Tonight is the night of a Democratic Party debate that brings to mind that famous line, “Two men enter, one man leaves.” Of course, in this case, it is a matter of two formidable candidates, but make no mistake despite the gender difference: This is Thunderdome.

The fatal nature of the contest is not merely due to its date - a week before the Primaries in Texas and Ohio prove Hillary’s risky firewall strategy. It is also because, in order to marshall her base, stir up the drama of the moment and, most importantly, shred the majesty and hope her opponent inspires, Hillary has as much said she is throwing everything at Obama, kitchen sink included.

“Everything” entails hurling every sleazy insinuation, every rumor of misdeed, every accusation of falsehood, every joke and every rhetorical jab, in the hopes of tarnishing and bloodying him. I commented recently that Hillary had traded the Latino political organizer par excellance, Patti Sollis Doyle, for her hatchet woman - Maggie Williams - because she would not be basing the remainder of her campaign on grassroots organizing and groundwork, but on a relentless, lie-a-minute smear campaign. Hillary has been good enough to oblige my prediction.

She has tried sarcasm, belittling Obama’s message of hope and comity here and abroad.

She has tried sheer meaness, calling his flyers about her vocal support of NAFTA and her promise of inflicting a mandate in her Health Care plan “Rove tactics,” saying they misrepresent and lie.

And, true to form, she has tried racism and xenophobia. In anticipation of today’s debate, the Clinton camp began spreading a picture of Obama in a turban and tribal robes through its e-mail network - the same vehicle that had distributed the “Obama is a Muslim!” hoax.

Only this time, it didn’t end up with a crowd of hand-wringing white people who took it as gospel truth and fair warning of the opening salvo in a secret Islamofascist invasion. This time, Matt Drudge got ahold of it and, in a moment of typical rabble-rousing instinct, made sure it was the top headline on his Web page, the central nervous system of modern news. Hillary’s tactic went from silent sniggering behind Barack’s back to the front page of many a major newspaper today, accusing her of smearing.

Of course, she denied it. And she did so in the most perfidious manner - Ms. Maggie snarled at Obama for finding anything divisive in the first place about the photo being spread around, making it clear his campaign’s offense was what was truly offensive in her opinion. Then Hillary declared she didn’t know what the big deal was - she wears the clothes of other countries all the time, our little naif Hillary insisted - and chalked the whole hooplah up to Obama trying to distract from the issues. All this, of course, while never once denying that they distributed the picture.

On all of these points, Hillary has promised, she was going to take Obama to task tonight. She wants to have a debate to “talk about his tactics.” So, in anticipation of that debate, I thought we might go over hers.

First, the matter of the NAFTA and Health Care flyers. They don’t lie. It will be pretty hilarious to see Hillary try to prove otherwise tonight, because that will mean she will have to prove the following:

1. She did not talk up NAFTA during the early 00s, take partial credit for it in her autobiography and generally pass legislation that was in line with it. She did, and the flyer has quotes from her indicating this.

2. That the “mandate” part of her Health Care program will actually not mandate anything - it will not force you by penalizing you if you don’t comply, and it won’t garnish your wages if you can’t comply. It’ll not be a mandate at all, except that it will…except that it won’t. Or will.

Yes, Hillary is going to have to first disprove history - which, considering her history, one could see why she thinks it “unfair.” And then she will have to disprove logic and/or definition.

Next, she’s going to take him to task for inspiring people - including the media, who she criticizes for calling her out when she lies in personal attacks, but not chastizing him for telling the truth in the attacks he makes on her. I’m sure that will work famously. People always love to hear that they’re doomed, that they need to accept lies as a matter of course in politics, and that there’s no hope for changing the tone in Washington.

She’ll do this by comparing Obama to Bush, by way of noting that both were men inexperienced in direct foreign policy, and look what happened with Bush! Of course, Obama might readily point out that the only three significant acts of foreign policy Clinton has under her belt that Obama doesn’t, Clinton voted with Bush: The PATRIOT Act, the War on Terror authorization and the Iraq War. So whereas Obama theoretically has poor foreign policy experience - though, in theory, he’s excelled so far - Clinton has demonstrably proven herself to be the same as Bush.

Lastly, we can talk about his making some hay of the “dressed” picture, as Drudge called it. Obama himself said this:

“Everybody knows that whether it’s me or Senator Clinton, or Bill Clinton, that when you travel to other countries they ask you to try on traditional garb that you have been given as a gift,” he told WAOI, “The notion that the Clinton campaign would be trying to circulate this as a negative on the same day that Senator Clinton was giving a speech about how we repair our relationships around the world is sad. We are going to try to stay focused on what will make a difference in our foreign policy, including bringing the war in Iraq to an honorable end.”

Very sweet of him. David Plouffe, his campaign manager, was less gracious, sharing my sentiment when he called the distribution of the picture “shameful.” He also went on to note that it is part of a pattern by the Clinton team, one personified by the ghastly, fear-mongering lie that Obama is an American-hating terrorist.

It is a pattern. And, should Clinton continue to be a factor in modern politics, we would not see the end of the kind of tactics that are fueled by fear and doubt, thrive on our resentments and depend on our ignorance.

Fortunately, it is a pattern that leads here - to Ohio, where Clinton’s double-digit lead has shrunk to nearly smaller than the margin of poll error, and where tonight, two will enter, but only one will leave with momentum.

The debate starts just as everyone wanted it to: Asking the chief challengers for criticism of Hillary. Pointedly, they ask how she’s voting like a Republican. I’m not sure if that’s meant to be an insult or a lure for the swing voters.

And it’s the most salient difference - and, arguably, the most salient issue of today - that they challenge her on: Why she broke from the Democratic herd to authorize censures and stronger military measures against Iran and its proxies. Unfortunately for all sides, almost no one’s up front. Hillary says that the measure doesn’t grant Bush anything approaching military power, whereas it does indeed. Everyone else says that Bush is threatening World War III - and technically, he was threatening the threat of World War III. Though I think Hillary’s not even on the same map of reality as everyone else - the one I, for the most part, share - Biden is the one who puts it best:

Bush is going to go into Iran whether it’s authorized or not, because right now, Congress has only served to legitimize or criticize the aggression already committed, as opposed to instituting formal restraints.

