Stuff about stuff-Not as long as it looks

The Democratic debates have certainly begun to go downhill in entertainment value, but at this point it's really a redundant turn off to both candidates. Barack Obama is being a complete wuss and played defense all night. Ms. Clinton, in desperate need of momentum in a campaign that's stalled (to say the least), was on the claws-out, womanly offensive. Attacking her rival's stances on health care, trade, Iraq, and his political tactics, she certainly didn't garner a lot of pathos. To anyone with even an inkling of knowledge about her record on any of the above topics, she came up short in the ethos department as well. The bickering over healthcare was moronic; their stances are functionally the same. Both candidates seek to make it more accessible to Americans with universal coverage as their goal, though Hillary's plan mandates coverage and the only other difference is only a bogus claim of semantics from "certain" health care experts that Obama's plan will exclude 15 million Americans.
Whatever.

For the play by play on the issues, according to yours truly:

Healthcare, as explained above, is kind of an a priori issue for me as a diabetic who probably will struggle getting health insurance considering such a large pre-existing condition. As an avowed free market enthusiast, I cannot endorse a single payer system; competition is necessary to maintain quality. That said, government intervention is necessary for some people who need insurance to get it. While the film Sicko may be one Michael Moore was involved with, it still held some valuable evidence about the exclusionary nature of the health industry, albeit anecdotal. Ms. Clinton's planned mandate isn't a good idea, either. Those who don't need health insurance, or don't think they need it, shouldn't have to be paid for it; they shouldn't get a tax break or any other kind of reimbursement either.

Trade is another game-winner for me. NAFTA (which eliminated most tariffs in the trade bloc and phased others out over a 15 year period, protects intellectual property rights, and functionally phases out all international investment regulations among the block) is a sweet thing. There are allegations flying around all over here, but for the most part they are just that. I think the backlash that would result from anybody screwing around with it prevents any substantial changes from occurring. Some new anti-trust or wage subsidy legislation would be great, though.

Iraq is a quagmire, no doubt about it. There ain't much to be said here regarding the Democratic players: the fact that their approaches are soon or sooner makes this one less issue for Dems to have to decide in 2008. I think both have realistic interpretations of success as the term pertains to American people, and either plan would sufficiently meet the criterion of said success (success defined as what would bring American troops home).

There are more, but I'm going to bed and this is already gnarly long. Adios.