well i watched the debate. no disasters, no amazing breakthroughs. my man mike gravel came off a bit nutty, but what do you want from my man? but at least he's got a real and consistent position on iraq (as he did on vietnam): not one more american should die; it's unconscionable. immediate withdrawal. and why doesn't anyone seem to like this legislating by plebescite direct-democracy thing? radical, right, and practical. i thought edwards missed a good chance to make fun of his own hair, but i was myself making fun of bill richardson's "hair." obviously, they're all obsessed by iraq, because they brought every question back to it. hillary was...hillary, she backed and forthed on every question, even health care and gun control. i think you see someone with great command of information and a rhetoric studiously absorbed from people like her husband. but you see such a thoroughly politicized personality that it's empty all the way to the bottom. obama is, as everyone says, likable and impressive, much more natural behind a podium than any of the rest. dodd was better than solid, biden too, but i don't think anyone's worrying about them getting nominated, and indeed at the end biden actually appeared to endorse clinton (if the republicans are wishing for hillary, he said, they're going to be sorry). kucinich is actually very very good on a wide variety of issues. when he started rattling off treaties we ought to sign on to or observe, he rocked. i think it's possible that he could get some "traction" if there are further radicalizing disasters: revelations of war crimes by the bush admin, or even terrorist attacks.