Edward cuts in and, parroting Biden to a large extent, makes good points about the war rhetoric. But as of now, we hear only the usual mantra - diplomacy, beware the White House, engage with sanctions and curtail terrorism abroad. All good advice, but a tune older than the Macarena, and so I tune out.

Then everybody is asked to pledge that Iran won’t get a nuke. This is the typical razor-wire trap question the moderators have loved to lay this year. Say “yes”, and they’ll be saying that you’re drafting plans to activate the Dr. Strangelove Doomsday Machine. Say “no” and you /are/ the weakest link; goodbye.

After the break, Hillary is asked about the letter from Bill to his Presidential library, asking that his communications with her during his time in office be kept from the public until 2012. She says that it’s not her place to say, but she wished they were released; too bad it’s not her call. Obama points out that this sort of duplicitous dissembling is more of the same Bushie BS.

He totally takes the initiative to slam Hillary for being shady, shifty, evasive and divisive - more of the same. And speaking of old habits that might die hard, Edwards brings up the rear, repeating what Obama said. He tacks on that she sucks money from the ample endowments of special interests.

Then the moderators ask how Obama’s experience applies to his qualifications. He says that his real expertise is bringing all the right people together to get things done. Considering his foreign policy writings are an articulate melange of both conservative and liberal thought - both Wesley Clark and Brent Scowcroft, Biden and Lugar - I would believe it. He also touts his consistency.

And then the gloves come off. Richardson lays into Obama and Edwards for being negative. Then Dodd takes a swing at everyone; they should be inclusive. Then Edwards pounces on Clinton again, saying if one isn’t critical of Clinton, they’re dooming the future to more of the same - you need to be negative about the parts of the past you don’t want if you’re going to get the future you do want.

Kucinich brings things to an icy crawl by saying everyone’s corrupt, and he’ll fight for the people by smashing NAFTA. There’s kind of an uncomfortable silence, as if he’d passed gas.

Biden livens things up by going after Giuliani, who he claims is utterly unqualified for the position of President. Considering the other resumes on the stage, or minds like Obama, Joe’s speaking to my concerns. My primary qualm with Rudy is that he seems fiercely short on any experience and somewhat out of his depth a lot of the time. And when Rudy has, in the past, shown lack of experience, he’s responded with heavy-handedness.

He argued that had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, it would now be facing two dangerous countries trying to become nuclear powers—Iraq and Iran.

“Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards’ new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out,” Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “Wouldn’t we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers.”

Considering the vapid line he’s expected to regurgitate when it comes to the war on terror, this is not a good habit for our Commander-in-Chief to have. If Giuliani truly believes the above, this is more worrisome than the opportunistic ambivalence shown by the Democrats.

Everyone’s asked about Social Security next. It’s like throwing meat to dogs - in this case, the rib-eye is George W. Bush and the bone in it is fiscal solvency. I’ll spare you the details. Suffice it to say that they’re very positive about Social Security’s future.

Then, before the break, Obama’s asked if he’s worried that people will confuse him with Osama bin Ladin. Obama does not seem concerned.

There will be a lightning round to follow, but this lightning’s going to be striking for the fifth, sixth, seventh time - nobody here has changed their tune. The surprises came for those who bothered to tune in early, and it’ll be cutesy-poo human interest queries to close. So we’ll do the lightning round at true lightning speed:

Green energy, diplomacy, humanism, social security, pro gay rights, military expansion, lower troop levels in combat zones, health care for all.

It used to be that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility, but recent years make this GOP debate on how best to manage the economy seem like a commentary by an ADD eight-year-old with a sweet-tooth on how to protect the cookie jar. Nevertheless, a lot of those taking the stage today have solid budget direction credibility - Giuliani and Romney principally. And best of all, the Big White Hope of the GOP is finally emerging from the wings: Fred Thompson at last leaps into the scrum.

Here, we’ll blog their debate live.

Straight Tax On Flat Taxes

The various candidates begin with a quick carousel about their proposed changes to the tax code.

Huckabee advocates elimination of income tax for the sake of a sales tax, so as to gain more revenue, incentivize domestic productivity and throttle the “underground economy.”

Brownback and Tancredo flat out eliminate federal taxation in its current form. They then use the rest of the time to criticize spending in Washington. This is simply not an impressive tact to take - no more so than when Hillary insists that Social Security is going to be saved by a balanced budget, and then the rest will fall into place. It ignores the real demands of modern, socialized civil society in America - people like their spending, just as they like cheap designer clothes, cheap beef, cheap gourmet coffee, cheap war. These things don’t just pay for themselves, nor will people accept them drying up or vanishing.

Romney and Giuliani then spar over their past records, with Rudy saying he slashed taxes and spending while Romney let his rise. Romney did, in fact, try to limit spending and taxes, but in Massachusetts, that’s like trying to stop a flood with your pockets. Romney ends up just looking like he’s floating, nothing really to hold onto, for Giuliani has him in a corner. He tries to make ground by switching the subject to a line-item veto, but Giuliani takes the steam out of his sidetrack by snatching the man’s platform from him: He claims Romney’s conception of a line-item veto is unconstitutional, but that he favors a lawful use of one.

The blood’s still drying on the canvas as we hop to the next topic.

Free Market Blues

Fred comes to the fore. He’s asked if he’ll protect against outsourcing. After some burly rhetoric about how super-duper the American economy is, he says he won’t protect anybody’s jobs from being cut - that’s not free market.

He may as well have pointed right at his hamstrings and turned his back, as Duncan Hunter lays into Fred by saying that the President must not be against the Free Market here, but can sure as shoot tariff the Chinese to a more favorable trade position. This wins points from the peanut gallery, and applause explodes.

McCain says the issue’s about rampant, bloated spending in the federal budget. Then Tancredo says our anemic economy is due to immigration, sapping our services while raiding the larder of low-income jobs. Recent raids haven’t really proved the whole “swarthy folk are stealing the white man’s jobs” argument, considering that farmers are now puling about food rotting in the fields due to lack of someone to pick them due to immigration crackdowns.

It’s about now that I realize these questions aren’t “questions” per se, but prompts for whatever talking points the candidates need to fire off.

