We are 517 days away from Election 2008. Some might say that’s a little early to begin paying attention to all the politicians throwing their hats in the ring, but when you stop to consider the ridiculous amount of work laying in wait for the next president, a long and involved screening process may be just what the electorate needs.

Even though 15 of the 17 currently-announced candidates won’t make it to the national election, two of them will, and when they do, they’re probably going to speak in little more than sound bites and platform platitudes. But right now, when they’re still competing for their party’s nomination, they have to actually defend more subtle positions on issues where, generally speaking, they all agree.

Take, for example, the war in Iraq. Generally speaking, the Republican candidates (minus Ron Paul) think we need to stay and finish the job. As McCain said last night, “We must succeed in this conflict.” Compare to the general Democratic stance, which holds that what’s happening over there is a civil war, that the presence of our military causes more harm than good, and that it’s time to begin withdrawing from Iraq. In the national election, those are your choices.

But during in the primaries, each candidate has to present a unique strategy to fulfill this general policy of the party, and when a specific strategy is attacked by a person who agrees with the general goal of the policy, we get to see something we don’t see in the national election. In short, the primaries are perhaps the only time we’ll get to see the finer details of a candidate’s mind.

The Democrats

The Democrats debated on Sunday night (transcript; video). All the news reports have focused on the way the candidates sparred on Iraq, with Sen. Edwards saying that, during the recent vote to fund the war, Sens. Clinton and Obama did not show the leadership this country needs. While he congratulated them on voting the right away — that is, on voting to stop the funding — he chastised them for not being more vocal and not drumming up more support, a criticism to which neither of the senators properly responded: Senator Clinton deflected the charge by saying all the Democrats are against the war and all the Republicans are for the war, while Sen. Obama said he’d been against the war since the beginning, whereas Sen. Edwards voted to support the war in 2003, and said, “So you are about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue.” While it was kind of a “in your face!” answer, Sen. Obama did not explain why he had not been more vocal during the recent vote.

The sparring kept up all night between the three front-runners, with Edwards throwing most of the first punches, Clinton dodging the blow, and Obama hitting back hard. Sen. Clinton seemed to make the decision that she would not debate the people on stage with her, concentrating most of her arguments against the policies put forward by President Bush and the Republicans, as if she’d already won the primaries and was starting on the national election. But her fellow Democrats weren’t going to let her off that easy.

Sen. Clinton said, “The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don’t want anybody in America to be confused.” To which Sen. Edwards responded, “There are differences between us. And I think Democratic voters deserve to know the differences between us. I think there is a difference between making very clear, when the crucial moment comes on Congress ending this war, what your position is, and standing quiet.”

The interesting development of this second debate was it catapulted Sen. Joe Biden to the top of the second-tier candidates. Prior to the debate, it seemed to be a toss up between Senators Biden and Dodd, and Governor Richardson, but Biden came charging out of the gate on Sunday. He was passionate about his vote to continue funding the war (”If we had voted no and stopped this, it would have delayed [the delivery of these mine-resistant vehicles, these V-shaped hull vehicles that stop IEDs]. Lives are at stake. And I knew the right political vote, but I tell you what, some things are worth losing elections over”); passionate about Darfur (Biden wants to send troops now; the rest do not, saying we need to go to the U.N., establish a no-fly zone, etc., to which Biden responded, “By the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead! They’re going to be dead! That’s our moral authority, exercise it!”); and honest about the way Washington is run (”If you want to do away with the interest groups, go to public financing of elections. Let’s cut through all this malarkey. As long as there are massive contributions pouring into the system, you’re going to get these earmarks in the middle of the night that have nothing to do with the people’s interest. So you want to do this? Reform the system.”).

In contrast, Gov. Richardson seemed confused about what questions were being asked and he didn’t say anything that he didn’t say in the first debate (we’re talking almost word-for-word here). Senator Dodd wasn’t confused, and he spoke eloquently, but he wasn’t…Presidential. He seems like a good politician, a good person, and a good man, but he didn’t come off as a leader. Sen. Biden did.

