THOUGHTS ON THE FINAL DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
I don't know if it's just my own point of view as a frustrated and perplexed John Kerry supporter, but the debate in New Hampshire last night seemed to me to have a slightly surreal quality. In a way, they almost seemed to come full circle in their tone and tactics. After their increasingly open disagreements with each other in more recent debates, they reverted to early form and focused mostly on criticizing Bush. The main exceptions, of course, were Joe Lieberman, who apparently persists in the curious notion that Howard Dean is a liberal who would "take the party backward" and who made a bizarre reference to an "axis of evil" when talking about the Baathists and terrorists, and Dennis Kucinich, who has perhaps reached the height of his disappointment over failing to capture the allegiance of the antiwar crowd and argued that Dean was being inconsistent in opposing the war but supporting the continued occupation. One wonders if the two of them have finally arrived at the "Oh, screw it" point and deliberately amplified their most controversial characteristics (preaching the hard-left gospel in Kucinich's case, and pissing off the Democratic base in Lieberman's).
Aside from that, I couldn't tell whether the others really do think that it's all over but the shouting and were basically doing a dress rehearsal for closing ranks behind Dean, or if they just think they're better off ignoring the issue of Dean's poll standing and Gore's endorsement. This mentality was perhaps best exemplified by John Edwards' insistence that "the real campaign is about to begin." All in all, there was a distinct lack of finality to the proceedings, as no one really seemed to be taking it as the last opportunity to articulate his or her differences with the other candidates. On the other hand, as
Josh Benson points out, maybe they were viewing it instead as an opportunity to introduce themselves to New Hampshire voters who haven't been paying attention yet, and of course most people haven't watched these things religiously like I have and wouldn't really expect any kind of "summing up."
Other thoughts:
- Kerry was perhaps trying to chart a middle course by acknowledging the issue of the polls and openly blowing it off, then refraining from criticizing Dean and even saying that he "completely agreed" with him on separation of church and state.
- I guess this isn't a surprise, but Wesley Clark seems prone to going into a bit more detail and jargon than is really necessary whenever he talks about the military or foreign policy. While his knowledge and experience in those areas are of course his major selling point, it also arguably adds to the perception that he doesn't quite know what he's talking about on other issues, and I can't help but wonder if he'd be better off as Secretary of State or Defense (or Joint Chiefs Chairman, for that matter).
- Dean: "If you guys are upset that Al Gore is endorsing me, attack me, don't attack Al Gore." Um...why? The comments about Gore were not, for the most part, complaints that Gore had endorsed Dean specifically, but rather that his endorsement was an unwarranted intrusion into the process at this point in the campaign.
- After the debate was over, my friends and I watched a little of the cable news coverage, and during the endless speculation over Gore's endorsement and the various strategies at work, I said, "At least this has shut up the Hillary chorus for a day or two." Next caption on the TV screen: "Will Al Gore run against Hillary Rodham Clinton in '08?" The more things change....