Lock Up Your Stevedores

Rudy is asked about whether, under his administration, the recent spate of denying other countries’ companies control of American services with possible national security implications - namely, the ports and oil owned by Dubai and China.

He rambles about how we need to encourage American exports by redrawing trade agreements. Again, I can just see the barricades going up in the center of the country when Wal*Mart has to sell sweatshirts for a minimum of $45. His ducking the question doesn’t work, and eventually he’s nailed to the wall with the direct inquiry, “Would you allow Dubai to own 20% of NASDAQ?”

He says he would, provided they pass security checks. Ron Paul agrees. McCain calls bullshit on the whole preferrential trade agreements line, saying that protective tariffs had never worked. He then signs on for free trade allowing the Dubai to own 20% of NASDAQ. Fred agrees, rathering droningly.

Hunter slams on the brakes to halt this rare moment of multi-culti lovefest with his big ol’ xenophobic leg, saying he wouldn’t let Dubai own any large interest in NASDAQ, since he doesn’t trust them. He relates that Dubai had some peripheral connection with intelligence that suggested that nuclear weapons triggers might have gone through one of their ports, hence, no trust. And though that rather absurd standard would outlaw a good number of other trade partners - ourselves included - this at least speaks to the sentiment of many Americans: Those that would gasp rather than cheer or shrug when they see “Arabs Buy Controlling Interest In Major American Market”.

Hot Air On Inflation

The next topic is cut short by the jump to commercial, but before we’re smothered in commercials for life insurance and Viagra, Fred comports himself well by rattling off a hunk of numbers that go right over my head, using them as evidence to halt inflation at all costs while one slashes the tax code.

A trend is floating the surface: The tax code’s days are numbered, and protectionist sentiments are just /so/ 2005.

Iraq A Wreck?

Thompson’s then asked about Iraq - Is the policy a good one?

He spouts the usual GOP line these days: We went in with too little troops, but that we’ll now do whatever’s necessary to stabilize the country. I’m glad that they’re finally migrating away from championing the Bush war plan as the greatest thing since Cannae, but again, not a one has said exactly what “whatever’s necessary” entails. Not a mention of a draft, of war bonds, of tac nukes or reforming the Maliki government or UN intervention - nothing. Just “we win by winning.” Some may say that their commitment to the will to win is sufficient to win them support, but considering the “we win by winning” attitude got us where we are now - with a hideously mismanaged strategy that’s only now being slowly, slowly altered - I would strongly disagree.

We do the rounds of the candidates, and they give us the usual, Ron Paul being the only non-interventionist speed bump. Brownback reminds me - as I’d forgotten - that he supports the Biden plan.

When we get to Romney, he says we’ll stay the course, but also threatens Iran. He says that it’s key to /not/ use military force against them, but will do whatever is necessary. He repeats this a number of times, only pausing to call Ahmadinejad a “buffoon”, and saying that it was shameful to have him speak at the UN. I’m sure his poll numbers just spiked, but his diplomatic credit took a nose dive.

Ron Paul is asked about going after Iran’s jugular to prevent a nuclear weapon in Tehran’s hands, and he calls the fear of Iran to be “war propaganda”, pointing out that truly being caught by surprise by an enemy troop build up has never happened in our history. Sadly, I would disagree. I think he has a point when it comes to Iran and nukes, but we have been jumped quite a few times. He demands that Congress give its support for any military action as an act of war.

Interestingly, Fred takes the same tact when it comes to Congress.

Yet McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee all say that they’d like to consult Congress, but ultimately wouldn’t if they felt the pressure was really on. Giuliani scoffs at Paul saying we’d never been surprise attacked, and cites 9/11.

I sigh. Paul shoots back that 9/11 wasn’t a country, and that watching enemy weapon build-up is different. Giuliani says that, in fact, it was organized in a country - Afghanistan and Pakistan. Paul tries to bounce back, but Rudy’s in fine fettle and motors on, saying that if the clock was ticking to stop Iran from having a nuke, he’d act. No doubt Paul might’ve pointed out that, in fact, it was not “planned” there in any immediate sense - it was planned in Germany, the US and Saudi Arabia more than in Afghanistan.

It strikes me that given 9/11 is perhaps the most significant factor Rudy has in his favor, he might get the facts right. But then, it strikes me, getting the facts right would be counter-productive. That’s not how you play to the base on 9/11.

What The World Needs Now, Is Oil

Resource control - energy independence - is the next topic. The candidates are asked in turn what they’d do.

Tancredo, McCain and Giuliani all say that drilling domestically and a dash of green is the way to go. All of them talk about how the issue of energy independence is a crucial safeguard against terrorism. But it’s Huckabee, who’s looking increasingly appealing, who really lights things up, with an energetic assessment of our energy policy.

Huckabee says, by inference, that the Apollo Program is what’s needed - that this is a defense emergency and an environmental emergency that “has to be handled like NASCAR, not like taking the family station wagon in so that Goober and Gomer can look at it when they have time under the shade tree.” Charming quote, but the core of it has real resonance. He breathes some life and urgency into this.

Fred promptly kills it. He sounds about as enthusiastic as a Paxil commercial. Romney lights it up again, adding to Huckabee’s impassioned illustration about resource management that it would get the economy kicking in a way America wants and needs. It makes me sorry he was such a heel to anybody who gets the slightest fleck of mud on them - be that Obama, Larry Craig or Ahmadinejad. Now, whenever he talks about daring social programs, it smacks of the shiny-toothed fascists - politicians that embrace the people and yet will devour their young.

The Daddy Party Knows Best

Matthews asks how the Republicans can restore the people’s faith in the Republican Party’s management of the economy (among other things).

Romney says that fiscal vision and confidence is the way to go. Giuliani suggests the same, and notes that going confidently into the global community with new energy independence technology is the way to go - that’s what’ll give us an edge. He’s absolutely right.

Tancredo says that illegal immigration will be the cureall for wage rate increases and economic growth. He claims that the Republican stewardship of the nation had no principles, what with pouring slop subsidies into the gullet of big business and selling out the farm on illegal immigration and spending.

Suffer The Baby Boomers

Fred is asked how to save Social Security. He says Social Security is screwed, and says it in about a dozen ways from, “beating the corn” to “pitting generations against each other”. He then says that fiscal responsibility and “index benefits for inflation” are the way to go. I am just not sure what that latter thing is. But Fred says, “it will be a major step in the right direction.” How? What? Anyway, we move on.

