As I listened to McCain’s speech on March 4th, when he had finally clinched the nomination for the Republican Party, I thought, “Wow, this speech is vapid.” To me, it seemed like a right-wing cliche beads strung together haphazardly.

Then, I came across the same critique of McCain on education. Blogger Matthew Yglesias says, “Strolling through John McCain’s policy proposals is a fascinating experience . . . lurking behind every link is a nearly-astounding level of vacuity.”

I agree with Christopher Hitchens that cliche is a problem in politics. Hitchens touches lightly on Romney, but most of his criticism is levelled at Obama. To be honest, I think Obama has less of a problem than McCain. Obama has the wonkiness to back up some of his rhetoric. McCain doesn’t.

To comment on cliche in general: We’ll unfortunately never eliminate our cliche-driven politics until we eliminate cable television. I don’t see that happening any time soon.

ADDENDA:
I should go through the speech and prove what I said about it.

Possible memes against McCain… he doesn’t care about the details, he’s less wonky than Obama. Then again, that opens Obama up to the pointy-headed intellectual charges. How about: as incurious as Bush?

Sorry about the kitchen sink notes. That’s why I shouldn’t brainstorm aloud. But if I don’t write this down, then I’ll never get anywhere.

A narrow loss in Texas and big losses in Ohio and Rhode Island. Yet it was close in Texas and Obama is winning the caucus, so he may net gain delegates.

The road to Pennsylvania goes through Wyoming and Mississippi, which Obama should win. The media has a notoriously short attention span and the clamoring for Clinton to get out may even start after Mississippi. But we can’t count on that.

So that means we have 7 weeks. 7 weeks to win Pennsylvania and to force Clinton to leave the race. The Democrats need to be united and I fear that the longer Clinton stays in it, the more divisive the race will become. She has already rolled out the politics of fear and who knows what else the Clintons will come up with.

7:07PM-
I’m really hoping for a knock-out blow tonight. There are four primaries tonight: Vermont, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas. Well, Texas has a caucus and primary! How exciting!

I’m taking half a shot for every Obama victory. Let’s hope that’s 2 shots, but I’m predicting 1 and a half. Obama wins the delegate count in Texas, wins Vermont, and pulls off an upset in Rhode Island. He’ll also keep it close in Ohio.

And Vermont has already been called. This should be a good night!

9:37PM-
Huckabee finally bows out, giving a graceful concession speech. I want to say he’ll be a force to reckon with for years to come because he’s a really good speaker, but I’m not prepared to make such a prediction because things are always so fluid in the world of politics. Still a rockstar.

Rhode Island has been called for Clinton. *sad*

What follows are thoughts on strategy for the general election:

If you want to look at the definitive weblog posts to combat the impression that Obama is all rhetoric and no substance, then you’ll have to go to Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings.

Here’s a post from October 2006 talking about the unsexy wonky issues Obama has involved himself in. Then, there’s this more recent post which adds Obama’s work on reform. When he says we can change Washington, he’s actually very specific about the proposals. (Hat tip to Lloyd for the links.)

I have no intention on writing definitive essays on this subject when it’s already been done. These essays are long, though. It’s hard to win a debate when you refer someone to a weblog post. What I need to do is to distill those accomplishments into a list of important talking points and then some less important talking points.

Another thing I need to do is more research. What is actually law and what isn’t actually law? What has Obama been working on and what has Obama accomplished? Undoubtedly, Obama will not have the legislative record that McCain has, but all we need to show is enough to convince people about what Obama has the ability to accomplish in the future.

The flip side of this is listing McCain’s recent and ancient legislative record. One line of attack I’ve been thinking about is listing McCain-Feingold, his work on comprehensive immigration reform, and more, to show how he has betrayed his party. Now, some people might like this because it shows that he’s a “maverick”. (Note: From now on, maverick as applied to McCain will appear in scare quotes.) But if you shoot that the Republicans seem to suffer battered-wife syndrome with John McCain, who constantly betrays conservative principles, then it will be disheartening for a hard-core Republican. Those votes are needed for the Republicans to win. The last two elections have relied heavily on getting out the vote for the base. I’m unsure if I will actually pursue the line of attack in the way I have characterized it. It could be too low a blow and that’s not what I want to do.

