My take on the first round of debates, for both parties…

For the Democrats, I don’t really see what the fuss is over Mike Gravel. Yeah, the guy was acerbic, and called out his fellow Dems. He also came off as senile. He makes Admiral Stockdale look like Robert Kennedy.

Hillary Clinton looked like a robot. She has no inflection in her voice, no warmth, no personality. It’s no surprise at all that she’s faltering in the polls.

As a viewer, I thought Barack Obama did the best among the front runners. He had a lapse or two, but he was eloquent, interesting, and quick on his feet. He still speaks in platitudes, though. He talks about government with the same sorts of vagueries and ambiguities that clergy use when talking about God. Which means I really don’t know what his actual policy proposals would be. I just know that he thinks government can be magical and mystically transforming.

I thought John Edwards was impressive, too. Not that I’d ever vote for him. But he had stage presence, command of the issues, and could quickly rattle off his own proposals and policy prescriptions on cue. He’s by no means (Bill) Clinton-esque. But he does know how to work a room.

Joe Biden had the best line of the night. When asked if he’ll learn how to keep his mouth shut, he answered in the affirmative, then let his time expire. He’s a good speaker and an obviously smart guy. But there’s a bit of Northeastern Kerryish arrogance to him that I think will be off-putting for a lot of people.

Same for Chris Dodd, who also happens to lack any charisma whatsoever. I’m not sure why this guy thought he had a chance, other than the fact that every senator feels compelled to take his shot at the White House sooner or later (odd, given that one hasn’t won from the Senate since Kennedy).

Kucinich is a clown.

The big winner for me personally was Bill Richardson. I’m about to bash him in a column next week (though on a relatively minor issue), but it was pretty bold of him to stick up for cutting taxes and gun ownership on a stage of people hostile to both concepts. He also recently signed a medical marijuana bill, though that didn’t come up in the debate. I have serious qualms about him on other issues, but at this point, he’s my favorite in the field, and certainly preferable over any of the GOP frontrunners.

Last night, the Republicans took the stage, each paying homage to the ghost of Ronald Reagan in that weird way Republicans do.

First, the bad news. I thought Ron Paul looked like a crank. He came off as didactic and obsessive, and didn’t do much to dispel the whacko caricature many Americans have of libertarians. Instead of applying a libertarian vision to a variety of issues, he brought every question back to the war. I thought his performance was pretty disappointing, and I agree with him on most things. I also found it odd that he would bring up the gold standard, but not the drug war.

The worse news is that none of the other nine candidates really made much of a case for a libertarian or even generic limited-government vote. Giuliani came close when he talked about supporting business and avoiding socialized health care. But I would never, ever vote for the guy, given the way he handled criminal justice issues while mayor of New York. As for his performance last night, I thought he was passable, but he didn’t have the look or feel of a frontrunner. He seems a little weary already.

But if Giuliani didn’t look like a frontrunner, McCain looked even worse. He was angry and obstinate last night. He made some noise about pork spending, but he spent most of his time defending the war. He also reiterated his cultish veneration of public service by saying he’d demand that people who’ve made fortunes in the private sector come work for his administration. Why? Why not let them stay where they’re actually contributing something to society?

Of the three favorites, I thought Mitt Romney helped himself most last night. He was relaxed, articulate, and gave a well-measured, quick response when asked about Catholic bishops and the abortion issue (he answered that at as president, it would be none of his business what Catholic bishops do about abortion). He was a little slimy while explaining his change of position on a number of social issues, and I don’t doubt for a minute that he switched at about the same time he knew he wanted to run for president. But his primary opposition right now is McCain and Giuliani–neither much of a favorite with social conservatives.

Duncan Hunter is a nativist fool whom time has passed by, but of the two nativist fools on stage, I thought he looked and sounded better than Tom Tancredo. Tancredo looked haggard and flustered, and frequently stumbled over his words.

Tommy Thompson has even less charisma than Chris Dodd. Policy-wise, he was probably one of the more accomplished men on the stage last night, having achieved quite a bit as governor of Wisconsin, including welfare and tax reform. I just don’t think he’s going anywhere in this campaign.

Same for Jim Gilmore, who seems to have his missed his chance. He was enormously popular when he first left the Virginia governor’s office, and probably could have been the authentic conservative alternative to Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. But he’s lost name recognition, and last night looked as if he’s lost some polish, too. It was an ummemorable performance from a guy who needed to make a splash.

Sam Brownback too came off as less charismatic and interesting than I expected. Among the also-rans, I think Mike Huckabee probably did the most to help himself. Huckabee is actually a fine speaker. He’s quick on his feet, naturally funny, and occasionally self-deprecating. I don’t care much for his politics — he’s a compassionate conservative in the mold of 1999-era George W. Bush, though at the moment that would be eminently preferable to 2007-era George W. Bush. But I thought he did well last night.

Of course the guy who did best last night was the guy who didn’t participate: Fred Thompson. A politician in Thompson’s position (”will he or won’t he?”) always does best when he stays on the sidelines, and can still be all things to all people unsatisfied with the current crop of candidates. I suspect that the moment he enters the race, a bit of the shine will wear off. He’ll still be a favorite, and may well win. But candidates tend to look most attractive while they’re still paying hard to get.

In sum, I don’t think there’s anyone other than Paul I could vote for on the GOP side. And among the Dems, only Richardson interests me, and he’s likely to be out of the race by February.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.