Off The Fast Tracks

Tancredo is asked if the Bush Administration did an awful job negotiating trade agreements. He brightens right up; this is clearly his topic. He gives us a minute-long “you betcha”, ennumerating the ways that other countries were given far too great a benefit at the expense of the American people, for the sake of Multi-National Corporate benefits.

Romneycare

Romney is asked how his plan differs from Hillarycare2K. He says it is “individual”, “wiser”, and focus on private companies, not public medicine. Well, he might be right about the “wiser” in its spending - we just can’t tell, of course. As for the other two, so does hers.

Love Thy Enemy

They are asked about unions.

Huckabee points out that the right to unionize is good and proper, and that unions will explode onto the streets when wages are no longer adequate for a basic standard of living. He implies this time is nigh.

Romney says there are good unions and bad unions. He wants to tell an insightful story, but is cut off. He tries again. He is shut down. No story for him.

Fred says that there are good unions and bad. Rudy agrees. Hunter describes a union as “a receptacle of power” and says you need to work with them. Brownback tells a folksy story about how unions can be good; his mother was in one as a mail carrier. He notes there are bad unions too, but refrains from telling any such story.

Tancredo is not so happy about unions. He criticizes unions and civil servant benefits being coupled. He also claims unions stack their ranks with illegal immigrants. Truly, he is a man after his time. If Tancredo was in the 4th century Roman Senate, he could have saved the Empire. And his defense policy would’ve been better received.

Policing the Internet

Matthews asks Rudy how to police the internet.

Rudy says you shouldn’t tax it. However, you should organize a new state-federal tax force to hunt down predators and pornography. He doesn’t advocate creating a public agency to do it, but instead using the resources available, organized differently. He also suggests liaising with private security firms.

McCain says he would not police the ‘net any differently than now, but would be more aggressive in pursuing child predators on the ‘net.

And now, the Lightning Round

To Huckabee - Would you have vetoed SCHIP? Huckabee - No. He would have got it right the first time, working with Congress to craft it so that it wouldn’t have been so profligate.

To Thompson - Dangers of a weak dollar? Thompson - It threatens our credit, but it’s good for our exports.

To Rudy - What to do when China own us? Rudy - The Democrats are very negative all the time. Sell more goods to China.

To Ron - Would you support the GOP nominee no matter what? Ron - No.

To Tancredo - Would you? Tancredo - No.

To Brownback - Would you? Brownback - Yeah. Because they’re going to be pro-growth and pro-life.

To Hunter - Would you? Hunter - Yes, because they’re going to be pro-life, which is at the root of our problems.

To Giuliani - Will London replace NYC as the financial capitol of the world? Rudy - No way. We’ll keep selling our country’s culture and technology, and they’ll keep buying.

To Romney - Will London replace NYC as the financial capitol of the world? Romney - No, and I’ll support the GOP nominee.

To Fred - Will you pay some attention to Canada? Fred - They need to be with us in the War on Terror, and, yes, I’ll pay plenty of attention.

To Huckabee - How will you fix the airlines? Huckabee - They’ve got to get with the program.

To McCain - How will you catch bin Ladin? McCain - Create an “O.S.S.” tasked with one mission: Get him.

To Romney - Greatest threat to American economy? Romney - Pessimism.

To Brownback - Greatest threat to the US economy? Brownback - Illegitimate children.

To Rudy - Would it be good to have a third party? Rudy - No. And also, lack of education is the greatest threat to our economy.

To Fred - How did the debate go? Did you wait too long?

And I will forego his lame attempt at humor in responding, and simply leave you with this:

He makes me miss Alan Keyes.

Russert is a fine interviewer - as close to a two-fisted interviewer as they come in the mainstream. He met the Dems in Dartmouth, and the results are reviewed live here.

How To Leave Iraq?

Russert’s first question was put to Obama, asking him how he’d redeploy the troops if troop levels remained in line with the Bush administration’s predictions. Obama gave a detailed answer as to how he’d deploy, beyond stating that his strategy involved an immediate drawdown and the placing of precedence on counter-terrorism and training activities, rather than broad security. I have the doubts about the tactical efficiency of this, as I’ve always felt so much of the ill in Iraq is due to too few troops.

I don’t have doubts about his strategic integrity though, as, when Russert asked directly, Obama said he may keep troops in Iraq into his second term. That’s the kind of determination anyone could respect.

Hillary, on the other hand, merely said she agreed with Obama that it was hard to predict the future, and didn’t go beyond that. I think Obama did a fine job of showing how one /can/ speak to the future without issuing impossible promises. In any event, she goes on to blame Bush and then closes by swearing to begin drawing down troops the moment she’s sworn in.

Edwards talks about even deeper cuts. He criticizes any “combat missions” - proposed by Clinton, in the context of counter-terrorism, prior to the debate - and notes he’d want only about a brigade of troops, 3,500, to protect the embassy. That would make the island sanctuary of the Green Zone smaller and nuttier than Gilligan’s Island. A brigade couldn’t secure us against that country’s collapse any more than the New Orleans levees could stand against Katrina. It’s simple numbers.

As for Edwards balancing the lack of troops with some awesome diplomacy that sways Iran and Saudi Arabia to not use that weakness to their advantage, well, I have little hope for his folksy populism winning over those ruthless realists.

Magic Carpet Ride

Russert then swivels the spotlight onto Richardson, and demands to know how he’d yank the troops out in less than six months without using the mystical secrets of the Orient. Richardson blabs about how the other Dems aren’t prioritizing it. Russert keeps on him, demanding to know how he’d bend the laws of physics.

It’s then that Russert admits that he’d have to leave some “light equipment” behind and would need to persuade Turkey to let our troops through. How driving through the Roman roads of Eastern Turkey would speed things up much, I don’t know, and I doubt Turkey would allow it gladly. More importantly, “light equipment” includes little things like assault weaponry, explosive ammunition and technology. A similar withdrawal - from Lebanon in the eighties - almost singlehandedly created the modern small arms market. What Richardson proposes would be a slow-motion Hiroshima for the world’s bush wars.

