My Notes on the January 15th Democratic Debate

I'm currently blogging as I'm watching the debate between the Democratic candidates. I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow analysis, but there are a few things worth pointing out, especially if you missed the debate.

Before I get to the Democratic candidates, it's worth mentioning that Rudy Giuliani has done such a good job positioning himself as the Mayor of 9/11 that the moderator in this debate even mentioned his name in a question that involved 9/11. Anyone else think this is getting out of hand?

On to the debate...

Hillary Clinton has had a number of crash-and-burn moments in answering questions about which she knows nothing. This should help underscore just how poorly being "first lady" prepares one for the presidency. As I'm typing this, she just used the phrase "black-brown" for the second time to refer to African Americans and Hispanics collectively. I'm sure they love that. But of more concern to me are her economic policies--or lack thereof.

She was asked a question about foreign investment in American companies (especially from foreign governments and royals with whom we don't get along very well). At the heart of her response was the need for more regulation and disclosure rules imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. She thinks it's essential that these two organizations force regulations on how foreign governments and individuals can invest in American securities. For starters, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund aren't regulatory bodies! Secondly, even if they were, how could they actually make the Chinese government or Saudi princes follow the rules? And thirdly, everything else that's wrong with her bad ideas.

Another time she was asked if she was aware of any side effects her poorly-defined plan to freeze mortgage rates for 5 years would have on the housing market. The answer to this was obviously "No, I'm not an economist; I'm just following the advice of one here." She didn't say that though. She gave a long rambling reply that not only in no way contained an answer to the question, but didn't even make any sense. I'm not even sure she knows what an interest rate is. (Editor's Note: for those of you who may think I just didn't understand her reply, let me offer that I do have a BS in Economics with a concentration in Finance from a pretty good school, and I'm pretty confident that the true answer to the question was simply "No, I'm not.")

Obama, in contrast, has been quiet, thoughtful, fairly accurate, and a little unambitious. He has been careful, and hasn't been talking about specifics very much. He's mostly been trying to present himself as presidential. He's been talking about outlook, the need to bring people together and his ability to do so, his goals, how he thinks campaigns and national discussions should take place, his view of the presidency, and his priorities. His people probably decided that it was far more important for him to seem presidential than to address issues. And he's been doing a pretty good job. He's talked about honesty a lot, and said he feels it's his job to hear input from everyone, bring people together, and be an honest representative and leader of his people. The Obama message of the night is "I'm ready, and you want someone like me."

Edwards has been gutsy. He has by far offered the most specific ideas and plans and goals. He stated what he wanted, what he wanted to fight for, and why. He didn't just say we need healthcare for everyone (which we do and for which he has a great plan). He talked about specific guarantees he wanted to make to veterans; he talked about ways to help young people go to college; he actually offered some specifics about how he wanted to get out of Iraq; and he even proposed a specific plan to index the minimum wage to inflation (so it wouldn't, in effect, be lowered every year by rising prices--he also proposed an increase to $9.50, which won't happen, but he's trying).

One of the most impressive things to me about Edwards this debate was a statement he made that dropped my jaw. He said he would propose a ban on constructing coal-burning power plants. This is HUGE. It's unpopular in a LOT of places, and he has very little to gain politically from it. In the places where people care about coal-specific issues, they love it. As was pointed out very well in "The West Wing," the United States is like the Saudi Arabia of coal. What oil is to them, coal is to many areas in the US. And it's one of the least clean energy sources available to us. Edwards seems to be putting what's best for our children over what's best for his politics, the kind of behavior we should be encouraging in candidates.

Edwards also seemed inspired tonight, getting emotionally invested in his pledge to fight for those who can't fight for themselves. To help people secure healthcare, education, and a home. I really think he believes in what he's doing more than his opponents. He's running for the reasons we want candidates to run, not the reasons they usually do. Hopefully voters will see that too.