hillary fortifies her lead:

i watched the south carolina presidential debate, and have now seen all of the responses to it, and it really pleases me. i’m partial to hillary, always have been, and i know that she really rubs some people the wrong way. i’m seeing a trend, though. as people hear her, they realize she’s not this callous, power-hungry terror of a woman. my view has always been that her meticulous sense of political thought is such an asset, not this battle cry of, “hillary is a triangulator,” that many extreme liberals have. when people are so extreme in either way, they don’t have the patience to build consensus; they don’t realize that in order to cross a bridge, you have to build and strengthen it first. further, they don’t realize that a candidate–especially a national candidate–has to follow the wishes of constituents. i personally accept the fact that the majority of america is more moderate than i am, and that i will not be happy with every decision made in america. does that mean i will not work to change these views to fit more in mind with what i feel is just? of course not. it means that it’s a process; don’t expect things tomorrow that take hard work. hillary understands that; that is why i am with her.

let me make one thing clear: of all of the so-called top-tier democratic candidates, not one would lose my vote in a general election. i am currently for hillary–and strongly–but i would be fine with barack, john, or al, should he choose to run. i would also support joe biden. this is not a bash fest; these are my honest reactions.

hillary: once again, the bias may come into play, but i call it like i see it: hillary maintained her leader status throughout the duration of the debate. she was clear and concise, and she knew exactly what she was talking about. these are things i see in her campaign speeches, and i think the more the public gets to see her, the more they will realize that she could do this job today. joe biden said it all when he warned republicans to not wish for her next year.

barack: barack satisfied me with his answers, and i think he was intelligent and well-spoken. i felt, though, that his charisma didn’t come in with him, and i think that policy specifics–or lack thereof–are really going to catch up with him. you can’t win a presidency on charisma alone, especially if you can’t bring that charisma to big events like this. he needs to step it up. he seemed out of place.

john: john was flat. he was trying to show his meticulousness and thought for every response, and it just seemed like he was about to fall asleep. he has learned a lot since 2004, and i think he’s a much stronger candidate than he was before. that said, he’s going to have to work on gaining the right level in his speech to sound more presidential.

joe: joe biden deserves so much respect. his performance was excellent, and i would put him in second place for the night. i don’t think he’s going to hop onto the top tier, but i think he deserves to be there. i believe him; i don’t think he says things just for political reasons. i feel that way about hillary, too, and i think that’s the most important quality in a candidate. i think he’ll drop out of the race as the reality of fundraising sets in, and try to hop on the winner’s boat as vp or cabinet member, and i think he will serve any candidacy well.

–

i don’t mean to make it seem like i’m running of of steam in my writing, but i’m going to lump the others together as a circus. bill richardson’s reputation for seeming more like a stand-up comedian than a presidential candidate was furthered. mike gravel was INSANE(-ly hilarious). chris dodd was good, but not really worth mentioning. and dennis kucinich: oh, dear. he has great convictions, great ideals, and i personally agree with him strongly. he doesn’t have what it takes, though. and he never will. he will always be a local politician. he’s too extreme and too liberal to lead this country in solidarity.