Biden talks of Obama’s attitude in principle. Dodd does the same with Richardson’s plan. I nod to one fellow and shake my head at the other. Biden also mentions that his plan won some 75 Senate votes, which is no mean sum and smells Veto proof. I’ll be running a follow-up article to see if it’s so.

Kucinich, when asked, talks a good game of enhancing peace, but I’m still not sold that sprinkling cash and goodwill on that country is going to do other than be sugaring a seething cauldron.

So far, the Dems, when pressed, have been forced to admit, “Yes, we may have to be in there in a big way five years down the line and without end.” The best of them - the only ones worth it - have a plan.

The Reps haven’t been pressed. And to a man, their plan is, “Just win.”

That’s not a plan. It’s not even victory at any cost. That’s a formula for disaster at any cost.

Speaking of which, Gravel mentions that the Congress is complicit in continuing the war, and seems to - at most - be simply using it as a chance to score political “anti-Bush” points. At least - and he cites legislation condemning Iran - it’s facilitating a hostile and destabilizing agenda.

Dodd is asked if actually blocking any spending is practical. Dodd suggests it isn’t, but says you can at least chasten the administration. He may as well have just said, “Really, we’re powerless … Vote for us!”

Those Damned Hypotheticals

Hillary is then asked a very direct question about principles. “Would the Israelis be justified if they bomb an Iranian nuclear site if they feel threatened?”

She dismisses it as a “hypothetical”. Russert insists it isn’t. She insists it is and then begins to try to mention the recent IDF bombing run into Syria and blame Bush in the process. He steers it back to her. She dodges. He says what Rudy directly said. She dodges again, and that closes it down.

Obama is asked. He says that diplomatic solutions are his emphasis, and lists a few - namely, the tactics of economic sanctions. Russert presses in, demanding to know whether he’ll promise the American people - like Rudy did - that there will be no Nuclear Iran. Obama says that the US under his watch will do “whatever is necessary.”

Good enough in a pinch. But it makes it very clear that no one wants to say flat out that they’ll bomb Iran.

Funny that they don’t, considering how big a hit McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song was.

Edwards is called on, and meanders off on a discourse about bad intelligence. He steers it back to a place near where Clinton was, which is nowhere near an answer. Russert moves on, likely realizing Edwards may as well be responding in Martian so far as hopes for an intelligible direct response are concerned.

Richardson, however, says, “Yes,” promising both a non-nuclear Iran /and/ a strong Israel. He says that international support’s been lacking in the past, and cites that he wants to talk to the moderates in Iran. That’s a nice idea, but if the Mullahs feel their moderates are being subverted, they’ll shut them down. I’m both dubious of his strategy and aware that, were it to work, it would be a delicate thing.

From that point on, Richardson refuses to say explicitly that he’d back an Israeli missile strike on Iran. We move along from then, skating onwards atop the sheen of sweat left by the candidates on the floor - all of whom just saw headlines flash before their eyes that cast them as the second coming of Barry Goldwater, or an anti-Semitic spaghetti-spined sellout.

Sanctuary Cities

The question is “are sanctuary cities kosher with you?”

Richardson essentially says, “Sure, and we need more funding to manage immigration.” He proposes giving precedence of legimitizing illegals before those “waiting in line” to become citizens. The question doesn’t stick.

It does stick to Biden, who notes that the INS needs more cash to do anything - that it’s even underfunded, let alone too small for the managing task asked of it. He then says, no, harboring illegals isn’t alright.

Dodd suggests immigration law reform first and foremost.

At this point, keeping things lively, Russert begins moving down the line and tapping each candidate pointblank in the dome with the question about sanctuary cities.

Not a one is going to answer. Obama too cites reforming immigration law and giving the INS more money for enforcement, but he ducks the question same as Dodd did. Hillary at least says, “there’s no choice” but for sanctuary cities to ignore the federal law. She notes the genuine concern that otherwise, illegal immigrants and any of their cohorts will refuse to speak with the police.

Gravel says he’s ashamed that the country’s keeping people out. Eh, whatever. Considering the condition of Mexico, open borders would be tantamount to open invitation, and with open voting as well, we’d not be far from reparations for the war of 1846. Viva Santa Ana.

Bush Sees All, Knows All

Russert’s next question is to give the candidates some breathing room, surely. He asks how Bush’s prognostications about Hillary clinching the nomination sit with them. I’ll be using this time to kick back and watch where this fluff piece flits.

Hillary gets an open mike for her position on health care. Most of it is a back and forth about the merits of her future plan compared to that of her former plan.

One thing worthwhile she mentions is that all the predictions adversaries of her past plan made as to what her plan would do, came about any way under the deregulated HMOs and private companies of the 90s. The disaster came about not because we adopted her plan, but because we didn’t. Maybe it would’ve been worse, but considering factors like the recent battle between the UAW and General Motors - in which GM had to pay through the nose for health care that its competitors don’t have to worry about, thanks to government-run care - it’s hard to imagine we need less, not more, government involvement in health.

Edwards plays the “born again health care candidate” card, after Russert notes that he’d dogged on it previously, even in ‘04. He does, however, seem ardent about it, and his plan has numbers. That’s more than most can say.

When it comes to Obama, the question’s not about health care. It’s about his experience. “Why,” Russert asks, “if 04 wasn’t the right time, is now the right time?”

He talks about how, right now, the country needs a leader like him. He in essence describes himself as a uniter. I could not agree more that is what’s needed, and that he measures up.

The Russert juggernaut rolls on.

He roasts Gravel for going bankrupt twice. Gravel somehow ties his 90K of debt being stuck to the credit card companies with an initiative to empower voters. I’m not buying it.

Kucinich’s Cleveland Mayorship - less than awesome, save that he was nearly killed by the mob and stuck to his principles, but unpopular all the same - is brought up. Dennis doesn’t even mention the mob hit. He does, however, say that people liked him battling for what he was elected on. That much is true. They just didn’t like the rest of him; at least not enough to bring him back to Cleveland’s city hall. They sent him on to the nation’s “city hall” instead, sixteen years or so later.

Richardson’s less-than-shining domestic liberal cred is challenged. Not surprisingly, he talks about his diplomatic experience.

