Debate Bares Democrats' Great Divide (washingtonpost.com)

Reading the summary in The Washinton Post this morning, I'm glad I didn't watch the Democrats debate on when and whether to be Republicans. Gephart is right that "offering the voters 'Bush-lite' on the economy and domestic problems [is] a formula for certain defeat in 2004. " But this doesn't stop them from trying the strategy. After all, it worked for Clinton.

So far, I'm most in favor of Howard Dean because he had the guts to publically and vocally oppose the war.

Kerry spokesman suggested Dean wasn't fit to be commander in chief because "he did not support U.S. military supremacy." You know what? I don't support U.S. Military supremacy either, and guess who I am? Part of the democratic core base. Remember us? The people who never, ever vote for Republicans and don't go off and vote for third party presidential candidates either? We can help you, really we can.

Lieberman, whom the Post claims came off best in the debate, apparently said all the things that put him at the bottom of my list of Democratic hopefuls (OK, ahead of Sharpton, but so what). Can't we just give Lieberman to the Republicans and have him run against Bush in their primary? (That position appears to be vacant!)

Update: Here's a view of the debate quite different than the WP's: Abstract Dynamics: Reflections on the First Democratic Presidential Debate