The Dems held a debate in the presence of the AFL-CIO on Tuesday, August 8, and while the YouTube element brought the internet-literate masses to the candidates, the venue of tens of thousands of union workers packed into Soldier Field was considerably rawer. There were plenty of jeers to go with the cheers, and the vulgar element added a ring of authenticity - of truth - to the event. I assure you it was only a ring. The Democratic dialogue thrived on distortion and dodging just as much as the GOP.

Fortunately for the nation, the Democratic ticket’s exceptions to this rule were not as low in the polls as the GOP’s Tommy Thompson. They, and the spin artists around them, will be covered below. And this time, I’ll save the actual best choice for last.

CLINTON: The darling of national polls, mainstream media and, of late, The Drudge Report comported herself like a queen among her beloved people. She was glad to stoke their picket-line jingoism, talking of the greatness of American labor and how, as a Democrat, she would naturally be on their side. She did not deign to actually any tough questions, or really any question on policy. To do so would sully her. And with her national numbers and mantle of op-ed fluff pieces, why be sullied?

On Iraq, she muttered something about bringing the troops home in the same breath as talking about maintaining a presence. She then proposed we use the threat of withholding aid to get the Iraqi government moving. Considering how the Baghdad government has managed the aid so far, and the standard of living Iraqis have suffered for nearly five years, I find this a dubious plan at best. When finally cornered with a question as to why she voted against special funding to the war effort, she reminded us all that this is Bush’s war. What that means, besides as a device to get people who’re angry at Bush nodding in agreement, is beyond me.

How about NAFTA? She reminds us that she wants Democrats to win. Competition with China? She’s sick of the bad food and dangerously painted toys. How about all that corporate money she takes? She tells us she stands up to corporations.

If these sound like inflammatory, topical, perfidious non-sequitors, it is because they are.

She said a single thing of substance and applicability. When asked about No Child Left Behind, she noted it wasn’t adequately funded by the federal government and that money promised in a bill should be money paid. That addresses only a small, conveniently-Bush-oriented problem of NCLB, but alright. I agree we should not issue checks we don’t intend to cash.

By that same principle, not a single vote should be invested a person who hides her total lack of productive policy behind a shiny shield of platitudes.

EDWARDS: If Clinton’s shield is platitudes, Edwards’ is populism. He is a re-imagined Huey Long - one made not thick, rough and Southern, but as glossy as a Mattel toy. But like the Kingfish, Edwards has a fondness for answering with folksy anecdotes and barks at big money. He plays the crowd with a wet-eyed sentimentalism, preaching as if standing on a soapboax of pickets and protest signs, rather than pounding down policy.

He has interesting, ambitious ideas about health care, but they have no place in his new strategy. Whatever ideas of merit he might have are found only in the guts of his website. What he now wears on his sleeve were sneers at his competitors’ corporate sources of funding, protectionist promises that would not work let alone help the American worker, and sweeping declarations about getting out of Iraq immediately that’re essentially dismissals of any and all foreign concerns.

He’s a trial lawyer trying to play himself off as a hick. And on a certain level, it’s working. He seems about as educated about economics and global concerns as someone who hunts stray cats for a living in backwoods Alabama.

DODD: See “RICHARDSON”, below.

RICHARDSON: See “DODD”, above.

In all seriousness, these two came off more like guys at the local drinking hole by the steel mill than career politicians, or Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, rattling off sophomoric solutions that could finish each others’ sentences. Some of the highlights would include:

What to do about offshoring? Ban it. And China’s flooding us with cheap goods? Cease trading with them. How about the war? Just end it. Health care? Absolutely!

This kind of attitude doesn’t kill a nation. Norway’s doing just fine, thank you for asking - 60% taxes but, hey, you live a great life being above average just like everyone else. It does, however, slit the wrists of a global empire. And, like it or not, we Americans thrive or languish by our empire.

That neither of these men with excellent records of service didn’t see fit to so much as make the effort to address that reality -or any reality, like when Dodd continually insisted Obama had declared we should invade Pakistan - is a shame on both of them.

KUCHINICH: The Democrat’s own Ron Paul was in fine fettle at Soldier Field. For Ron Paul to be as much in his element, he would have to visit a Montana neighborhood council or a drum circle at Lalapalooza. But Kuchinich, a lifelong crusader for labor, his place and time was surrounded by the roaring ranks of the AFL-CIO in one of the great metropolises of American industry.