The most effective tactic I think will be to actually demolish the “maverick” image of McCain. His pandering to the anti-Catholic bigot Hagee betrays McCain. The other thing is to point out the discrepancy between his words on his torture and what he has actually done — that is, being instrumental in passing the Military Commissions Act. I plan on scouring the blog Balloon Juice. They created a neologism: Spectering. It refers to how Arlen Specter raises concerns about bills that a moderate would have and then completely caves on the issue, saying that his concerns were all met; this hoodwinks more moderate voters. The trick is to catch McCain in this act as much as possible.

There’s a difference between illegitimate personal attacks and raising legitimate concerns about McCain’s character. When lapses in his character and judgment have led to disasters such as the Military Commissions Act, which has given the President free rein on torture and obliterated the right to habeas corpus, then one has a right to criticize his character and judgment.

One may wonder why I’m particularly fixated on this issue. After reading Robert Greene’s book, The 48 Laws of Power, I’m convinced that McCain is following one of the laws there. Namely, he’s found a trait (maverick/straight-shooter) and associated himself with it. It’s a powerful association which resists counter-evidence. I’m convinced it was a conscious move after he was implicated in the ethics violation way back when (see New York Times). He’s not a maverick; it’s just a useful tool to portray himself this way.

Another idea I’ve been toying with is bringing up McCain’s witchhunt against the UFC. The UFC appeals to young males, and I’m hoping to turn them off from McCain. Not sure if this is actually a good point to make.

Finally, I turn my attention to the war and the economy. It may be good to link the two issues. Why? Because they are actually linked. The war is costing us over $3 trillion. We can’t afford to stay in Iraq as John McCain would want us. We need a YouTube video collecting all of the clips of McCain showing how stubborn he will be on this issue. McCain will not withdraw us from Iraq and the idea that he might must be purged. Plus, the war is what has driven up oil prices so much. This hurts struggling families. McCain is also notoriously uninformed about the economy, which is an impression I got from the Romney campaign. This will be really good to use against McCain.

Miscellany: Hitchens on “Real Time with Bill Maher” said that Obama matured a lot over this campaign and appears as if he will still mature when in office. Good point.

EDIT: First, it doesn’t really make sense that McCain both betrays his party and kowtows to the party, does it? My two lines of criticism seem to be contradictory and so one or both of them is wrong to some extent. McCain is more complicated. Second, I disavow my previous statement that McCain somehow made a Machiavellian conscious decision to be a “maverick.” I forgot about this rule: “As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are, too.” — The Brothers Karamazov.

Frankly, though, I do not think McCain is a “maverick” (as evidenced by my continued use of scare quotes). On certain very important issues, he did not stand up to his party, when he should have.

I just received my birthday money and decided to donate some of it to the Obama campaign. 961,220 donors as of today at 5:46PM.

Here’s my chance to look like a moron… Prediction: Obama wins Texas.

11:43AM – Weather advisory. It’s snowing right now in Baltimore. This could be bad for turnout.

6:04PM – The weather’s not actually that bad. I was going to help with the Obama campaign today, but I have a horrible sense of direction and didn’t trust myself to get where I needed to go. If I had either a car or a friend to go with me, I would’ve gone. Instead, I’m sitting here phonebanking. So far, I’ve made several calls and nobody has picked up their phone. Heh.

6:20PM – Should I really be blogging about this? I finally got someone to answer, and he was an Obama supporter. He learned from me that the primary is today! I hope he gets to the polling place. I suppose it’s okay to say this as long as people are anonymous.

7:00PM – Finished my call list. Pretty uneventful. Time to check on Virginia returns. Polls are closing now. They close at 8 for here and DC.

7:02PM – Obama projected as winner in Virginia!

9:05PM – Polls are open late in Maryland due to ice and weather issues. I actually went outside recently and my roommate and I had to try very hard not to kill ourselves as we walked around on the icy sidewalks.

DC has been called for Obama. Should be a sweep today. I’m really interested in the margin of victory, though.