The King And King

The candidates are asked if they would want their kids to be read, in second grade, a story about a prince marrying another prince.

Edwards says he’s all for it, and for getting rid of DOMA.

Obama says the same, and suggests it’s key to not feed people’s fears of each other.

Clinton takes it a step further, noting that feeding fears was critical to the last two Presidential electoral successes, and agreeing with the previous position.

Things move on after an entirely predictable 6 minutes.

Social Security Insecurity

Russert’s question is - “Will you adjust the Social Security qualifications or taxes?”

Biden is the first to be asked. He says, yes, he’d do something, and between cutting benefits or raising taxes, he’d go for raising the income cap for the taxes.

Hillary says that it’s all about balancing the budget. The heck it is. She also says bipartisan compromise and Presidential leadership is necessary. She says that before these things are implemented, /everything/ is off the table. No options.

Russert presses her on it. She says, again, “nope - nothing is on the table.” Guess we’ll have to wait until she’s out of office to get any proposals.

Obama takes the other tact - that everything is on the table, and he’ll get people together to sort it out.

Dodd says everybody’s getting too extreme about raising the cap, but says that’s the way to go.

Richardson talks about growing out of it, and just not spending so much that we need to raid Social Security. Even if his scheme to do this was based on selling all that “light equipment” in Iraq, he wouldn’t be able to pull that off. He calls 1.3% economic growth “pathetic” and claims he can make that up, and thereby finance Social Security. That’s a tall claim. Considering how he goes about planning for his other tall claim - getting the troops out of Iraq - I’m suspicious.

Edwards backs the idea of boosting the cap, but adjusting it such that the middle class is the group that’s capped - not the very wealthy. His range seems pretty narrow, but, indeed, we could use a stronger middle class.

Hillary finishes this round by again expressing the importance of fiscal responsibility. I feel it’s a distraction; fiscal responsibility only goes so far, especially when the debt is actually more good than harm in some ways, globally. Then she notes that the Democratic administrations have been better budget stewards than the GOP. This, I’m sad to admit, has been true since Carter passed over the reins.

But when she claims that she has “said where she stands” and what she’ll do about fixing social security - not just setting the table for the parties to sit down and discuss how to do it, but her ideas for doing it - I have to call foul. She spent a lot of time tonight explaining just how she /wasn’t/ going to say any such thing.

Banning Butts

The question is, “Would you support a national law to ban smoking?”

Hillary says that she isn’t, “at this point.”

Obama says “the local laws” should “play themselves out,” and are making great strides. He prefers the local.

Everybody else favors a national ban.

Keggy Loves You

The next question is, “Would you let the States decide the drinking age?”

The people of Dartmouth, where the debate is held and where their school mascot is “Keggy the Kegstand”, cheers.

Biden says that alcohol exacts a stiff health cost from this country - deformed babies, alcohol-related illness and crimes - and letting more people have better access to alcohol isn’t going to help that.

Dodd agrees. Richardson does too. They both float various ideas about rehab, education and law enforcement.

Only Gravel and Kucinich are all for lowering the drinking age - Gravel for a reason ripped from the pages of “Sgt. Rock” comics: Anyone old enough to fight should be old enough to drink. However, since it doesn’t naturally follow that not everybody old enough to fight will, but that plenty of people old enough to drink will, regardless of how they feel about serving their country, this is not so winning a rationale.

Kucinich makes the good point that leading kids by example through responsible drinking is better than telling them - and I quote - “thou shalt not” (an accidental Biblical double-negative, but whatever). This is true, but lowering the drinking age will not turn parents into examples of responsible drinking. It’ll just increase access to booze for the responsible and irresponsible alike. This means nothing more than a slight increase in alcohol related ills - certain disease and accidents - and gains - “Girls Gone Wild Videos”? I’m not sure.

And here we have Dennis Kucinich’s central flaw: He expects everybody is, at heart, Dennis Kucinich. And I don’t want to sound like Hobbes here - after all, I do believe in leading by example. But to make a stark generalization to poke a hole in Kucinich’s central spiritual thesis, there are actually two kinds of people in this world: Those who are or could strive to be as decent as Dennis, and those who will beat those people up and take their lunch money.

Lightning Round

Obama’s asked if “turning the page” means getting past the Bushes, Clintons or both. He says he means getting away from divisiveness, special interests and deceptions.

Clinton is asked whether the fact that 40% of Americans only knew a White House with a Bush or a Clinton in it is a good thing. She says Bill was a great President. As for me, I found that notion chilling. And yet, I liked Bush I and Clinton I. They’re not to blame.

It just goes to show - sequels always suck.

Biden’s asked if MoveOn.org has changed politics for the better. He says he doesn’t think they’ve changed politics. I agree. He says they’ve done some good things. Again, in agreement. And he indicates that they don’t “own” the party, contrary to a hubristic comment by their executive director, Eli Pariser. I’m still nodding. For honestly, MoveOn is not “the process”, it’s just part of it. And like any broad action committee with good intentions, it tried things both positive and negative.

At this point, the lightning round becomes a blur. Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards are asked questions. They get laughs.

Then we get to Obama’s excuse that he didn’t go to Jena and intervene in the racially divisive events there because he was busy trying to mitigate Iraq. My thoughts on Jena will be coming soon, but suffice it to say that anything - even “I had to be in Washington in order to not vote at all on the bill condemning MoveOn.org” - would have been fine by me.

On nuclear power, Edwards says “no go”, flat out. Obama says it’s an option. Kucinich says green energy alone can do it. Gravel thinks wind will be sufficient. Clinton’s with Obama - that nothing’s off the table.

Then comes a nutty question asking whether, if we had the number three guy in al-Q, he knew a bomb was going off somewhere and we knew it, the candidate would have him tortured for the information.

Obama says you just don’t sanction torture. Biden says the same. Clinton says the same.

But Bill doesn’t! It comes out that Bill had cooked up that zany scenario. Clinton is then demanded to say where she differs from Bill. She doesn’t specify.

I’m still wondering how, if we’re so certain about the bomb that we’re going to torture this guy, we haven’t found it already.

In any event, everybody agrees that you don’t abridge freedoms and torture and so on and so forth. Of course, most acts of war are in violation of these very principles, but the first three candidates were right - you can’t sanction that kind of truth.