Of the “extreme” candidates, Rep. Kucinich and Sen. Gravel, I continue to hold that Rep. Kucinich is the moral heart of the Democratic party, and it’s a shame that the other candidates won’t respond to him. I would love to see Rep. Kucinich go one-on-one with each of the top-tier candidates (including Biden), because I think that would be the single chance that the Democrats have to see to the true heart of the candidates. Sen. Gravel, meanwhile, just gets angrier and angrier, though now his anger seems less directed at the candidates and more directed at the media, who refuse to take his positions seriously. After the first debate, I liked watching this guy. After the second, I’m over it. He doesn’t say anything that Rep. Kucinich isn’t saying better.

The biggest change in my perception from this debate is that Edwards is not going to get my vote. He may have the money of a top-tier candidate, he may have the photogenic looks of a top-tier candidate, and he may have the compassionate delivery of a top-tier candidate, but the more I hear him speak, the more I believe he’s trying to sell me a new furniture set (apparently, John Kerry felt the same way in 2004).

In my March 1st post, “Sizing Up The Democratic Candidates For the First Time,” I wrote:

At this point, the only two candidates I’m definitely not voting for are Vilcak and Clinton. Before the [Las Vegas] forum, I was interested in Edwards and Obama. Afterwards, I’m curious about Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, and Obama, and I’m hesitantly intrigued by Biden. Kucinich and Gravel both spoke to my own interests and passions, and while the former is too angry and the latter is barely even running, I’m very glad they’re in the race.

Now, three months later, I’m still not willing to vote for Clinton (Vilcak is gone), and I’m no longer willing to vote for Edwards or Richardson. Obama is still a contender, though he hasn’t overwhelmed me, and Biden is looking better. I’m still open to Sen. Dodd; if he could reach down into his soul and find some sort of leadership qualities, he’d have the opportunity to win my vote. Gravel is a non-starter for me, and Kucinich…man, if Kucinich could stop thinking of himself as an outsider and start thinking of himself as a leader, he’d have my vote in a heartbeat, but the kind of conversion I’m talking about is the conversion that would turn this man into someone who has the caliber of a Martin Luther King or a Ghandi, and I just don’t see that happening.

The Republicans

The Republicans debated on Tuesday night (transcript; video). I’m not going to get as detailed as I did with the Democrats, because I don’t agree with about 98% of what these folks are saying, but I will say the following.

Sen. McCain would make a fine president. I disagree with him vehemently on Iraq, and the fact that he was a soldier, that he actually believes the United States is under attack…that is not a mind-set that I want in the Oval Office. But with that being said, I think he is a good man, and what’s more, I think he is an honest man. I think his policies are wrong, but I believe his heart is in the right place.

I’m going to be honest with you. Sen. McCain’s performance in the second debate–the honesty he displayed–it literally brought tears to my eyes. I got choked up (more than choked up) when he said the following in regards to immigration and the question of whether English should be the official language of the United States:

My friends, we know what we’re talking about is the latest wave of migrants into this country. We have to stop the illegal immigration, but we’ve had waves throughout our history. Hispanics is what we’re talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was.

My friends, I want you the next time you’re down in Washington, D.C. to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You’ll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you’re going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You’re even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they’re willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation. So let’s from time to time remember that these are God’s children. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them. Thank you.

There was just something about the way he said — to all the white people on stage, to all the white people in the N.H. audience, and to all the white people watching on C.N.N. at home — “Hispanics is what we’re talking about.” He is the first Republican — possibly the first politician — who has said that the immigration debate in this country is stained with racism, and who has then pointed out how shameful that racism is. For a politician to do that, to challenge Americans to consider their racist tendencies, and a national politician who is a serious contender for the presidency no less…well, it’s a sight to see.

In this, the third debate of the Republican candidates, Sen. McCain showed why he deserves the nomination of his party.

As for the other top-tier candidates, Mayor Guiliani neither helped nor harmed his current position. Personally, Guiliani scares me. I think if he is elected president, we’ll be at war with Iran within the first two years of his term. He said, “Iran is [less than] 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light…You can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table [read: using nukes against Iran].” I really, really don’t want this guy in the Oval Office.

