice guy he pretends to be.

I thought it was interesting that the Facebook (itself an innovation in this context, albeit a little silly for TV) poll asking what topic people wish Republicans spent more time discussing put immigration last and environment second — not even acknowledge by the media. The Facebook poll was an innovation in this context, albeit a little silly for TV. Immigration was last among the topics people wish Republicans spent more time discussing. The environment was second most important, though none of the commentators pointed that out. It appears McCain is the only one who believes in global warming, while all of the candidates believe immigration is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR TIME! Yeah, right.

On the Democratic side, there were fewer candidates and less real fighting. Richardson seemed out of his league. He spends too much time reintroducing himself, repeating his platform. The others clearly don’t see the need to define themselves as Richardson does. On the other hand, Richardson got the most and best laughs, all intentional, I think.

Most weird/amusing is that every goddamn candidate believes in change and believes they are the best agent of change. Bullshit, unless the change is simply that of going from candidate to president. It is a sign of the total collapse of the Republican party that all of its candidates claim to embrace change: By definition, conservatism opposes change, unless rolling back the clock is considered change.

Question: How do you reconcile claiming to be for change while attacking anyone who has ever changed their position on anything even slightly? Blame the Republicans for making “flip-flopper” a bigger crime than Constitution-burner or war-monger.

It appears that for Democrats, the choice will be between Obama and Clinton, while the Republicans will remain deeply divided until they unite to oppose the newly elected Democratic president and majorities in both house of Congress. mjh

PS: Obama+Biden? Obama+Richardson? vs McCain+Huckabee?

PPS: A pox on Charlie Gibson for his horrible opening scenario to the Democrats: What would you do in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack? Please, Chuckie, try not to be a fear-monger (VOTE REPUBLICAN TO BE SAFE). The odds of a nuclear attack in the US, in spite of Chucky G’s statistics, are far lower than IEDs popping up in dozens of cities. Remember, we’ve trained the terrorists on two fronts how to succeed with IEDs. You can thank Duhbya for that.