Ketchup With the Democrats Debate

It is clear that the Democrats can not really have a debate without challenging each other--GOOD! If the candidates choose to stand at the podium looking like bottles of generic ketchup, should anyone care if one of them is actually a better ketchup?

It is good to hear actual disagreement between this candidate's ideas and the next. This is why I feel John Edwards did well and Barack Obama and Joe Biden came to play. I think the discussion on positions about Iraq is important. I continue to enjoy the Mike Gravel Straight Talk Express and Dennis Kucinich is consistantly predictably repeating why he has been right all along, but will not be elected. Why Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd are faltering is anyone's guess, but it is likely due to their diplomatic natures. Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy the glow of front-runner status, but she really didn't say anything about her ability to lead the country, and seemed resigned to the adoration bestowed on her husband.

Frankly the format of the debate was odd. I was less impressed with the questioning of Wolf Blitzer--what role would Bill Clinton serve--please! Why didn't he ask how Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards would differ from Hillary as a first lady? I don't think he was even-handed in asking for rebuttals. Plus, there were assorted glitches in the technology which didn't help matters.

Based on my review of the debate, I'd give higher marks to Edwards, Obama, and Gravel (though its not likely to move him from the fringe). Joe Biden scored some "integrity" points. Richardson and Dodd need to Cowboy up and get their issues in. Hillary can afford to take a non-position as she is the known quantity in the minds of the journalists. Dennis Kucinich, he can go defend his home district.

In general, it would be good for the Democrats to talk about the economy, the deficit, and entitlement programs. Also, it didn't seem like the environment got any airing.