The Democratic debate in Iowa was quite the event, at least for those who could shove aside repetition, tedium, and an “up with the chickens” start time to see it. It seems like the less publicity the debates get, the more reasoned the responses from the candidates. To get the truth, you have to get up early Sunday mornings. I know it sounds like Jerry Falwell said that, but in this case, it’s true. Either at the speartip of swinging opinion polls about the war, or only by virtue of good sense by osmosis, most of the Democrats seem to be coming around to the more measured stances Barack Obama and Joe Biden sensibly took. And at an hour of the morning when only a slim portion of the electorate will tune in to hear them say it, they’re not afraid to let the world know.

If only the moderator had been so reasoned. Every debate demands some assessment of its moderator’s performance. But the assessment in this case is whether it was meant to be a debate at all - as opposed to a poorly orchestrated dog fight with some very confused hounds - given the performance George Stephanopoulos presented. Given this, our assessment of the Democratic Debates in Iowa, August 19 2007, begins with an analysis of the man who, by virtue of his bias, should have been up on stage rather than trying to fool people that he was “moderating”.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: George Stephanopoulos fought well and hard for Clinton and Edwards, but at certain times I think he overdid it. The 16 solid minutes he spent on the question “Why is Obama not ready to be President?” seemed a bit biased without basis. This was especially true when, as was the case with Richardson and Edwards, the candidate didn’t seem to want to spend a solid two minutes Barack bashing, so George would just ask them again. Biden, whose comments had supposedly inspired the beating - I mean “question” - in the first place, seemed like he was getting genuinely steamed after George tried to rake him for yet more of Obama’s failings.

Hillary had no such compunctions, of course. The entire scenario - and I kid you not, it was 16 minutes, the first ten or so of which demanded Obama stand in stoic silence and take it on the chin - seemed geared to allow her to flay Obama while looking like she was defending him. Stephanopoulos would push for a direct answer as to, “Why is Obama not ready to be President?”, as if he were some hard-nosed reporter and not a brown-nosed weasel, and Hillary would resignedly “have” to answer.

He then followed with an inquiry into what Hillary meant when she first said she would not use nuclear weapons, and then said she would. He seemed satisfied that the difference between the questions that respectively ellicited those responses, “Would you potentially use nuclear weapons against Iran if they had a bomb?” and “Would you potentially use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to hunt terrorists?” is that the first is not a hypothetical. How she thinks this is beyond me.

Given that the other half of the debate involved George kicking back, his good deed done for the Clinton campaign and his grin wide, I think we can move onto the analysis of the actual host of the debate.

CLINTON: Clinton had her regal bearing back in this debate, and it rapidly cracked, her expression souring swiftly as Obama survived the salvo of the Stephanopoulos set-up, and not improving as she was forced to take something approaching a reasoned, substantial position on uncomfortable subjects like her statements and Iraq. The excuse she used to get out of the tough spots her dissembling and distortion put her in - one spreading like a virus or a bad elementary school playground joke among the more deliberately insipid of the Democrats - was that she’s just so tired of all these “hypothetical” questions.

Given that it’s practically her mantra now, that it appears to be catchy and that it makes about as much sense as upside-down shoes, I’m going to breeze through the meat of her decisions in this debate and get right to the bone. In Iraq: She’s going to pull out and stay in, immediately for over a long time. This actually is about close to the truth of what’ll likely happen in Iraq, but anyway, moving right along. The Power of Prayer: Yes, she believes in the power of prayer, because to say anything else than she believes in an invisible, intangible Superman who prevents bad things from happening if you love Him enough would make the majority of the American electorate think there was something wrong with her. Trade Bills: Oh, oops, ran out of time…

So back to Hillary’s Hysterical Hypotheticals. She hates them. Really, is just so tired of them. One gets the impression that she sees them as just too juvenile, and will not allow them in her class, along with gum-chewing and drawing on your podium while she’s talking. And this would be alright, if not for the fact that the entire event - indeed, the entire concept of candidacy - is /based/ on hypotheticals.

Namely, “/If/ I was President, I would…”

I laud Hillary’s efforts to eliminate the known from the unknown - a new, purely empirical candidacy that never talks about what she’s going to do, but only what she has done. She would no longer spend two minutes, when asked about her own corruption and ineptitude in Congress, talking to the hypothetical corruption of the perfidious Bush Presidency - she can’t speak for Bush’s motives, or history’s take on it; those are hypotheticals; we’ll just stick to talking about all the lobbyist money she took, which I am sure she has receipts for every dime. She would no longer present hypotheticals about how world opinion is shifting, or talk about economic projections for America’s future, or talk about what is responsible for a President to do or not, for, after all, she just speaks for herself. We could spend the entire campaign talking about what she’s said in the past, or what she just did, right then, that we know and can prove, and will never once need to hear the term, “If elected President, I…”

That would be glorious.