Also, I saw a shot of Clinton in El Paso, Texas standing next to a kid in a sombrero. Blatant pandering, anyone?

9:10PM – Next time anyone asks you whether you think Obama’s going to win, trot out these exit poll results from Virginia: Exit polls: Obama stealing Clinton’s base. Obama’s solidifying his support among African-Americans, splitting the white vote with Clinton, and gaining women and Hispanic voters. He beat Clinton among Hispanic voters in Virginia. Granted, they form a small portion of the electorate (5%) in Virginia, but I think this may be a portent for Clinton in Texas.

10:20PM – SWEEP!

Also, McCain sweeps. I gave Huckabee a bigger chance than he deserved, having not done the actual math. Well, after today, it’s practically over. Huckabee really needed a win in Virginia to preserve even a sliver of a chance. Now that sliver is a… hm, my metaphor died.

3:01PM – When I was eating ice cream, I turned on CNN and found out that the first person to win a state was Huckabee. He’ll get all 18 delegates from West Virginia. While many people seem to think that McCain would be the most formidable candidate on the Republican side, I actually think Huckabee is the most dangerous (for the Democrat’s hopes). He’s always great in the debates, and a very charming and charismatic individual. Too bad his ideas aren’t as great. It appears that after the first round of voting, people switched from McCain to make sure Romney didn’t win. (This being a convention, not a primary.) The race is still fluid.

4:22PM – Apparently, McCain told his people in West Virginia to vote for Huckabee, says Marc Ambinder.

8:20PM – Nothing surprising yet, except that Obama is close in states Clinton used to own by double-digits. Also, Huckabee is close in Georgia. Who knows? Maybe Huckabee will beat Romney for delegates this Super Tuesday.

8:36PM – Tennessee projected for Clinton. I don’t think this was unexpected, but I wonder if it could’ve changed with a Gore endorsement. Ah well.

8:40PM – The Republican race is really interesting. The so-called base really hates McCain, especially over immigration. Huckabee is also hated by talk radio (he raised taxes in Arkansas). Talk radio does love Romney, but that’s only after he mastered the 180 flip flop. Any way this turns out, expect a lack of enthusiasm from some quarters.

9:05 – Just got a call from my mom saying she voted for Obama. (Even though she usually leans Republican.) I texted my sister earlier today telling her not to forget to vote. Clinton looks like she’s going to win Massachusettes, which is really disappointing considering all the endorsements Obama got — Kennedy and Kerry. Still, the delegates will be divided proportionally, so hopefully Obama keeps this race close. Wolf Blitzer’s annoying voice coming from the other room just informed me that Obama won Delaware. Hope.

9:21 – My roommate (a native) and I scream “Noo” as New Jersey is called for Clinton.

9:30 – The problem with college is that all my friends are geographically dispersed and the number of people I can actually call to remind to vote is very few. Absentee voting — probably one small reason why voting isn’t as it could be among young voters. Still, Maryland’s primary is a week away…

9:36 – McCain is destroying the competition, but we still have to see how things go out in the West. He’s winning in the Northeast. Border states may break towards Romney, who recently discovered a harder stance against it. Huckabee actually isn’t thought of as particularly good on immigration. I think the more interesting race will be who performs better: Huckabee or Romney.

Also, Obama is dominating among young people. Generational conflict is beginning to rear its head. This thing is just getting started. This election won’t end it.

10:06 – Obama wins North Dakota and Utah. Whoo! Also, if Huckabee wins Missouri and Georgia, this race gets even more interesting.

10:20 – Just watched Huckabee give a speech. He’s a great speaker. After his speech, I switched over to MSNBC and Tom Brokaw also was impressed by Huckabee’s speaking ability. He’s formidable. To be honest, I feel a little glee every time he wins, but that’s only because the media never gives him a chance, and I love it when the media looks stupid. Still, I have to remind myself that he wouldn’t make a good president. The FairTax would be a disaster. If it comes down to a two-person race, Huckabee and McCain, I think Huckabee has the potential to wipe the floor with McCain in future debates.

Obama wins Kansas!

11:02 – Huckabee wins Georgia. Still waiting on Missouri. This could be bad for Romney, but if Romney wins California, he’s still in it.

