Serving Bread

I caught most of the Democrat’s YouTube/CNN Debate. I thought the format was engaging and creative. People all across America submitted questions via YouTube to the candidates. What a great way of combining new media with old media!

It’s hard to say if anyone came across as a clear winner. There were too many candidates and not enough time given to each candidate to allow them to articulate their position. Also, most of their positions on most of the topics is similar. What I can say though is that the winner of the debate was the Democratic Party.

When I survey this pool of candidates, I am impressed how they are articulating their position. Four years ago, you didn’t know what the Democrats or Kerry really stood for. This time around, if I were to vote for a Democrat, it would not be a protest vote (like it was in 2004).

Here are some thoughts:

• Clinton is one smart and tough cookie. Her command of foreign policy and diplomacy makes her a credible candidate and legitimate candidate. She has experience, intellect, and (in my opinion) integrity. It is unfortunate that people think she is a polarizing figure and that she has a high unfavorable impression by conservatives. At this point in time, I would support her.
• I like Obama, but I was unimpressed by him. The debate showed how green he really is (especially when it comes to foreign policy issues). I had a professor in college who recommended that we always vote for our president based on his or her foreign policy position. Though he may have some good ideas regarding domestic issues, I could not vote for Obama based on his grasp of foreign policy issues.
• Edwards did nothing to gain my confidence that he would be a solid next president. I still don’t trust him in that seat.
• It is unfortunate that Joe Biden doesn’t have more support and he doesn’t get more coverage. He is a solid candidate, and I wonder if he was the nominee in 2004, we might actually have a President Joe Biden right now. He came across as an honest legislator who has a command of the issues.
• I think Bill Richardson would be a fantastic VP.
• I didn’t catch anything fresh from Dodd. Mike Gravel is a joke and a relic of the old left. He knows he doesn’t stand a chance and his candidacy is simply to stir up the pot. Unfortunately he is on the wrong side of most of the issues (legalize drugs, get rid of free trade, withdraw immediately from Iraq), and it would be for better debates without his firecracker and inappropriate comments.
• Dennis Kucinich is a good man. He is a man of conviction and integrity, but he just doesn’t come across as one who knows how to negotiate when needed, and to be taken seriously on the world stage.