KUCHINICH: Dennis was in fine fettle. His wife got more camera time than he did, but what camera time he had, he used to speak in reasoned - albeit lofty - terms about Health Care. Health Care, despite the average American’s aversion to “socialized medicine”, is actually his strongest suit, as the criticisms of his opponent’s positions present their plans - and I refer to most of the GOP in this as well - as just anemic, venal versions of socialized medicine anyway, which they are. He points out, and rightly, that we already have socialized medicine. Only now, it is basically just a subsidy to the drug and insurance companies that inconveniences most people.

He was neither sleepwalking nor wearing jetboots this time, and stuck to what he knew and thrives at - the deep and ardent concern for the common American - rather than speaking to the grandiose vision of world harmony and instant global peace. This made him seem what he is, a crusader for the rights of those who’re being victimized. Unfortunately for his candidacy, that is not what he is running for.

RICHARDSON and DODD: Yes, I know they’re two different people. And this time around, there was none of the Echo-Chamber-of-Chub thing they had going on in the past. However, I just could not tell you why Dodd is running except to help out Hillary by talking her up, jeering at Obama and going into elaborate explanations as to how federal legislating is complex.

Equally dismissable is Richardson. Bill is getting more comfortable, more confident than the soapbox stamper of yestermonth, but as soon as he lulls me into a false sense of security with his modulated voice and seemingly sensible Iraq plan, he does something like declaring that he could get all the troops out of Iraq by December of this year, and down goes the house of cards.

GRAVEL: Speaking of guys who beg the question, “Where’re the butterfly nets when you need ‘em?”, Mike Gravel showed up but spared us any serious growling. I almost missed that. About the time Gravel goes off like a car engine doing 120mph without a drop of oil in it, I’m feeling like running down one or more of the candidates myself. So he either lays down a vicarious tantrum or shames me back into a more reasoned mindset. This time around, he rolled out the standard line about everyone around him being bought and paid for - yes, Dennis Kuchinich, pawn of the rich - and then returned to fuming anonymity.

EDWARDS: Edwards didn’t act crazy - though he did look it, blinking explosively - but he continues to talk too little of himself. All of his positions came from other candidates, and he made little attempt to hide this, even talking about some policies - like Iraq - in light of others having crafted it. He’s really selling me on everyone else, but as I only have one vote, I’m not thinking this a wise strategy.

BIDEN: Joe gets less and less time it seems, but the time he gets is never ill-spent. He was direct about Iraq, about how he’s had a plan for some time now, and though it would be difficult - as any action in Iraq would be - it would work in the way the Balkans had. Though I’m not sold on the parallel environmentally, I think the similarities are successful enough that the plan might have merit. Other questions were answered in a straight-forward, intelligent way, sometimes with a bit of wry wit to break up the monotony. In short, I like Joe. It’s a shame only 2% of Iowans feel as I do, and are more fond of shameless distortion, spastic evasion and the magical teleportation powers of Brujah Bill Richardson.

OBAMA: Watching Obama’s performance was like watching a cross between an old episode of “Firing Line” with William F. Buckley and Rocky II. “Firing Line” because it was grade-A scholarship coupled with moral conviction, channeled through clear, articulate (yes, I said it) statement of policy. “Rocky II” because you go in there knowing he’s going to take an awful, awful beating before he so much as lands a solid punch, and he ends up standing strong in the end.

Truth be told, we heard nothing knew from him. He talked of common sense when it actually was common sense, rather than an excuse for why we “shouldn’t talk in hypotheticals”. And he talked of having to maintain a significant presence in Iraq and in the region thereof, rather than promising that headlong flight is going to have no serious negative consequences. These statements were certainly exceptional for any candidate, but they are customary for him.

What was truly extraordinary was that he endured a relentless, humiliating line of questioning from Hillary’s big-haired little goblin of a “moderator” and came out looking as poised as a royal portrait. This is not his usual way. He’s stumbled before, notoriously in his early debates and later at Soldier Field. But it seems like the trial by fire of the last two months - wherein he’s been accused of wanting to invade Pakistan, to never use nukes ever never ever, and all manner of immaturities that, in fact, if one looks at them, only make his accusers look like idiots - has done him well in terms of fortitude. In sum, he does not look inexperienced anymore, but like a politician who’s taken some bad knocks.

And unlike many of the politicians around him, he does not duck, does not shrink, does not strike back with low blows.

If anything, the debate that began as a backhanded message that Obama was not ready to be President was proof that, at last, he truly is.