My take on last night’s debate AKA The Hillary Show

Last night’s debate was all about Hillary and then some. As I watched it, the image that kept popping up in my head was the conclusion of King Kong, when the gorilla, perched atop the Empire State building, swats down all those pesky planes that were buzzing about. Damn near everyone on stage took at least one good swing at Hillary and I don’t think anyone really landed a solid punch. This is not to say she was flawless; her answers on Iran and licensing illegals were flat out awful and her appeal (or lack thereof) in the general election will remain an issue until she improves her unfavorables or finds a satisfactory retort. Furthermore, she garnered a huge allotment of time and said very little in it.

Edwards was sharp but seemed a bit too eager to pick a fight with Hillary and while I applaud his willingness to scrap, I think he needed to dial it back a bit. There is a fine line between combative and hectoring. That said, he is determined to change the media meme that this is an Obama vs. Hillary battle and that is a good thing.

Obama was, to my mind, a huge disappointment. Almost nothing he said was interesting, original, or inspiring. His performance last night was as exciting as cold oatmeal.

Dennis Kucinich is too honest to be President. Seriously, if someone asks you, on national TV no less, if you have ever seen a UFO and you answer straight up yes, then your filter is not discriminating enough to be leader of the Free World. At least hedge with “I saw something that I cannot explain” rather “Yes”.

Biden had the line of the night. On Rudy Giuliani: There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. Perfecto.

Dodd did OK given he was asked like three questions. Ditto Richardson.

Which leads me to the problem with the format; specifically, anyone not named Clinton, Edwards, or Obama was pretty much ignored. I have no idea how much time each participant got but it was obvious that those three received the lion’s share and them some. This has happened to one degree or another in every debate but it is annoying nonetheless, though not nearly as annoying as the utterly ridiculous “lightening round”. Come on people, do we really need to use a game show device in deciding who is qualified to be our next President? Thirty seconds is not enough time answer a complex question with any degree of meaningful detail. The whole concept is like the New Coke; no one asked for it, no one liked it besides, and it proved to be a big distraction. I hope the debate organizers drop that the whole contrivance.