By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier: I saw Bill Richardson on TV and he had pulled an Al Gore. That is, he lost the race and then grew a beard.

I saw Clinton give a speech. It felt like she was just reading it, not speaking to the people. Every time she said “your,” it rang flat. I know it wasn’t just my bias because when she started talking about the tornado victims, she sounded genuine.

Even Romney gave a better speech. Except when he pulled out the old “they haven’t” repeat thing. That’s a really awkward line for the crowd to shout out.

I noticed that Huckabee’s speeches are laden with more imagery. Also, I miss John Edwards. He was a great storyteller and able to pull us away from the abstract and pull us into the real.

After playing some pool, I went back upstairs to watch the Democratic debate, the first one featuring just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On my way back to my room, I saw that there were a lot of people in the common area watching the debate on television. I decided to watch it with them, a diverse group of college students, both men and women.

Every time Clinton was talking, the room erupted into conversation. She would begin speaking, and then start rambling. We would then start chattering with people next to us. She could not keep our interest. Was it a case of our pre-decided dislike of Clinton, or was it that she failed to communicate with those college students sitting there?

By itself, this would not be that important. College students not paying attention to political conversation is not very surprising. Yet when Obama spoke, the room was quieter. And even if the people didn’t agree with everything he said, they were listening. The contrast was startling.

Now I return to that question. Was it Clinton, or was it us?

Contrast Clinton and Obama on how one brings about health care reform. Clinton talked about a coalition of business, labor, and doctors. Obama wanted to enlist the American people.

It wasn’t us.

Clinton only cares about the American people insofar as getting their vote. Obama wants to bring the people back into the process; he wants to restore faith in government. What a wonderfully radical idea. Obama wins because he wants to communicate with us.

Maybe Clinton held her own in the eyes of the pundits. I tried listening over the din of conversation. She said some effective things. But in that room — in that room full of young people — she lost.

Clinton’s performance was worst when she talked about Iraq. Every time a catfight broke out in a previous debate, I kept waiting for Obama to play the trump card. Clinton voted for the war, and she refuses to call it a mistake. Today, he finally hammered that point and hammered it hard.

Her vote for the war is a sign of a serious lack of judgment. Now, everyone makes mistakes. But on an issue so large and so important, and when the time constraints aren’t debilitating, one should not make that mistake. Moreover, she was privy to more intelligence information than others were. She had the opportunity to grill the generals. She (and other Democrats) were given a position of responsibility, and they failed to live up to that responsibility. Clinton made an egregious error.

Her inability to call it an error, though, is an even more damning argument against her candidacy. It reveals the inner workings of her mind. She says if she knew what she knows now, she would not have made the same vote. That tells us that she thinks the mistake was in the information she received, not in her judgment. However, Obama had the same information — no, even less — and he came to the right conclusion. On the stage, Obama articulated the position well. The United States has limited resources and cannot afford preemptive warfare. The war in Iraq has distracted us Afghanistan and strengthened al Qaeda. The information was out there. The ability to make the right decision on Iraq was out there. Clinton did not make the right decision. It was a result of faulty judgment. Furthermore, she does not recognize that she made an error. She makes the excuse that no one thought Bush was so obsessed with war, but she should have realized the disastrous consequences of such a war. She should not have authorized military force in that form. In this instance, she cannot blame Bush; she can only blame herself. That she doesn’t says her judgment is still faulty.

If you want change, don’t vote for Hillary Clinton. She will bring this same faulty judgment to the White House. That she voted for the war in Iraq is damning enough, but that she refuses to recognize it as a mistake disqualifies her for the presidency.

I think I’m about two debates behind on what’s happening, but I want to get this out because I said I would.

Ron Paul suggested that our foreign policy just might have some teensy effect on the choices of others. His opinion is supported by the 9/11 Commission’s report. Giuliani replied, “It has nothing to do with our foreign policy.” Wow. The ignorance of such a statement is breathtaking. Yet what disgusted me most was not Giuliani’s idiocy, but the snickers of the other candidates sitting around Ron Paul. They snickered at the mere suggestion that what America does has consequences – that knocking down governments and propping up dictators can create blowback, that American can do wrong in the world. They are the snickers of childish Manichaeans, who believe that people would only harm us because they are evil. The Republican Party supports a forever-war because it has created a shadow enemy, Islamofascism, which combines disparate groups into a global menace.

