The Best Debate So Far

I was impressed by the quality of the recent CNN/YouTube Democratic debate. To an extent, the use of user-created videos to ask questions of the candidates was a gimmick, especially since external controls were used on both the selection (which video questions were played on CNN) and the direction (which candidate was asked which questions) of the questions. Nonetheless, just the fact that all video questions asked throughout the debate were submitted by members of the general public was a triumph for democracy. Ultimately, though, a debate's quality depends less on the questions asked and more on the substance of the dialogue and the performance of the debaters. The unusual format of the debate and oddball nature of some of the questions asked did not generally discomfit the candidates who as a group performed quite well. Most importantly, this debate brought to the forefront some of the divisions on the Iraq issue that exist among the Democrats.

Although the Democratic party has tried to establish itself as the anti-war party, the candidates do not agree on how the military situation in Iraq should be handled. Bill Richardson went on the offensive in this debate by boldly declaring that the troops should be brought home in six months -- all of them. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton argued that this was simply not feasible from a logistical point of view, an argument which Richardson unfortunately was not invited to respond to. Furthermore, Biden stated his support for a residual force in Iraq to remain even after most troops had returned home. He has come out publicly with perhaps the most detailed Iraq plan of any of the candidates, and he sounds far more in his element discussing Iraq than almost any other issue. Richardson, though, managed to do the remarkable: he distinguished himself quite markedly from Clinton and Biden by presenting a plan which would accomplish two things their plans would not: bring the troops home in six months and leave no residual force in Iraq. I see that as a message that could really appeal to military families, especially among those who are concerned that Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home but at the same time also greatly weaken the military in order to fund his ambitious social programs. Richardson, in short, has provided himself as a safe alternative between Joe "Let's Bring Some of the Troops Home" Biden and Dennis "Show Me the Money" Kucinich. Personally, I still like the Biden plan because it shows concern both for American and Iraqi interests and addresses both political and social issues, but if fighting continues in Iraq unabated more and more people (including myself) are likely to start supporting "quick and dirty" measures which will end American casualties but leave even more chaos than already exists in their wake.

This debate was also important to me personally because it helped me understand the Hillary Clinton campaign a little bit better. What an individual viewer actually gets from a debate is often very personal; that is why there are supporters of every candidate who participated in the YouTube debate that firmly believe their candidate won the debate. Some things are harder to get than others; for me, making sense of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate has been hard. The woman is a good debater in that she speaks very well, but the day after the debates I almost never find myself thinking about what Mrs. Clinton spoke about the day before. The CNN/YouTube debate was a particularly able vehicle for Clinton because it gave her an opportunity to answer a wide variety of questions, some that probably would not have been asked in other venues. She answered them all readily and eloquently, even those which questioned her femininity, her liberality, or her ability to lead her country diplomatically. Finally, the obvious struck me: Hillary Clinton is actively trying to use the debates to create an aura of intelligence and competence about herself, not to detail her political plans exhaustively. This tactic is only worthy of strong disparagement if the candidate is trying to be something she is not; I actually do think Clinton is an intelligent and competent person, and in fact her ability to answer random questions on the fly as she did in the debate is testament to her intelligence and competence! Theoretically, an intelligent and competent president should be able to face unexpected situations as they arise very well; likewise, a "tough" and "uncompromising" president should be able to lead the War on Terror very effectively (yes, Rudy Giuliani is an "aura" candidate too!). So, voting for an aura rather than just a set of policies might not be such a bad thing...it might, however, be unsettling to find out what a candidate's policies actually are only after he or she has been voted in, so I wouldn't recommend judging any candidate solely on his or her debate persona!