A Blogger's Bit of Self-Analysis

I’ll tell you what, folks.  It’s hard to blog a debate live from the Spin Room.  I mean, some of us need absolute quiet to be able to write well.  Or Mozart, maybe, but not the sound of a presidential debate in a gymnasium, and not sitting in the bleachers.  It’s a fun challenge, but I’m the sort who needs to watch something 2 or 3 times on YouTube before I can form a solid opinion...

So I had writer’s block from the beginning yesterday, but hey, I tried.  Getting pulled away for a tv interview right smack dab in the middle of the debate was also kind of unnerving, especially when I couldn’t think of anything to say that didn’t sound radical.

But now that I’ve had half a night’s sleep, a full day’s work (eight hours staring at a computer screen), and a few hours to relax, I’m here to redeem myself with some decent post-debate analysis.  But first, a little self-analysis:

As I’ve hinted at before, exposure to Sen. Clinton occasionally has a radicalizing effect on my rhetoric.  I guess I just can’t imagine why anybody would want her for a president, and when I see the bunches of Hillary sign-holders, I just have to wonder: “is every single one of these people on the payroll, or have some merely been hypnotized?”  I can’t imagine sharing any part of that smile on their faces.  Seriously, of all the Democratic candidates, she is one who certainly has no fundamental objection to the invasion and occupation of Iraq – she merely disagrees with how the war was waged.  It’s very important to remember (over and over again) that she demonstrated no foresight whatsoever with regard to the invasion of Iraq.

So I can’t be neutral on this issue, or even objective.  Those of us who have been arguing against this war from the beginning are never going to be convinced she can be trusted as commander-in-chief.

She keeps saying “All we need is to get a Democrat in the White House.”  Are people really going to go for that?  I hope the ever-increasing number of independent voters can see the folly of perpetuating that swinging pendulum… we vote for change and wonder why we get more of the same, then try the “other party” out for 8 or 12 years, get fed up, switch back over, and wonder why we are never satisfied.

So I was really glad Sen. Mike Gravel was there to charge that the top tier Democrats wouldn’t change diddley squat about the way the country is run.  I even got a great interview with Gravel (easily the most accessible candidate) after the debate – article coming soon!

For now I’ll just say that although his chances are less than zero, I admire what Gravel is trying to do here.  As senator, he did a lot to help end the Vietnam War, and every American should be grateful to him for that courageous bit of life-preserving service to his country.  And now that we’ve got another Vietnam on our hands, it’s easy to see why he felt called into his country’s service once again.

In my next post I will talk about Edwards, Obama, and Richardson – three guys who could actually find a way to win this thing.  And I’ll have something substantial to say about all three, I promise.