Giuliani also turned me off with talk about a tamper-proof ID card. That’s utter bullshit. You’ll never create a tamper-proof ID card.

Romney looked very wonkish on healthcare, which was actually quite impressive. Then, Gibson, the moderator, cut them off, “We’re in the weeds now on this.” God forbid that a presidential primary debate might get into details! Gasp! Of course, Romney lost me when he said that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on healthcare would “break the bank.” Somehow, though, a one trillion war in Iraq won’t. Just for the record, a trillion is a thousand billion.

One of the best moments of the debates was when Romney said, “Don’t try to mischaracterize my position.” And Huckabee replied, “Which one?” I thought it was hilarious. But then, the attacks continued. By the time I got to McCain’s agreement that Romney was “the candidate of change,” it was getting really old and I was slightly peeved. McCain seemed to take a vicious glee in the personal attack. It seemed like a tired attack by a man who lacked a way to launch a substantive argument. In retrospect, though, the attacks seem deserved. Romney boldly lied that his ads did not call McCain’s plan amnesty. They did. (Go look them up on YouTube.)

The debate confirmed Huckabee’s rockstar status. He was the master communicator on stage, looking like the authoritative voice on several issues. Romney looked smart. The moderator had asked McCain, “Why not Obama?” and McCain trotted out his experience. Romney rebutted that Obama’s Iowa victory told a different story. But when Huckabee started talking about Obama, he looked like he really understood Obama’s appeal.

I will end with one last quote from Ron Paul, a damning criticism of the current Republican party, “You can’t pay lip service to the Constitution without obeying it.” That’s the party today, but not just on the Constitution. They pay lip service to small government and fiscal responsibility too. I imagine that if you were to ask them why a Democrat would be any worse on fiscal responsibility after the Bush presidency, you would only get snickers in response.

This weekend has been really exciting with the NFL playoffs beginning. If you had told me 5 years ago that I’d think watching football was more important than watching a political debate leading up to the primaries, I’d think you were nuts. You probably would’ve been nuts too, considering that I had no interest in football at the time. Despite the increased importance of football in my life, I still love politics (and occasionally think that it can be more important). So I searched the internets for video of the January 5th double-header Republican and Democratic debate in New Hampshire. This debate comes on the heals of Obama’s Iowa victory and precedes the upcoming New Hampshire primary. After the Iowa caucus, Biden and Dodd dropped out. With Gravel and Kucinich getting practically no support, the field has whittled down considerably. Only four candidates were invited to the debate: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson.

My very general impression was that this debate didn’t change any of my opinions. I still lean towards Obama and Edwards, and despise Clinton. I thought Edwards and Obama had strong performances; big surprise. I do recognize that one’s interpretation of key exchanges is tinged by one’s preconceptions of the candidates. I felt as if Clinton was struggling to keep the spotlight on herself. (She wasn’t in the middle as she always was.) Her aura of inevitability has evaporated after her third place finish in Iowa. She seemed less confident and tried to push her message about who’s ready to lead on day one, an argument which I find utterly bizarre.

It’s strange how the media unquestioningly picks up the candidates’ attempts to shape the storyline. One of the moderators asked about the “experience” versus “change” debate. Yet here they are, talking about Clinton’s experience, when she has only served one full term and part of a second as a Senator. Sitting to her right, is Bill Richardson, who has been Secretary of Energy, has been governor of New Mexico, has been a diplomat who dealt with North Korea and Iraq, and has served in Congress. Perhaps Richardson should have explicitly drawn that stark contrast between his cabinet positions during Bill Clinton’s tenure as president and Hillary Clinton’s unappointed position as First Lady. Talking about Hillary Clinton’s “experience” is ridiculous.

