Waaaaaay different from the last one.  The 2 remaining contenders were cordial and there was no splintering or spinning or catty fighting.

Hillary looked much better this time around.  Much better.

But if I’m being honest (to borrow a phrase from Simon Cowell), I was so disillusioned by Hillary’s campaigning during/after the last debate that I don’t think there’s any redemption for her in my mind.  One of the reporters covering the debate tonight put it well.  He said, having worked with her, that there have always been two very different sides to Hillary, and when she walks into the room you’re never really sure which one you’re going to get.  I find that unsettling and a turnoff for a presidential candidate.

I also am very convinced that if there’s a national healthcare plan put in place, that it shouldn’t be mandatory.  Obama was/is apparently the only democratic candidate that agrees with me.

So on the Democratic side, I guess I’m really rooting for Obama.  If it comes down to Obama vs. McCain,  I think I’ll end up going Democrat this year.

If someone else manages to eek out the nomination on the republican side, well that might be an election worth having.

Just watched the Republican debate. Gah.

I am not a fan of John McCain. If he gets the nomination, I will be sorely disappointed. “Mr. Straight Talk” resorted to Hillary-esque spin tactics and cheap shots tonight, which I have no patience for.

And that little grin he gets just drives me up the wall. It’s the “I’m the man, and even though I just looked like an idiot, I’ve got my head stuck so far up my own ass that I couldn’t tell” grin. That, and his answers to everything fall under “I knew Ronald Regan,” “I was a POW,” and “I’ve been in government longer than God.” And occasionally he skips the justification entirely in favor of “because I’m John McCain.”

Speaking of Ronald Regan, is it me, or does the goal of the Republican party nominee seem to be “Be Ronald Regan?” I know he was a good president and all, and managed to unite the country pretty well, but what about doing something new, looking forward?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: WHY IS RON PAUL STILL AROUND? McCain looked like he wanted to shove his boot through Ron Paul’s face while the man was talking. Sometimes I could sympathize with that idea. Though I will give Ron Paul props for effectively shutting up McCain and Romney during their little spat (which was really McCain’s little spat in which he was trying to make a point that wasn’t actually a point and WOULD NOT LET IT GO even though it was obvious he was wrong).

Huckabee had a decent showing for the time he was given. He’s kind of the stepchild in the debates these days, which is unfortunate. Though there are certainly some things I don’t agree with him on, I do like the Fair Tax idea. The transition might be a little rough but I think it would do a world of good for this country’s economy.

And I just got offered a massage if I came to bed. Goodbye.

The Republican debate was rather different, IMO, than the democratic ones. With the exception of Ron Paul, who is sort of the pariah of the bunch, you really get the feeling that the Republican candidates are all friends behind the scenes. There were no claws out between candidates, and they all commended and supported each other throughout the debate. The other big difference is that, naturally, they cover different issues.

Mitt Romney made a nice and, I think, appealing appearance. He handled himself well. Though I don’t think everything he said was accurate - particularly about the democrats. Specifically, he made several comments about Hillary Clinton’s quotes and stances that weren’t… well, true. Some of it was misinterpreted, and some of it was confusing her plans with John Edwards in areas where they are actually different. And it appears that his plan for getting everyone health insurance only extends to catastrophic coverage, or whatever it’s called in that industry. I’m not sure that’s going to be sufficient. It certainly isn’t preventative. Still, there’s something about him that I find appealing, but perhaps it’s just that he reminds me a little of my dad.

I find Mike Huckabee to be a likable guy, in the same way that I find Barrack Obama to be a likable guy. As revolutionary as it may be, I also like his Fair Tax plan. I’ve done some reading on it and it appears that there are actually answers to most of the questions that had me backing off from it at one time. However, he is very supportive of President Bush, and I can’t tell if it’s to avoid the backlash of being negative, or if it’s because he would be following in Bush’s footsteps.

John McCain was John McCain. I know he’s the most experienced of the candidates - believe me, he won’t let you forget it - and perhaps that’s my problem with him. I don’t think he really brings anything fresh to the table.

Rudy Giuliani was … forgettable. I think he’s kidding himself about not needing to impose government restrictions on pollutants. Among other things.

Ron Paul strikes me as , I dunno, not a real politician. He’s like your spouse’s weird uncle who has opinions on everything and never shuts up about the problems of the world and what needs to happen and tells the same stories of years gone by 15 times because he can’t remember who he’s already told, and then keeps going even if you tell him you already know this one. Or am I the only person who knows someone like that? You can tell the other candidates kind of think he’s a joke by the way they smile at everything he says.

Whereas the Democrats seem only to be concerned about running against John McCain, the Republicans focus all their energy on Hillary Clinton. That seems odd to me, as I think the Democratic nomination is even closer than the Republican one.

