This Christian Science Monitor editorial describes last weekend's Democratic debate like so:

The "debate's" most interesting talk was saved for Iraq, where all candidates seemed to have a thoughtful position that they were happy to discuss. All of which means the real winner from Saturday's debate was ... the president.

...which makes no sense. Just because Bush did his victory lap on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln don't mean moosedick. It'd be nice if the author explained that reasoning.

Here's what I thought of the debate, going from stage right to stage left, with a focus not as much on who said what but who can beat King George in 2004:

• Congressman Dennis Kucinich - "Take the profit out of health care" is not a good battle cry, especially for a plan that would probably require an increase in taxes and coming from a man that was ousted as Mayor of Cleveland when the city went bankrupt. On the other hand,...

• Congressman Richard Gephardt is a pussy, and his health care plan, as John Edwards rightly pointed out, rewards corporations for giving their employees health care, something most are already doing. My feeling on health care is closer to what Kucinich is saying, but we need baby steps, like Howard Dean's goal to cover children and the elderly.

• Reverend Al Sharpton is not even an issue. His big campaign issue to make elections the domain of the federal government and not the states, despite what happened in Florida in 2000, is a counterproductive idea. Bob Graham responded to Sharpton, saying he'd propose federal level guidelines but still leave running elections up to states. However, Sharpton's focus on voting improprieties is right on -- what Sharpton will do is register a lot of African Americans to vote, and as long as their votes are actually counted, Sharpton's hard work could make a huge difference in this election.

• Senator Joseph Lieberman - Gore lost in 2000 for three reasons: 1. The Supreme Court declared Bush the winner before the voter fraud that ran rampant in Florida could be properly investigated. 2. Ralph Nader took a lot of left-wing support from Gore. (Please don't vote for a third party at the national level until they sufficiently saturate regional positions and/or the United States institutes condorcet voting. I'm all for voting, for example, Green party for Alderman.) Most importantly, 3. Gore tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton, and he tried to do that by chosing Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is like a Republican who couldn't join the party because he's Jewish, and I'll abstain from voting for President if it's between him and King George.

• Former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun I like enough, but let's face it -- she doesn't stand a chance. I did like her joke that the 2000 election was decided by the black vote -- Clarence Thomas's. Having two black candidates will hopefully, at the very least, bring some attention to the election in the African American community.

• Former Vermont governor Howard Dean is My Boy, you all know that. Does he have a chance at winning the nomination? I hate to say it, but no. He's yelling a little too loudly at other Democratic candidates, which I'm sure is pissing off plenty of people in the party. Yes, Dean and John Kerry are neck-in-neck in New Hampshire, but that's to be expected -- one's from Vermont, the other's from Massachusettes. Dean has executive experience and a good record, and he's obviously fired up. He's short on foreign relations experience, however, his biggest disability. However, Dean's charisma and firm stance on issues I think would really make Bush look like a fool in the debates. After all, Dean is not a wuss like Dukakis, another former New England governor who once lost to a Bush.

• Senator John Edwards was a personal injury attorney which will get him raked over the coals by the Republicans. Other than that, I really like the guy. With a little more experience, I'd definitely consider him to take the title of My Boy should Dean drop out.

• Senator Bob Graham co-authored the Patriot Act. Bad, sure, but we have to remember that the Patriot Act is only so bad in the hands of John Ashcroft. The Patriot Act also has a clause making it only a temporary measure. If it were to become permanent, then we'd have a problem. Graham, however, does have a good foreign-policy history and -- here's the clincher -- he's from Florida. That alone could cause a huge stir for the Republicans, and since I want anyone OTHER than Bush (or Lieberman) in the White House, Graham is fine by me.

• Senator John Kerry has rolled over and played dead for the President just like Gephardt, Daschle, and most other Democrats in congress right now. And though not quite as boring as Gore can be when he's not on Saturday Night Live, Kerry's pretty boring. He is, however, a veteran, which would benefit him in the election.

In November 2004, the Democrats need a candidate who can stand in such opposition to Bush that it makes the President look like the greedy capitalist warmonger that he is. I don't necessarily think we need a candidate that makes the country feel safe; instead, we need a candidate that doesn't exaggerate the threat for personal gain.

On the basis of how electable they are and how closely they relate to my feelings on the issues and their ability to quell my outrage overload, I rank the Democratic candidates as such:

1. Dean
2. Edwards
3. Graham
4. Kerry
5. Kucinich
6. Mosely Braun
7. Gephardt
8. Sharpton
9. Lieberman