Because of his small support, though, the moderator Gibson didn’t that it was too important to give Richardson equal time. Richardson got less than 3% of the vote in the Iowa caucus, compared to Clinton’s third place finish of 28 or 29%. During the debate, he struggled to get speaking time and seemed visibly peeved. Still, with what time he got to speak, he failed to make a convert out of me. I never connected with him, the way I felt a connection with Edwards and Obama. (I can only speak of myself; I will not be like some pundits and ascribe my feelings to the American people in general.)

Today, I felt that there was something special about Obama. Maybe it’s because I’ve been primed to feel that way based on the opinions of others, but I like to think that it’s my honest opinion. He successfully parried several of Clinton’s attacks. When she accused him of being inconsistent on health care, he noted that there was a difference between what he would do if he could start from scratch and his plan since we aren’t starting from scratch. (Ah, such pleasing words to hear for a student of Burke, such as myself.) It was an intelligent answer. Therein is one of the greatest differences between Clinton (or, more accurately, what Clinton represents) and Obama. When Bill Clinton took over, the Republican Revolution happened and he was besieged by an ascending conservative majority. Old-school Democratic politics says that the American people are dupes, who will fall for the Republican’s superior ability in controlling the message. Liberalism contains a taint of haughtiness, or smugness. We saw it in George Clooney’s Oscar speech. We see it in the way they treat the poor out of a sense of nobless oblige. Obama lacks that arrogance. The most striking thing about Obama was that when he used the phrase “the American people,” it actually meant something. They weren’t the unwashed masses; they were people you had to go out and convince in order to build a “working majority,” as he put it.

I love the passion and fight that Edwards has in him. His painting of Clinton as an agent of the status quo was one of the most masterful moves in the debate. He created a contrast between himself and Obama. His view was that we had to fight entrenched interests in order to bring about the change we want. As much as I admire how Edwards has made the fight personal for himself, I must ultimately side with Obama. Obama will work to create that working majority and bring the people back into politics. His method stands in stark contrast to that of the former trial lawyer Edwards, and it is the more appealing vision.

To me, Obama brings something to the table none of the other candidates are even thinking about promising: He wants to restore faith in American government. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton helped to erode that trust, and a Hillary Clinton presidency will carry the same taint.

I can only hope that the people of New Hampshire share Obama’s vision as well.

Tomorrow: The Republican side.

Ron Paul Wins FreedomWorks GOP Presidential Straw Poll, but I’m concerned about how accurate their poll is. The following statement sets off my bullshit meter:

“The FreedomWorks GOP Straw Poll was engineered to allow for only one vote per e-mail address, and all email addresses had to be validated to count in the poll, making it one of the most accurate online polls.”

No, never mind. It must be remarkably accurate — because, you know, I don’t have at least 5 different e-mail addresses, and I don’t use a different name with any of them.

[Note: This is not a judgment of Ron Paul, any other candidate, or their supporters.]

UPDATE: After some Ron Paul supporters left a few comments, I decided I’d clarify a few things.

I don’t doubt Ron Paul’s support on the internet, and I wish him the best because I’d really like him to shake up the Republican Party, even though I will not ultimately support him or any other Republican candidate for president in the 2008 elections. Furthermore, Ron Paul has an actual record of limiting government, unlike the Security Demagogue, Rudy Giuliani, or the platitude-machine, Fred Thompson.

I guess my real point is the press release’s silly “one of the most accurate online polls” claim. The security hole is there, I’ve pointed it out, and I pass no judgment on the candidates, any of their supporters, or the true state of support for anyone. I changed the title of the post (from “Ron Paul Wins Online Poll, But…”) to further reflect that.

I wish Ron Paul’s supporters the best of luck at the Ames Straw Poll. I’d love to see Mitt “Double Guantanamo” Romney go down in flames.

I’ve watched a quarter of the YouTube debates, and I still stand by my statement that this is a gimmick and not revolutionary. Here are a few thoughts:

I don’t know why but Hillary Clinton scares me.

I can’t stand Chris Dodd’s pretentious diction.

When responses are limited to a minute, the debate is really susceptible to soundbites and talking points; I am getting to know the candidates, but only in the way that they want me to know them. For example, I know that Senator Edwards will fight to special interests… or so he says.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina was not primarily affected by race. Bush is incompetent, his cronies are incompetent, and that is a constant. Note: I still think race was a factor with preparations, but not necessarily the response.

