Phoenix was in the national spotlight last night as the Democratic presidential candidates took the stage for a CNN-sponsored debate at the beautiful Orpheum Theatre. There were not many surprises -- plenty of "Dubya" mudslinging, a good dose of in-fighting, and plenty of ideas that are surely easier to propose than actually execute.
That said, I am only a part-time political junkie. So any of my comments below, in all likelihood, will lack true substance.
What the evening lacked were winners and losers -- though there were clear degrees of viability among the candidates. The lack of time given to Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich was certainly a not-so-subtle indication of their not-so-bright campaign futures. While not appearing "presidential," they did not really do anything wrong. Braun gave off a warm "earth mother" vibe while Sharpton (fully ignored for the first 20 minutes of the debate) was a gentler and far more listen-able version of the Don King/"whack job" personae I remember from my younger years back spent back East. But to be blunt and politically incorrect, the next President will remain a White male. As far as Kucinich goes, I was not aware of his existence before last night. Suspecting I am not alone in this assessment, my not-so-out-on-the-limb prediction is that the Ohio Congressman will be the first to drop out of the race.
So that leaves us with six candidates, which I group as: the Washington-based Democratic "leaders" (Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt), the outsiders (Dean, Clark) and John Edwards. The only distinction I recall of Edwards last night was his climb from "poor boy" beginnings to millionaire lawyer-senator-presidential candidate. As a floater in this ultimate reality "game," I think Edwards will be pushed out of the race earlier rather than later.
Okay, down to five. At this point, I think Lieberman/Kerry/Gephardt are virtually interchangeable (remember I said this is a shallow "analysis"). One of them is going to emerge, I just do not know which one.
Wesley Clark was perhaps the "winner" last night since he grabbed the headlines by merely being the primary target of the internal party spit-fest. My initial reaction was that the "fight" tactics against Clark showed how really scared the other candidates are of the new front-runner. Clark is an alternative, but his fellow candidates (along w/ the questions angled at him by the CNN panel) exposed his apparent flip-flopping opinions/allegiances. With Clark the new whipping boy, the former holder of that position, Howard Dean, may be the one to make it to the end.
Given the deteriorating "health" of the current administration and tainted by my own partisan views (blind optimism?), I believe a presidential shift should be a slam-dunk. However, I think the REAL reasons behind the California recall election result (and how widespread those feelings are throughout the rest of the country) will play a huge role in the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. If it was anti-Democrat, of course Bush will win hands-down. However, if it is a full-on change/anti-incumbent upsurge, the Democrats stand more than a fighting chance. In that case, the outside-the-Beltway Dean is the man. And what a smirk-fest those presidential debates will (?) be!