Also, torture really /is/ unreliable. And when you use it as a policy, it does particularly dark things to your personnel and appearance. So it’s best to keep off the books.

From torture, to money - the next question is about whether Presidential Libraries should make public their dues. This one keeps many Americans up at night, surely. Everybody’s all for transparency, in a vague way.

Edwards is asked if he spends too much money on stuff. He says he started poor, and worked until he was rich. He’s right, and that’s all very nice for him. I think we should stop bothering rich people about their frivolities and expenses, and begin taxing them more. That will satisfy people’s hatred of “The Man” and feed the kitty.

Next, “What’s Your Favorite Bible Passage?”

Obama goes for “Sermon on the Mount”. Always a classic - the “Stairway to Heaven” of responses to this question. Empathy is the core of it, and Obama says he wants to restore.

Clinton - “the golden rule”. Gravel doesn’t really have one. Dennis has a quote from St. Francis, which is close - “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace”. Richardson goes for the Sermon on the Mount too. And Dodd for “the good Samaritan”. Edwards opts for “that which you do to the least of us, you do to me.” A fine notion, but nothing you want to govern by.

Biden goes for “the warning of the Pharisees.” Nice. Hardcore, Joe.

Then comes “Yankees or Red Sox”. And me, I’m a football fan, and I’m running late for Sloppy Joes and college ball. This post is over.

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.

The Democratic candidates for the Presidency attended a debate on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Issues hosted by the Human Rights Campaign in Los Angeles, and ended up showing some significant differences. Surprising, no - but significant, yes. They’ll be broken down below.

KUCHINICH AND GRAVEL: Before getting to the way in which the others are different, we’ll handle the two that may as well be the same. Dennis and Mike both insist that so far as LGBT issues - all issues, actually - are concerned, love is the answer.

No, I’m serious. They said that.

And while they may have a point there on a certain humanist or Christian level, love as an effective governing policy or means of defense has yet to be conceived of. Love’s also pretty subjective in many cases - Do you love Israeli settlers more than Palestianians barely surviving on the land they want? If not, whose house are you going to deny them and call it love?

Metaphysics made policy aside, their positions on LGBT issues are all the most advanced in terms of social liberties. Their position is consistently, “whatever the community wants, with us, it gets.” That either of these men could convince the rest of Washington and the American public to march to that tune is highly unlikely.

RICHARDSON: Bill Richardson seemed as tired of the debate as I was of listening to it at that point. He was unenthusiastic, talked about legislation that he’d launched and seen fail, and sat on the fence about gay marriage in a big way.

Perhaps it was his reluctance to stand for a strong, federalized law ensuring civil unions, but somehow Richardson earned this panel’s Kiss of Death question. They asked him if he believed sexual orientation is a choice.

Or, in essence, “would you like to lose the vote of the gay community and their sympathizers, or most traditional religious groups?”

He at least took a stance - “It’s a choice” - which is not the one the gay community, who actually are gay, take. I suppose that’s better than others I’ve heard on this widely debated question that still has psychologists scratching their heads on some aspects, for instance “I know people who’ve chosen not to be gay” and “I think everyone’s at least a little gay.”

EDWARDS: Edwards showed why he’s always seemed a perpetual second-stringer to me. He’s reactionary and loves to divert. This is no knock to his expertise or anything, but it does not distinguish one was what many consider to be fit for a role of “First Citizen of the World”.

Rather than expand on his policy or how he’d get it enacted, Edwards talked about everybody but himself. He touched on his wife, Ann Coulter, “the Right”, Bush, and spun syrupy-sweet yarns to show that his heart runs raw. This is all very well and good for someone you want as your televangelist. As a President, anecdotes take a back seat to action.

Another defining Edwards moment was when he was asked about his statements that his wife, but not he, supported gay marriage, and that his lack of support came from “his faith.” He claimed that this was because he was “on a journey” with the issue, and I assume he meant in an internal sense, but it may’ve just meant from a red state to a blue state considering what he said last night.

Joe Solomone confronted him with his comments and asked, “Just what about your faith leads you to oppose gay marriage?”

Edwards responded that it had been “wrong” for him to say that; it was wrong to use faith to justify policy positions, there had been enough of that the last seven years. In fact, he supported gay marriage now! Praise Jesus!

Solomone’s answer to this would’ve been mine. “Considering you were ‘on a journey’ with this issue”, he asked, “where on that journey do you think you are now?” The end? Just stopping by, maybe?

OBAMA: Obama had a lot going for him in this debate. He went first, considering he responded positively to the invitation first. He has, as he said, made equal freedoms for all and speaking the truth even when especially difficult hallmarks of his career. And in what he said this night, he set himself apart from other candidates who support “civil unions”.

He summed up his position carefully, surely cautious about offending those who would feel their marriage’s “specialness” jeopardized by gay marriage. He said he wanted to “disentangle ‘marriage’ from the civil rights issue.” He intended to institute this federally - to make all marriage licensing a federal, civil union license.

This is a terrific notion. It allows religions to call the civil union that the state grants whatever they want - marriage, hand-fasting, what-have-you - and so lets churches stick to their faith. Gays can get married in churches that will marry them. They can call it marriage. They will have the same right to do so, and all the same legal rights as anyone else who calls themselves married, straight or gay.

It went over like a lead balloon. It’s tragic that the moderators and commentators didn’t see the potentials in this scheme of “marriage control”, that essentially liberates the term for private use while extending public rights to all.

Particularly considering that it was considered on parity with Hillary’s solution.

CLINTON: Clinton was a mass of excuses as to why things didn’t change during the 90s - “Republicans” - and why they won’t change quickly even today - “Republicans.” She explained that politics is a gradual process, and that it’s other people, not her, that are to blame for this. Once she’s in charge, there won’t be this problem, apparently.

Coverage of this debate have not distinguished her from Obama or Edwards, simply saying they were all against DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and in favor of anti-discrimination laws and civil unions. This is patently false. Saying Obama spoke in favor of the same concept of civil unions as Hillary is like saying Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke in favor of Jim Crow laws.

Clinton advocated that civil unions and gay marriage be a state issue. She would make sure that civil unions be mandated as having full equivalence with marriage rights, but the rest is up to the states to decide. How is this different from Obama’s?