[Note: I dictated the above with my new speech recognition software. I don’t notice any appreciable speed increase, but it was fun to try out.]

I’m right, but not the way you think.

I made this modest prediction about YouTube and the debates back in April:

I just wanted to get this prediction on the table before events happened. We will revisit this after primary debates and the presidential debates.

I predict that YouTube will radically transform the way we view the debates.

I am extremely confident about this.

Note: I plan on utilizing YouTube to its fullest extent when any debates roll around. With any luck, I will be one of the persons helping along that transformational process.

This was way back before I heard about the CNN bullshit “YouTube Debate.” I chose to spend that evening with a better mindless entertainment: Transformers, the movie. (Awesome, you should definitely see it.)

Let me admit that I called the debates moronic before I even watched them. But I’ll trust John Stewart editorializing that the politicians gave the same canned answers as before. The YouTube debate is a gimmick, not a revolution.

That being said, YouTube has still revolutionized the debate experience. It has radically changed the way we consume the debates. Instead of listening to CNN’s full pre-packaged form, people can cut-and-paste different clips. If I want to hear all of Ron Paul’s outburts — bam, it’s done. Set it to music, add your own text, and we’ve got an entirely new product.

It is changing our politics in ways CNN will never understand. In fact, even I can’t grasp the changes under way.

Maybe Mitt Romney started out a clever man, but you can only tell a lie so many times before you start believing it. Mitt Romney is not a flip-flopper; he has sincerely changed his mind, for the worse.

People like Vic Gold thought that Bush was just giving the evangelicals words. They were wrong. Let’s not take that chance again.

Romney is not the least bad option; he is just as bad as the rest of them.

I was going to write something long about the second Democratic debate, but this debate format is ridiculous. We can’t learn anything. If every issue could be summarized in a minute or less, being president wouldn’t be a full-time job.

All we are left with are impressions. I am not voting for a candidate based on an impression.

That said, I will give you my impressions, for what it’s worth.

Obama had a great moment when he criticized Wolf Blitzer for his question. And to go back to the previous debate, I read commentary that he stumbled when asked what he would do during a hypothetical attack. The first thing he mentioned was emergency response and I applauded that. Obama appears grown-up.

Edwards appeared a bit slick at times. I think he scored points with the anti-war left by going on the attack against Hillary and Obama.

Hillary did better than I will ever admit publicly. But if you want change, she’s not the candidate of change.

Biden impressed me with his passion.

Overall, much better than the MSNBC Republican debate, where some really moronic questions were asked. I felt like we got to know the candidates better and the pacing was good.

Here are my impressions, and I’m not going to mince my words:

Rudy is the Security Demagogue. There are few words which will make my eyes narrow and tongue curl in disgust when I say them: demagogue is one of those words. I absolute despise demagogues. Rudy is a demagogue. Hey Rudy, just because you were in New York during 9/11 doesn’t mean you’ll know what to do as president to help us defend against more attacks. If we elect Rudy Giuliani, we will elect a tyrant. We will elect a man who will put an ID card in all our hands and will store all our private information in a giant database. Rudy constantly says that he will do anything to protect America, but he never mentions that he will protect the constitution with the same vigor. To be frank, after tonight, Rudy scares me. I will support almost anyone over Rudy (the exception of course is Hillary).

Tom Tancredo is a complete and utter moron. Anyone who thinks that the line about Jack Bauer was a good one is also a complete and utter moron. While McCain cites the Army Field Manual, Tom Tancredo cites a fictional character. Anyone who bases his security on fiction will have security of the same nature — namely, fiction! (Besides, if we’re going to have anyone fighting terrorists, it should be Chuck Norris.) To think that America will be protected from an attack by a legion of bad-ass motherfuckers is absolutely idiotic. We need good intelligence, and torture does not produce good intelligence. The false positive problem is overwhelming. I simply don’t understand how a terrorist would not leave a decoy bomb in these ticking time bomb scenarios. If these guys are tough enough to blow themselves up, I’m sure they’re tough enough to give out false information that will distract the good guys long enough for a bomb to blow up. Please, Tancredo, if you’re going to base our national security off a television show, or wishful thinking, then you don’t deserve to run. I’d rather listen to General Petraeus than Jack Bauer.

