Scoring the January 5th Debates: Part 2 the Democrats.

- I'm not going to go into nearly as much detail as I did with the GOP. Not because of any bias, but because I can only handle so much debating, and my note-taking was more and more sparse as the night wore on.
-As an aside, I wish I knew how to read lips when they had all the candidates from both parties on stage at once. It would be very entertaining if they had all been hugging and smiling while telling each other what douche-bags they are.

-Winner: John Edwards via TKO in the second round. He came out looking strong and determined tonight. He was really on his game. The angry "crusader for the working class" and blue collar advocate role is working very well for him. I still don't think he can get the nomination, but he will be a factor. The winner could will be whichever candidate he takes fewer union and other blue collar votes. The strategy of taking down Hillary so he can get Obama one-on-one is a much better strategy than what I expected.
-Loser: Hillary Clinton. I thought for sure it would be "attack Obama" night from all sides, but instead it was Edwards dealing damage to Hillary all night.

Random observations:
-While far from a supporter, I think Dennis Kucinich should have been there. I tend to think more viewpoints are a good thing, not a distraction from the "serious" candidates.
-We start with Obama's hawkish statements about Pakistan and Al Qaida. He wants to go after UBL no matter what and secure the nukes. I think Obama has to talk tough on this issue, so people take him seriously as something other than a lightweight on foreign policy. You could look at this and other Pakistan statements as his "I am not a pussy. The American people have a right to no whether their president is a pussy, and I am not pussy" speech. He didn't score major points but didn't lose any ground which was kind of how the night went for him on the whole.
-Next Edwards promises to be even tougher against Al Qaida, talked tough about Musharraf and states his goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That's nice, but how many countries do you really think are going to give up their nukes? It'd be one big game of you first, no you first, no you first.
-Hillary weighs in on the issue to point out that her husband went after Al Qaida by launching missile strikes on the Sudan back in the 90's. I remember that. As I recall those strikes blew up an aspirin factory and may have also knocked over a chair. I don't think reminding people of half-ass measures taken pre-9/11 is a very good strategy.
-Then the moderator talks about a nuclear attack occurring on an American city and mentions some "expert" who says there is 30% chance of that happening in the next decade. WTF? How the hell do you think they arrived at that figure? I'm not saying it won't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if did but I'm willing to guess that number was pulled out of some one's ass. Edwards then pointed out how the president would have to be strong, yet a calming figure if that happened which is probably good. Because I'm the furthest thing from calm, and if I were president in that situation this planet would be a very quiet place for about the next million years or so if you follow my train of thought.
- At that point...... well I went outside to have a smoke, not sure if I missed anything or not. Fortunately I came back for the defining moment of the debate.
-Hillary's going after Obama, she's backing him down. He's keeping his cool but he's up against the ropes. She's accusing him of talking a good game but not backing it up with results. And then.....
-John Edwards launches this barrage out of nowhere, referring to Hillary as an agent of the status quo, attacking those who want change. He then points out that she wasn't doing this "when she was ahead". If this were a boxing match Hillary would be getting the standing 8 count at this point. I thought he really connected on this one. I don't know that I've ever seen Edwards look as strong as he did tonight. He was passionate. I think he came across as a fighter and a populist.
- To make matters worse Hillary responds with this diatribe about how she has been changing things for 35 years (by being married to Bill I suppose). I wanted her to say "I was changing things before your balls dropped!" There was a good minute or so of Mr. Hyde before she calmed down. My reaction: wow, a campaign just died right before my eyes. She was the candidate who could least afford to lose her composure. That may very well be her Howard Dean "HYYYYAHHHH!!" moment. Part of the reason is latent gender bias. If John McCain goes off on a similar rant, people think "wow he's a bad ass. Don't mess with those old veterans, they're some tough bastards." If Edwards did it it's "wow what a fighter". When Hillary does it people say "what a bitch!" It's totally unfair but I think a lot of people felt that way whether they realized it or not. I know it was 15 or 20 minutes before I thought to ask myself if I would have reacted the same way to a man. The answer is no, I think I'd be like "wow, this guy plays hardball". I know I wasn't the only one thinking it, probably just in the minority of people who will admit it.
-Richardson, by the way, has not been seen or heard from in twenty minutes. I picture him sitting there grinning and rubbing his hands together like the emperor from star wars watching his opponents destroy each other. He gets in a good line saying "I've been in hostage negotiations that weren't this brutal"(paraphrase). He sort of came across as the "adult" here, calming the rest of them down.
-I won't bore you with any more details as to me this was the high point, and I was having a hard time keeping my concentration after that having been up since 4:30 a.m. but suffice to say I thought Edwards won, Obama and Richardson didn't do anything to hurt themselves, and it's the beginning of the end for Hillary. I'd say on the party level, the democrats as a whole came across better than the republicans.