Who won the debate? Well, no one “won” the debate, but I don’t think the majority of the candidates wanted to win over the other at this time. With the Democrats being attacked by the Republicans (Rudy) as insufficient to protect and lead this country through these times, they needed more than ever to stand together and show that they can take on the responsibility. They played it safe and concentrated on the faults of the Bush administration. Which I think was a good idea. If too many of them came out swinging for the fences, it would not look good for the party in general. Right now they need to look sharp, united and mentally tough to win over the undecided voters who are shaky over this “securing the country” rhetoric.

Now this was not to say that they played nice and fair. Two of the eight did come prepared to make a swing or two at the others. Mainly it was candidates Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich who wanted to draw a little blood. Well, okay, maybe Gravel wanted more blood than any other which was absolutely hilarious to watch at times. Without further ado, let me get to my standings with the eight candidates.

Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel:   Most unafraid of taking risks and spoke nothing but the truth on how he feels about the issues. He was completely honest, I might add quite emotional. He definitely did not play politics and wasn’t worried about offending anyone. His major points were criticizing the Congress because of passing non-binding agreements instead of laws, pushed for more congressional transparency, criticized the Military Industrial Complex and the “War on Terror”, and the hypocrisy and arrogance of the other candidates. He also talked about what he accomplished when he was in the Senate, which sounded quite impressive. Bottom line, he sounded more like an informed, intelligent American who was frustrated just like the rest of us rather than a politician trying to massage the base.

Campaign highlights:

Gravel’s campaign is based primarily on his ardent support for direct democracy (the National Initiative), but also emphasizes his support for a national sales tax and abolition of the IRS, immediate withdrawal from the war in Iraq, a single-payer national health care system, and term limits during his campaign.

He has become known, chiefly among Democrats and independent voters, for his statements of radical commitment to issues ranging from nuclear disarmament, citizen-initiated lawmaking, gay marriage recognition, and the lifting of discrimination against gays in the military - to the reorganization of the tax and social security systems in the United States and the immediate cessation of US military involvement in Iraq.

- Wikipedia

Unfortunately, even though I like the hell out of this guy, he probably doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting close to the primaries.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama:   Sounded solid, smart and just like any other politician. He played it somewhat safe/risk adverse and didn’t put himself too far out there. He did come out of his shell and showed he was unafraid when Kucinich attacked him about Iran and his statement on “hunting down our enemies”. One thing that I did notice was he was less robotic and more sincere in his answers than the other top candidates. On most aspects, he did a pretty good job. What I liked most about him was his answer on our health care problem and uniting America with the European Union, NATO and other allied countries. He spoke about having a national escrow account for health care and support for people that are financially unable to contribute.




Campaign highlights (None officially listed):

More or less against big business, lobbyists and the coercion of big money. Wants to improve our domestic emergency response capabilities, but believes in the “War on Terror”.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson:   Was willing to take risks, but took some in areas that did not make him attractive to me. He sounded like an aggressive, military hawk and exposed some loose ends that he might need to tie up before people will trust him. He is for splitting up Iraq into secular nations, which I am not for, but he is for bringing the troops home and being more diplomatic with the Middle Eastern countries.

Campaign highlights:

Richardson tackles the issues of education, environmental responsibility, clean and renewable energy and healthcare issues with hands-on gusto and common sense.

-About.com

Delaware Senator Joe Biden;   Was less polished and took moderate risks to set himself apart. He was called out by Gravel because of his arrogant attitude which was slightly apparent. He sounded good with his talking points about foreign policy except how aggressive he was about using the military for “pushing for change” in Afghanistan and potentially in Darfur. He did criticize our current disarmament and regime change policies in centralized governments which I think was postive.

Campaign highlights (Not very specific):

Concentrates on his largest priority which is our national energy security, also national security, education (higher) and a general health care policy that is not very specific.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton:   Well, I think we have heard from her enough to know what she is about. She sounded polished and slightly robotic. She was one of the most risk adverse and didn’t stick her neck out. One thing that did really stand out about her was how she addressed a theoretical terrorist attack. She was really hungry to convey that she is militarily “tough” and say that she would be quick to retaliate. RETALIATE, now that is a dangerous word — sounds quite hawkish.

Campaign highlights (Could not find any general listings):

From what I have read and heard she is for protecting abortion rights, becoming more energy independent, for reforming health care, but may be quite hesitant on nailing down what exactly, respects 2nd amendment, for repealing tax cuts for outsourcing jobs and stands for cleaning up our environment. For more details go here.




North Carolina Senator John Edwards:   Probably the most risk adverse of all of them. For some reason, my first opinion of Edwards is he is not very real. He is so reserved, it seems he is some kind of manufactured character and not very genuine. I would say that all his answers were quite good and very polished. Without him putting his neck out there, I can’t really give any true opinions about this candidate except for his extremely predictable answer about his “Lord” for moral guidance. One thing I did like about him that I can think of is how he was not a believer of “the War on Terror”, which is a good start.

Campaign highlights:

Listed as restoring moral leadership, improving health care, eliminating poverty (hmmm), strengthening the middle class (good) and leading the fight against global warming and our addiction to foreign oil.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:   I feel out of the eight of them, he did the worst. He was quite risk adverse and didn’t say anything that really stood out. He was quite predictable in his answers and did seem quite militaristic in his foreign policy. Other than that I can’t really say much about him as well.

Campaign highlights:

Not much on his issues. Pretty much the same-old same-old. Details listed here.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich:   He was very aggressive in standing apart from the rest of them. He stuck his neck on the line with his policies. The one thing that stands out to me is when he took out a pocket size copy of the Constitution while talking about impeaching Cheney. His talking points were bringing America back to its greatness and defending the Constitution. His major foreign policy was about being more diplomatic with countries and using military force as a last resort. The next talking point that made the most sense to me was his stance against waging a “War on Terror” and against having an ideological view that divides the world as either good or evil.

Campaign highlights:

I envision an America which has the capacity to reconnect with the heart of the world; an America which proceeds in the world optimistically and courageously. An America which understands that the world is interdependent, that it is interconnected, and that what we do today impacts future generations.

I want to break the shackles of fear which have deprived our citizens of rights. We need to change the way this country values humanity, so that instead of fear and lies, we can live our lives based on principles of peace and hope. We need to regain the trust of the American people and we need to have a government which trusts the American people.

It’s time for America to resume its glorious journey; time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights; time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. It’s time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies; time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media.

It’s time for those who have much to help those who have little, by maintaining a progressive tax structure. It’s time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true, because the government is on the side of its people.

-Kucinich.us

Kucinich is another that I really tend to like. But, again I don’t think he has any real chance of seeing the primaries. I really like what he stands for though and how he has the guts to stand up against the norm.

I hope this helps with your preparations for choosing your next presidential candidate. Please add your opinion or anything you would like that is missing from each of the candidates.