As for Romney, his performance in this debate revealed him to be nothing more than a smile and a haircut. About three-quarters of the way through the debate, he seemed to say to himself, “The hell with it. I’m not gonna win moderates on national security; Giuliani’s got that. I’m not going to win moderates on morality; McCain’s got that. All that’s left is the economy. Okay: time to start talking to business.” After that, every answer he gave seemed to talk about how “our products and services can lead the world.” If he gets nominated, the Republicans don’t stand a chance in the fall. He’s nothing but a smile in a suit, and after his performance in this debate, everyone knows it.

This debate also showed that, besides Gov. Huckabee, there are no second-tier Republican candidates. Tancredo, Gillmore, Hunter, Brownback, Thompson: they’re all crazy or useless. Tancredo is a nut-job, no two ways about it. He is violently upset about immigration. Gillmore…man, you should have seen the rambling job he did. Check this out.

Okay, so the second half of the debate was town-hall style. You know, all the candidates in chairs, no podiums, answering questions from the audience, etc. So the first question out of the gate is from a woman who lost her brother in Iraq. The question gets bounced around a bit, until finally, Wolf Blitzer and and Sen. Brownback get into a back and forth thing. In the middle of their little debate, McCain stands up from his chair, walks to the front of the stage, and speaks “a little straight talk” to the woman. His answer is basically, “We gotta give this plan a chance to succeed,” but the delivery of it, the way he just stood up and interrupted Wolf and Brownback, and the obvious compassion he had for the loss of this soldier, well, it was moving. What McCain basically did was establish that, if you were going to be a leader of this party, you were going to have to stand up and speak from the heart.

So, the next question passes, and the candidates who answer (including Guiliani) answer from their seats. The following question, however, is thrown to Governor Gillmore. A woman in the audience asked if the conservative platform can also include a conservationist agenda, and if so, how? After seeing how well McCain did standing up, Gillmore jumps from his seat and walks to the front of the stage, repeating the question to buy himself some “travel time”. Here is his answer in full:

The question was whether or not a conservative agenda can also have a conservation agenda. And I think that it can. Certainly when I was governor of the state of Virginia, we worked very hard in order to make Virginia a beautiful place and a place where we could in fact be welcoming to people and that it would be a nice community for people to visit. But at the end of the day, this is going to come down to the question of whether or not conservatism can match up with energy independence, which is a national security issue. And it is the fundamental part of conservatism. Conservatism means empowering people. It means cutting taxes and controlling government spending. It also means national security. And national security means a lot of different elements right — at this time. And we’re discussing some of them tonight. And I can assure the people who are families here tonight, there are young people, younger men and women, who are on the battle lines, and people who are committing their lives — they are in fact serving the national interests of this country in a time of major crisis. The other two issues, however, would also go to the issue of the immigration issue, which I want to come back to at some point, but also energy independence. And energy independence also can serve the interests of conservation, particularly if we use nuclear power and other clean forms of energy so that we can in fact make this a clean society that is also safe and secure for the nation.

It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion, and even from my living room in Poultney, VT, I could feel the awkwardness that everyone in that audience felt as you saw this man just fall apart before your eyes. He stood up to show that he was a leader, but all he revealed is that he doesn’t belong on the same stage as John McCain.

Finally, there’s Ron Paul, who is still making some of the most sense out of all the candidates in the race, Democrat or Republican, but that’s because I find it somewhat difficult to not agree with libertarians. From a gut level, I’m a libertarian, but the second I stop and actually think about things, I realize I’m a liberal. So, without thinking about his policies, I like Ron Paul. Too bad I like to think so much.

Governor Huckabee is a little too Christian for my tastes, but he’s the kind of Christian that starts from a place of tolerance, not damnation. I don’t think there’s anyway he beats out the top-tier candidates for the nomination, but I’d be happier with him in office than I would with Guiliani or Romney.

While I’m not going to vote for any of these candidates in the national election, without a doubt, the only one who I think has the qualities to be our president is Sen. John McCain.

So there you have it. If I were Republican, I’d vote McCain. But as a Democrat, my vote is still up for grabs. I’m excited for the next debate, which takes place on July 23rd, and which will be presented by CNN, Google, and YouTube. It’ll be interesting to see what influence Google and YouTube will bring to the format.

And the marathon continues.