from my daily MOUVING MOUNTAINS column
at PULSE http;//www.pulsetc.com
by Lydia Howell
Monday, June 4, 2007

Presidential election theater—uh, I mean, campaigning—is starting earlier than ever, due to various states moving up their primaries to pick nominees. Of course, some of the biggest performances are candidate debates and the Democrats led off in Manchester, New Hampshire, last night.

Eight contenders alternately danced and dueled with one another, sometimes in-step with fellow Democrats, sometimes a glint of the sword trying to carve out differences. In spite of starting earlier than ever, corporate media continues to claim the right to pre-select what candidates the voters should "take seriously'. Of course, much of this is due to what's known as the "money primary"; that's the tens of millions in campaign contributions that's determined the so-called three "front-runners'.

Iraq dominated the debate, with asides for health-care, immigration and one of the few surprise issues; gays in the military. All who got to comment, agreed that gays can help prop up the U.S military but, marriage equality isn't on the table-- only civil unions. Hillary Clinton quoted the famous conservative Republican Barry Goldwater who said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." John Edwards asserted that the federal government shouldn't tell states and churches how to deal with same-sex marriage-- an odd comment given that it's secular, civil law—not churches—that are at issue.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton played the Iron Lady on national security, with some slightly softened 'diplomacy" edges. She opened with saying that after six years of Bush, the country is "safer than before..., but, not safe enough"-- perhaps, already jockeying against fellow New Yorker Rudy Giuliani . Continuing her refusal to acknowledge that voting to invade Iraq was a mistake, she also tried to market herself as an anti-war candidate. If U.S. troops are still there after being elected President, she said she'd bring them home.. I couldn't help but feel I was glimpsing the infamous Clintonian triangulation in that promise, just as, that Clinton ***CONFERENCE REGISTRATION opens 11 :00 AM (Campus Center)***(and Obama) seemed to count Senate votes, waiting until the last moment to vote against the latest war-funding bill. Suddenly, she's got 'a three-step plan to get out of Iraq'--that sounds a lot like Bush's, since it holds the Iraqis accountable for American troops occupying their country. Hillary Clinton quoted the famous conservative Republican Barry Goldwater who said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

Illinois Senator Barak Obama's famed charisma was MIA and he actually seemed bland. His positions remained murky platitudes or like minor tweaking of existing policies. Strangely, little of Obama said was memorable, as if his political consultants had over-rehearsed him and he was taking each step with care not to fall from a straight-down-the-middle tightrope.

Former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Democratic VP candidate, John Edwards showed a fair amount of fancy footwork, going after Clinton on Iraq. He called for timetables to get out of Iraq and said now it was time to 'lead not follow'--which he accused the other two front-runners of doing. Edwards' strongest point was standing on his point that "Bush's war on terrorism is just a bumper sticker slogan", saying it was simply "a justification for everything Bush has wanted to do from the Iraq war to the PATRIOT act to torture and wiretapping Americans. 'There wasn't any opportunity for him to refer to the anti-poverty work he's been doing since his 2004 run, but, he slipped in specifics about access to health-care and education. Edwards was genuine where Clinton was hard plastic and detailed where Obama was vague. Of the three front-runner, for my money Edwards projected the best combination of personality and policy. John Edwards asserted the federal government shouldn't tell states and churches how to deal with same-sex marriage-- an odd comment given that it's secular, civil law (not churches) at issue

Frankly, I found mostly the so-called "second tier' candidates far more interesting, but, of course, corporate media never allows them nearly as much time as the candidates they've crowned.

When Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, who ran for the 2004 Democratic nomination, spoke about issues, you knew exactly where he stands and what he wants to do. Iraq? Democrats don't need a veto-proof bill, but, should simply offer no war-funding bill at all and use money already allotted to the military to bring them home. "This is now a Democratic war, too, Kucinich said.. Health-care? He challenged other Democrats' plans by pointing out that they would all leave the insurance companies and HMOs in charge. He was the only candidate to call for renegotiating 'free trade' agreements like NAFTA and the World trade Organization that outsource American jobs. He attempted to make a point about "peace as the only security' but, wasn't given enough time to develop what he was trying to say. He called for PATRIOT ACT to be be overturned and our civil liberties restored.

Most surprising, were New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who it would be good to hear a lot more from.

Richardson lacked charisma, but communicates a sense of being an accessible person who's thoughtful about issues and has diverse experience for the job. As Clinton's Energy Secretary, he's savvy about renewable energy policies that he's already implementing in New Mexico. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. , he said he 'spent 80% of [his] time in the Middle East". He might have the most wisdom about immigration, as a governor of a U.S.-Mexico border state and opposed both a 'Berlin Wall' and the exploitive guest worker program. He called for labor rights for all workers, the only candidate besides Kucinich who remembered that labor unions and 'ordinary working people' are supposed to be a major part of the Democratic Party's base. Richardson also noted that when it comes to the infamous earmarks (also known as 'pork", funding that's slipped into unrelated bills) coming under scrutiny, the $70Billion in corporate welfare should be examined.

Dodd was sober and direct, coming across as someone who'd steer the nation steadily. He was strong on the failure of Iraq and urged the U.S. to boycott the Olympics if China refuses to pressure Sudan to stop its genocide in Darfur. When asked about making English our 'official language' , he went one refreshing step beyond rejecting that recurrent legislation. Being bi-lingual himself (in Spanish), Dodd said that in the 21st century ,far more Americans need to learn a second language. He alluded to the trade deficit with China and was the only candidate to echo Kucinich's call to restore Constitutional rights undermined by Bush. When the idea of mandatory national service for youth was raised, Dodd revealed he'd been a Peace Corp volunteer..

Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the only candidate who voted to keep funding troops in Iraq, had the abrasive personality of someone who's in a constant sate of irritation. His only stand-out moments were his obviously sincere anger about inaction regarding the genocide in Darfur and suggesting that public financing of political campaigns was the only way to get rid of earmarks. Biden voted for an immigration wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, that the other candidates rejected.

Finally, former Senator for Alaska, Mike Gravel, has been out of office for 25 years, most known for putting Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, helping to bring the Vietnam war to an end. He drew on that history to challenge the notion of an Iraqi 'genocide' if U.S. troops leave. Gravel got the least time, so where he stands, beyond opposing the occupation of Iraq is hard to know. He did challenge Obama--who's on the responsible Senate committee-- about lack of oversight of VA hospitals. Mike Gravel was a blunt curmudgeon, quick-witted with one-liners.

If presidential campaigns are gong to be drawn out for almost two yeas, I'd like to see debates between 'second tier' candidates only. Given the idea that America is "promoting democracy" at the point of a gun around the world, more real choice of candidates here at home should be in order. Otherwise, all we have, to quote investigative journalist Greg Palast, all we've got is the best democracy money can buy.