Huckabee hit every question out of the park. He was practically flawless tonight. He should be a top-tier candidate. Even though he does not support evolution, I’m willing to reconsider my support of him. I think he’d make an excellent Vice President. He also got the best laugh line of the night.

Thompson looked dour and uncomfortable — in fact, he looked downright unpresidential. Toss him.

Sam Brownback creeped me out. I can’t quite place why. It might just be a visceral feeling of a theocratic blob. It might also be the way he simply disregarded the UN.

Romney is slicker than a used car salesman. He’s an opportunist panderer. As soon as he wins the Republican nomination, his views will shift. This is not about “flip-flop”; this is about trust. I wouldn’t trust him with anything, let alone the highest office in the land.

Gilmore didn’t impress me as much as last time. I think that’s partly because Fox News used him in an incredibly dishonest fashion. They goaded him into criticizing his opponents on stage and then let all those opponents beat up on him. He looked bad because they made him look bad. However, he did have a good answer when it came to national security. He has experience in homeland security and talked about information sharing. He served in a national commission. He actually has national experience, unlike Mr. President of 9/11, Rudy. Point for Mr. Gilmore. I’m depressed that the average viewer will not get this.

Duncan Hunter hit trade hard, but I just can’t get excited about trade. I have tons of friends who get excited about this issue, but it’s not a sexy issue and I know it’s not a sexy issue. I had trouble paying attention to Hunter. I withhold judgment.

I’m not sure if Ron Paul screwed up, or if Fox News screwed Ron Paul. I know that the moderator distorted his response, but I think Ron Paul should’ve been more careful with what he was saying. Plus, he gave the demagogue the soundbite he needed. That’s all we’re going to hear. We’re going to hear Rudy, not Ron Paul. The news media will play it ad nauseum. I don’t think I can forgive Ron Paul for that. I do, however, applaud him for accurately describing “enhanced interrogation techniques” as Newspeak. First, it was “coercive interrogation,” now it’s “enhanced interrogation.” This is obviously obfuscation. It is obviously Orwellian. It is obviously torture.

John McCain was excellent — or at least he was excellent for anyone who thinks torture is wrong. Evidently, the Republican Party is now the torture party. Strange how their sanctity of life extends only towards unfeeling clumps of cells. How very Jesus of them. It is not worth protecting the body of America if she loses her soul. McCain hit Romney very hard after Romney took a shot at him. You may not like all of McCain’s positions, but at least you know what you’re getting.

Summary: McCain stood strong, despite criticism. Rudy scares me. Huckabee is a rock star.

After watching the debate, I think Jim Gilmore definitely deserves a second look. I don’t think he’s going to get that look, but I think he deserves it. This is just my uninformed impression, but he’s the one who seemed most comfortable being conservative and didn’t have to pander. It wasn’t always, “look what I believe,” but “look what I’ve done.” Romney and Giuliani sounded fake on abortion. They equivocated. Gilmore, even though supports choice during the first 8-12 weeks, sounded genuine. This is what I believe, this is my track record. And guess what, his position is more in line with a majority of Americans, who support abortion but also support restrictions on abortion.

I guess I feel like he can be a conservative without saying nutty things because he’s already proven that he’s a conservative.

Huck sold me with the line about weak federal government and strong state governments, but lost me when he raised his hand against evolution.

Also, I should not have watched this debate because of the essay I have due tomorrow. Oops.

The race is over. Obama won.

Damn you, Oprah!

Having grown up in a Republican family during the Clinton years, I’ve developed an irrational fear of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want her to run in ’08, and I don’t want her to ever become president. I’m sure if I looked her up, though, I’d find my reasons… but I’ll wait until ’08.

Anyway, here goes my future low-blow line for ’08:

Hillary: If she wasn’t good enough for Bill, she’s not good enough for America.

Tomorrow: Commentary on resignations

Day after tomorrow: Advice to Democratic Party