Well, the first thing I'd say is that with 10 people and 2 hours it's pretty tough to get a whole lot out on the table. Second observation would be that because the time is so short these candidates should leave out comments about  "dad was a letter carrier" and "dad was a milk truck driver"...ahh, that's nice but save that for when you're up giving a speech at a fund raiser or something.

Another thing I noticed right off was the way they lined them up on the stage...anyone else catch this? The guys that are all established or maybe I should say entrenched were all stage right...Gephardt, Graham, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry...Clark in the center as guest of honor. Then out there on the other side you had Howie, Sharpton, Kucinich, Braun. This group is clearly viewed as the outsiders...and in reality none of them have a shot except Dean. But I think the thing about Dean is he scares the insiders with his hardcore comments and criticism. I don't the Democrat power structure wants him to represent them. This to me seems to be what would most likely scuttle his campaign. I think (and I believe you saw some of this last night) Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman are sort of a united front working to take down Howie...and not just because he's shown well in polls. Gephardt played hitman last night with his Newt comment and Kerry went back to it later after seeing Dean get testy. My opinion was Dean was the strongest presence on the stage and of the heavy hitters spoke the least like a "lifetime politician" . If I had to tab someone as the "winner" from my perspective it was Dean.

 Now, on Wes Clark, the big story. Well, he really did nothing to hurt himself with his performance and didn't really do anything to show he should be the front runner either. For the most part he admited he's only been in politics 9 days and that his team is still assembling his plan. Nobody went after Clark and really he was so vanilla that he didn't put anything on the table to go after him about. I thought it was interesting that he seemed ignored by the other candidates for the most part. I'd have to rate it as a solid start for him because he was ok...and for his first showing I think ok is good.

   To tell you the truth one of the things I find most interesting is to try and read between the lines. I have this idea that Clark is the guy that the Democrat power structure wants if they can mold him. I don't think he came out of the blue. I think there was some heavy duty planning involved. Look at it this way, he basically said he stands for the things that are the heart of where the Democrats come from...as Kevin pointed out, that bit about "I'm pro-choice, pro-this, pro-that...etc" it was total vanilla but he's not really upsetting anybody in the Democrat camp. Also, because they seem to be falling in behind him, he's a good candidate for the Democrats because they can mold his policy as they go. Not so with Dean and as witnessed last night Howie won't take no crap. I certainly think Dean is the guy that's the most fun to watch and I look foward to seeing the field narrowed so the guys that have a shot can really go at it and hopefully talk more substance.

   Last night there was just too many of them and certain guys play certain roles. Kucinich for example, began almost every statement with "I'm surprised that the rest of..." and then bashed the rest of his fellow candidates. Sharpton is obviously comic relief. He also let fly with what I thought must have been the best line for Republicans watching this thing when he said "By the time we're done here tonight Bill Clinton will have walked on water"...don't know if that's exact but it's pretty close.

    I'd have to agree with Kevin on his point that they really didn't focus on answering some of the questions and I think that's really a matter of too little time, too much agenda, too many on stage. They all were adding their sales pitch to the answers...that's to be expected though and is not a reflection of just Democrats...Republican candidates do the same thing.

    So after watching this thing I still think the Democrats are hoping to ride Clark into the White House. Dean gets the highest marks from me for the way he lays it on the line and looking like he might throttle Dick Gephardt. Kerry, well, he can give you three sides to every issue, he's a really bright guy, but he's probably best suited to be Clark's VP. So while I like Dean the most I don't think this thing is at all about who you like the most at this point. I think it's about what the Democrats can get together on and create to challenge Bush, who is at this point weak and maybe getting weaker. So, it's still early but what would be best for Democrats I think is they mold Clark, with all his history and window dressing, into a solid candidate and have him choose Kerry as VP.

    I think as educated voters it's never been more obvious, Bush being the ultimate example, that it's not about a single man but the team they put in place. The Bush team seems to be really coming unglued at this point because they now have more problems than ever. They have completely destroyed American foreign policy, the economy is in complete shambles, more Americans have lost or fear losing their jobs than ever, Americans have been reduced to living in a state of fear due to this administrations "It could come at any moment" terror alert promotion and despite these facts they are only looking for more money to throw at these issues. Bush just made an ass of himself at the UN and he's on his "Crawling On My Knees For Help World Tour" right now. I'm not sure how much all this will change between now and election time but I think people are going to want a change when they go to pull the handle in 2004. Or punch the chad.

                                                                  Reg