Say what one will about Kuchinich’s foreign policy - and I’ll simply say, “his abandonment of strategic commitments would be very harmful to our international power and markets; beware” - his domestic policy is tailored for the common American. Our economy will not likely grow much, our victories abroad will be few, but if one wants a candidate who is uncompromisingly, undoubtedly devoted to making the standard of living for the overwhelmingly majority of Americans dependably comfortable, look to Dennis.

He won’t keep gas prices down, nor will he keep us glutted with inexpensive foreign goods, but if you want to never worry about whether you can afford to take your kid to the doctor, or whether your son will lose limb or life in a war, or whether you can manage financially while Wall Street rakes in the big numbers, he’s probably your guy. That having been said, he’ll never win, his policies will be depressing as they’re ripped apart by a Congress that loathes change, and, as I said with Ron Paul, few are ready to close up shop on the empire yet.

He’s got guts. Even experience. If only he had the vision to see the world as it really is, rather than how many quietly wish it could be.

BIDEN: The guy who wins in my tally of guts, vision and experience is definitely Joe Biden. His scrappy, blunt quality came across well in this debate, as did his dogged adherence to the truth - like when he spoke up in Obama’s defense late in the game to make it clear that striking al-Qaeda despite footdragging by Musharraf wasn’t just a good idea or popular will, but standard US policy. He remains a pugnacious defender of a realistic Democratic middle, and though I don’t agree with him wholeheartedly on Iraq, I agree with his stance a lot more than the platitudes and vacuum of policy that most Democratic and GOP candidates present.

Thanks to his forthright manner - he once answered a question as to whether he’d end no-bid contracts, a nefarious practice of pork-cum-nepotism we’ve suffered awfully from of late with a simple, solitary “Yes” - we can hit his positions on the issues. All are not the flowery flights of fancy advanced by his competitors, but reasonable and directly pertinent to the issues:

What to do about regulating big business? Actually enforce the regulations we have; a novel idea to the current administration. How about being in debt to China? Trim the budget, starting with the high-end of tax cuts, and quit borrowing from Beijing to pay for Iraq. And how about Iraq? Stay in the region, restart the political process into three ethnic states, keep al-Qaeda by the throat.

For a man known for fiery outbursts, these are a lot more sensible than the populist sop Richardson and Dodd toss out about “withdrawing from Iraq now”, “ending outsourcing” and “banning corporate welfare”. They speak to an intellect that realizes, as the rhetoric from so many Democrats seems not to, that our corporate system is the beating heart that infuses the American worker with their professional lifeblood. It has to be regulated, yes, but with a hand as delicate as it is firm.

Another important, revealing statement Biden made is one he’d made consistently in previous debates: That the next President elected will have “no margin of error”. This is chillingly true when one considers the challenges facing America today:

We have two ongoing, exhausting wars that have pushed our military to the point of paralysis, and yet are faced with increasingly belligerent regimes in Iran and North Korea. Our economy’s over-inflated loan, mortgage and construction industries are on the brink of an increasingly fragile bubble. Below that bubble is the nearly $1 trillion dollars in trade debt we have. That this boom economy is dependent on things like corporate subsidies, debilitating tax breaks, illegal immigrant labor and outsourcing makes the situation even more dire. Then there is a resurgent authoritarian Russia threatening to increase its nukes, a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the spread of global terror and massive, urgent environmental concerns.

In light of this, the choice for voters should be clear: We cannot afford another Executive who pays more attention to friends, funding or faith than to facts.

The common candidate’s answer to these real, complex issues is with an empty pyrotechnic pronouncement of high ideals. But this is earth, not heaven, and high ideals in a campaign only serve the purpose of getting the crowd to look up while you steal their wallets and let the ground fall out from under them. Only Biden and Obama have refrained from evasion and distortion as their principal means of political gain.

One would think Biden’s lack of tact and political correctness would be an asset to him in today’s climate, which sneers at such frippery as lacking in realism. Instead, his numbers are solidly second-tier, and Obama’s in jeopardy, while candidates heavy on rhetoric and bereft of stated policy like Clinton and Edwards soar.

This debate was, for the most part, a lot of empty talk. In light of that, it should be a warning to the American voter:

If you vote for the candidate who only presents stirring values and evasion for this dull duo of hours, you will get only stirring values and evasion for four years.