One of the major issues in both R & D campaigns is the economy. All the Republicans have various renditions of the same stance: cut spending, don’t raise taxes. Or, in Giuliani’s case, attempt “the largest tax cut in American history” (cough, cough). What I haven’t heard though, is what exactly they’re going to be cutting spending on. It’s apparently not the war in Iraq, which has just about doubled our national debt, and seems to me to be one of the most obvious ways to get the “out of control spending” back under control.

The Democrats may have plans to increase spending, but they also have definite plans for funding that spending, and clamping down on the hose that is the war in Iraq. I have to appreciate that.
I’m sure there are government programs that could use some budget adjustment. But there are also those which I would object to having the funding squeezed on. And it’s starting to sound like the “cut spending” plan means across-the-board cuts in … well, everything. This has me a little concerned.

The other thing that wasn’t really even touched on during the debate is education. Education is an issue that is very important to me, as my child will be entering the school system within the next 4 years.

It appears that all of the major Republican contenders are in support of No Child Left Behind, as well as standardized tests. Having received a very good public school education (10 years ago) in Texas, and comparing that to what I see now in our schools, I am confident that NCLB has all but destroyed the merit of our school system. The kids hate school. They do nothing all year but practice for the standardized tests. If it’s not going to be on the test, it’s not worth learning because it doesn’t earn the school money. I have a large degree of disgust for a system that makes kids hate to learn.

And so I find that issue hard to ignore. The Democrats haven’t ignored it.

This is really going to be a tough election.

Just watched the Democratic debate in SC, which is officially my second debate ever. It was quite a contrast to the previous one I saw.

Hi-Def is not a friend to Hillary. She looks at least 10 years older than she does on regular TV. In general, she didn’t come off looking as well in this debate as the last one. She resorted to a lot of “attack” tactics, which comes across as very old school. And negative. I think the country is ready to move past that.

She is an excellent traditional debater. In high school debate, she would have totally and completely annihilated the competition. But the other candidates are no longer playing by the sling and spin rules - in fact, they’re calling her on it, which immediately renders those methods ineffective. She’s using outdated tactics and that approach is hurting her.

The other thing that I thought detracted from her showing was her tendency to refer to Republicans as “the enemy.” Those are my quotation marks, not hers, but her repeated statements infer that position very strongly. She obviously expects to go into presidency ready for combat - in a way that makes me think both sides would lose.

John Edwards did better this time around. When the answer to his first question was, “First of all, I’d like to say [insert totally irrelevant statement here],” I wanted to bash my head into the wall at the thought of listening to 2 more hours of his non-answers. But he was able to pull himself together pretty well after that and stick (relatively) close to the questions, especially during the back-and-forth Clinton-Obama showdowns.

I think Obama did well. He stood up for himself, most of the time without giving Hillary too much credit for her accusations. A tactic that he and Edwards have both mastered - which Hillary notably has not - is the commendation of other candidates. While Hillary continues to sling mud, Obama and Edwards are not afraid to commend their opponents on certain stances and issues. That positive approach is refreshing.

I really found the transformation between the first and second halves of the debate to be interesting. The first half behind the podiums was very formal - and very combative. The moderator had a terrible time just getting the candidates to shut up in a reasonable time frame, as all they wanted to do was argue with and accuse each other. The second half, where everyone was sitting down, was more conversational, more agreeable, and more like the previous debate I saw. There were virtually no “rules” - but none were needed, and it was much more comfortable.

I noticed a lot of attempts by the candidates to draw distinctions between themselves and their opponents. However, most of the time it didn’t really seem to work (because the distinctions they were drawing were determined inaccurate), which makes me think the democrats are not all THAT different from each other. One noticeable difference that I’ve touched on before is that Obama doesn’t believe health insurance should be mandatory. Clinton and Edwards tried to make that out to be a bad thing - the “it will never work” argument - but did not give any substantial reason why. I don’t think they succeeded in pushing down that stance.

I’m looking forward to the Republican debate on Thursday. I haven’t really heard much from the Republicans on several issues I’m concerned about, so it will be interesting to see if they actually have viable plans. The democrats have determined that John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, so they’re gearing up for campaigning against him specifically. I’m not as certain that it’s so clear-cut at this point.

Just finished watching the Democratic presidential debate in Vegas, and I have to say that John Edwards irritates me. Dude cannot answer a question to save his life. He just gets on his soapbox and expounds on his plans for his pet issues*, regardless of any actual relevancy to the question asked.

Hint: If, for example, the moderator asks you a question specifically about Kuwait, the word “Kuwait” should probably come up at least once in your answer.

Just a thought.

*wealth redistribution, health care, or global warming