Well, it’s different in that since gay marriage became an issue, some twenty-eight states have been coerced by fringe political activists to write into their Constitution that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. How this is not being contested as a violation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments, I do not know - it is, in essence, writing a law saying that one group can exercise a certain kind of speech and another group cannot. Hillary’s plan will explicitly allow this to continue. Leaving it to the states is just what happened under the era of “separate but equal”.

And yet she got a standing ovation.

Debate Season is like the flu season for the political junkie. It starts, and vectors of controversy start drifting around. You know sooner or later you’re going to catch a case. You’ll turn on the TV or plug into the streaming video and then, for a good day or so, you’re as good as bed-ridden, rotten with a surfeit of ideas and rhetoric. The symptoms are runny opinions, a fevered sense of self-importance, and a headache.

I caught it bad this Tuesday and managed to scribble down thorough notes on my worsening condition. I watched all four major debates - MSNBC’s and CNN’s - and managed to cough out every gory impression. Hopefully the case I share with you won’t make your head spin as badly as most victims of this particularly virulent strain - one that has no less than eighteen, count ‘em, eighteen candidates. Remember to keep well hydrated.

This post will only cover the recent CNN debates. MSN’s sloppy format and 5th-grade level “what kind of tree would you be” kind of questions, while intriguing, will just get a few paragraphs devoted to it in a couple days’ time. If you feel you’re missing out on something by reading this limited review, I assure you to think again. If you still feel that way, best watch the MSN round yourself. You can post any subsequent comments of the “you warned me, but I didn’t listen” variety with the suggestion link below.

First will come the Democratic Party debate summary, then the Republican. And since I know many of you have other things you might need to go off and do, I’ve put summary opinions at the beginning of each section.

Enjoy. Or, as is a more realistic hope, endure. Primary season is only a little less than a year away.

The Democratic Debates - More Crying Over Spilled Milk

Bottom Line: Obama strikes the pose of a young but learned statesman while Biden shows fire, guts and vision. Both men show a ready brilliance - choosing between them is a matter of whether you want a guy who’ll coax the world into shape or go at it with hammer and tongs.

The Democratic Party candidates all did their level best to declare themselves the best candidate to clean up the Bush mess and get back to where we were back in 2000. It was like watching competing cleaning crews rather than architects for the future. I found myself having weird feelings of time disjunction while they talked about issues like gays in the military and health care - it was like watching a time capsule being unearthed. Then a discussion about illegal immigration would snap me back to the present. Any and all foreign or defense policy seemed to be geared towards repairing the shambles we’re in, in order to get back to the not-so-halcyon days of 2000, with Eric Shinseki’s military and bin Ladin our top terrorist priority rather than the al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia flavor-of-the-month.

To be entirely fair, Senator Gravel and Representative Kucinich didn’t bother talking about restoring our military, our international alliances and our objectives in the War on Terror. Gravel spent most of his wind ripping into his former Capitol Hill colleagues as sellouts and airing suspicious doomsday scenarios, while Kucinich talked broadly about the Elysium era the USA will bring about as soon as we renounce warfare. How either of these two even contribute to the debate is beyond me. Gravel seemed to be doing nothing but pointing out government is flawed and beholden to special interests, a Gordian knot that only fierce, unilateral action by an American executive can open. That’s about as useful as yelling at the TV. Kucinich failed to convince me how renouncing warfare will do anything but get us sideline seats to the genocide du jour, watching what we could’ve prevented.

Of those still engaged in the political process and not just throwing stones as it passes them by, every candidate could speak with authority, knowledge and poise to at least one issue.

Bill Richardson came off as unrealistic and bizarre most of the time, but he nailed it on the issues of Illegal Immigration - stating we should ardently prosecute the employers of illegal workers as the first step in enforcement - Energy Independence - demanding an ‘Apollo program’ approach to achieving energy independence that would galvanize the nation’s populace and transform its industry to lead in the 21st century - and what to do with Clinton - send him as a treaty-broker to where he’s been more effective than just about any President, the Middle East. But when Bill talked about his global priority being preschools and started to hold forth about balancing the budget using the same techniques as in New Mexico, I tuned out. Having him blow the horn of “give peace a chance” in the War on Terror was not encouraging either.

Christopher Dodd had it down on a few points too, but never looked more than reactionary. When he did seem to get in the gate ahead of everyone to make a cogent point, it was on issues that could and should not sway an election. He spoke eloquently on the usefulness of encouraging education in languages given the global security and economic environment when asked about English as the Official Language. He pointed at subsidies to the oil industry being unnecessary to a group that cuts as many throats as necessary to win record profits. But on the major issues of today, he was a voice from the third row.

Edwards and Clinton were heard, but most of the time you wished they wouldn’t be.

Clinton managed to say a lot to inspire and nothing to direct. She inspired suspicion, frustration, even scorn for the questions, but the closest she came to a plan was declaring Iraq “George Bush’s war”. That she views our strategic commitments as the equivalent of a departing roommate’s socks, to be discarded so that a fresh start can be begun, is not promising. If she talked about any plan beyond “restoring” this or “reaching out” to that, I missed it. Unfortunately, every real criticism missed her. She came off as poised, even above it all. One hopes she drifts away.

Edwards set a tone of being insidiously aggressive against his fellow debaters, and when he tried for sincerity - even bold insight - it came off as just another calculation as a result. I always deplore politics that sound like used car sales, and the reason why they do most of the time is you know that the guy smiling at you and patting that gleaming Pinto could lie through his teeth or bite your hand with the same grin on his face. He had two moments when, if you weren’t so offensively blinded by the gaudy, insincere charm, you could almost make out he had a point. First, he talked of fostering democracy in Iran while using sanctions to drive a wedge between the people and its unpopular right-wing government - basically take the air out of the fear-mongers’ sails in Tehran while making the Iranian people defend their burgeoning-but-delicate economy with some liberal political action. This is the soul of what to do with Iran, a nation in flux - not an empire of evil, but a land on the threshold of light and dark. Secondly, he proposed a universal college system for young Americans, in which they could work to pay their way through subsidized education if they showed the merit. These are fine, bold, clear plans, presented by someone who is serpentine in his false charm.