My god, he has a lot of chins.The Rani and Snarff are on the debate coverage already, but I wanted to add my own bit in here, too.
So after watching the Dem debates, I went ahead and watched the Red debates, too (thanks, Comcast DVR!). There are some marked differences that I think should be pointed out.
The Republican debate seemed to focus a good bit on immigration, and Giuliani spent a fair bit of time touting his law enforcement background and how "amnesty for illegals" is bad. Last night he was a cop, and just the kind of cop you
hate to get pulled over by. Everyone else pretty much pounced on his own record as mayor of New York, and how he basically gave amnesty...or maybe he didn't. But he sure looked nutty for a moment there.
At least two Republicans have conflated immigration with security (Giuli
ani and McCain). There's a lot of talk about the importance of "securing our borders" and "sealing our borders," which I think is kind of stupid--as if there's a giant tube of caulk out there that you can use to keep out the pesky Canadians who keep getting into the bathtup of the Great Lakes.
(The thing that is most obvious that no one talks about when it comes to border security is that everyone's focused on the
Mexican border. There's not a lot of talk about the Canadian border, which presumably is just as porous, and just as insecure. But it's the
Mexicans that scare the bejeezus out of the Republicans.)
Romney played the exact same kind of "I've brought change!" bullet point list that Hillary did later on, with not quite the same amount of fire or indignation. No on
e's eyebrows went up at all like they did when Hillary got riled up. Change! Everyone's for it, but I guess it's the denominations that are important, huh?
McCain's targetted Obama on his security background, and believes that "radical Islamist terrorism" is the primary threat faced by America. In fact, there's a lot of targetting Democrats on how weak they are, and how "creating timetables for withdrawal in a time of war" is tantamount to retreat, and therefore shameful.
Huckabee is the only one who even mentions anything positive about Obama, and rightly so: "He's touched on something that Americans want....He has excited voters in this country, let's pay respect for that. We better be careful as a party, because if we don't give people something to be for, and not just something to be against, we're going to lose this election."
Ron Paul jumped on that same wagon, to some degree, basically talking about the youthfulness of the ideas. He explores the differences a bit more, touting his own libertarian background. He still slams Obama for "not talking about income tax" and supporting a welfare state (which Obama actually did talk about in the Dem debate, so...uh...).
The topic of India and China as developing markets (and therefore as competitor consumers for oil) is kind of interesting for the candidate reactions. Ron Paul makes this
all about oil. He makes an interesting point about the price of oil: that it was $27 a barrel when we went to Iraq, and now it's around $100, and this was supposed to be about "securing the oil" (
it was?! WTF?! As if this particular bit of truth were not
totally anathema just a year ago). McCain follows along on the oil topic, and talks about reducing dependence on foreign oil, but does not talk about ethanol and what a disaster it is. We're really moving astray from the topic, but no one seems to care. Thompson just reiterates the obvious, except he also suggest we use the oil reserves in this country (presumably, this means ANWR). He also suggest we "need the oil to flow" while we search for alternatives, which doesn't make any sense, but again, no one bites. Giuliani jumps on the same "ennumerate forms of alternate energy" train as everyone else, and throws in clean coal, wind, and nuclear.
Charlie points out that nuclear is an interesting topic in NH. Huckabee dodges that bullet and keeps on with how great innovation is. No one wants to say that oil companies' excessive profits getting taxed (the "windfall tax") is a good idea. Romney doesn't say anything new, either. Everyone says we need to invest in new forms of energy. No one seems to be thinking too clearly about it, though.
Romney and McCain hate each other the way Hillary and Obama hate each other. That's obvious. But...it kind of seems like no one cares. They had a pretty heated exchange when McCain somewhat sarcastically said Romney was a "real candidate of change," and Romney said the ad hominem attacks were unnecessary.
In fact, Stephanopolous pointed out in the post-debate dissection that
none of the other candidates seem to like Romney very much, and that several of them went at it with him. Romney did force McCain to talk about immigration, which McCain was reluctant to do. And Giuliani clearly didn't mind letting Romney and McCain go at each other for a while.
The handshakes at the end of the Republican debate when they walked the Dems out and all the candidates shook hands and greeted each other were interesting to me, too. First, the audience loved it, and clapped the whole time that the candidates were on stage. Next, it's interesting to note who stopped where to talk:
Ron Paul sort of paired up with Richardson for a while.
- Obama hugged McCain like he meant it.
- McCain hugged Edwards like they were going to make out.
- Hillary didn't really linger with anyone, moving right down the line. She smiled biggest for McCain and paired up with him for a moment.
- Richardson kept it moving, but did seem to linger a while with Giuliani.
- The mics caught Hillary greeting Charlie rather warmly ("Hello, Charlie! How are you?") and his tepid response ("Hello there").
Stephanopoulous points out that the Clinton / Richardson relationship might not be as warm as it seems, because of some purported backroom deals between Richardson and Obama for Iowa. The relevant details are not explored any further, but George says that the Clintons are "livid" about it.
In-ter-est-ing.
Oh, and FYI, for those of you who were really focused on Iowa and Huckabee's "victory," keep in mind that Romney just won the Wyoming caucus. That race is far from over.
Also, I'm not sure what the MSM is up to, but I was really teed off by the implications during the Dem debate last night that "the surge has worked." Lest you think that, today's headlines should help set things straight:
- Shiite sheikh shot dead by gunmen in Baghdad neighborhood, officials
say
- Ismaiel Abbas had been active in efforts to counter militia
activity
- 16 people killed, 32 wounded in three separate bombings in Iraqi
capital
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Three separate bombings killed at
least 16 people Sunday, and gunmen shot to death a Shiite tribal sheikh active
in an effort to counter militias in his northeastern Baghdad neighborhood, Iraqi
officials said.
Uh, yeah, I'm going to plan my vacation to Baghdad immediately. Thank you, Surge!
On the Dem side, here's the tally:
Clinton 33%
Obama 33%
Edwards 20%
Richardson 4%
Kucinich 2%
And the Republicans' scorecard:
McCain 33%
Romney 27%
Giuliani 14%
Huckabee 11%
(all numbers
courtesy of CNN.com)
Based on those preliminary numbers, an Obama / Edwards ticket makes quite a bit of sense. It'd be tough to beat, since both Edwards and Obama have some support on the other side of the aisle.
Finally, for those of you who'd be
interested in making a trip to Denver, Aug 25-28 for some real political fun, let me know. I'm going to go. If ever there was a DNC to attend, this is it!
