The Democratic All-American Presidential Forum

Recently, the Democratic presidential candidates gathered to debate at Howard University. This debate, the first All-American Presidential Forum hosted by Tavis Smiley, was unusual in its emphasis on what are often neglected, marginalized issues. For example, no question on the Iraq war was directly asked of the candidates, but they were asked of their attitudes towards the situation in Darfur and high HIV/AIDS rates in the African-American community. Perhaps because the debate organizers wanted to cover so many different topics, time given for each candidate to speak was quite limited, so there was a shortage of substantive answers...not that that's unusual for a presidential debate! However, I feel that a time limit on a debate should not be so fixed in stone that candidates are not given ample opportunity to speak on each topic they are asked to address -- the fact that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel literally had less time than the other candidates to speak on the last question tarnished the entire event, in my opinion.

The debate itself was typified by solid answers across the board. The unusual questions, perhaps, revealed the most because the candidates seemed to be less prepared to answer them. For instance, some candidates missed the chance to talk about HIV/AIDS prevention even though that was the question addressed and instead continued to talk about health care in general. One of the biggest surprises for me was the responses to the Darfur question; some of the Democrats sounded positively hawkish on the issue! I think that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but the thought of intervention in another country at this time makes me utterly queasy...the debaters did not seem to share my uneasiness, however. The candidates spoke at length on education and health care and in general sounded supremely confident in discussing these bread-and-butter issues, but they struggled to distinguish themselves from one another on either topic. I was delighted that Mike Gravel called out some candidates for supporting the continued subsidization of health insurance companies, which also puzzles me. Gravel also impressed me by bringing up the war on drugs, which he opposes, on several occasions; it is interesting to think of anti-drug policy as being massively detrimental to society at large like Prohibition was, despite both policies being motivated at least in part by good intentions. It is unfortunate that Gravel does not seem too serious about his own candidacy; he wasted time by swiping at the sincerity of the other candidates instead of expressing his own views more. Bill Richardson I thought also distinguished himself with his stance towards business. Richardson seems to favor the government strategically supporting businesses to achieve particular outcomes, such as by giving economic incentives to companies that set up shop in poor areas or invest in alternative energy.

Above all else, I think the Democratic All-American Presidential Forum was indicative of how early on in the election cycle the June before election year really is. At this point, most candidates are playing it safe, content to pick up some support here and there slowly and surely. I expect to see the rhetorical flair of Obama and Edwards in full force before their campaigns are finished, but at this point the butterflies have not left their cocoons yet. Mike Gravel is perhaps the major exception, but Kucinich as well is probably campaigning with as much energy and style right now as he will next year. Indeed, in stark contrast to John McCain, Kucinich seems to be doing a fine job of picking up right where his last candidacy left off. Ultimately, I don't think this debate helped or hindered any particular candidate to any great extent. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards performed well enough to remain frontrunners while no other candidate really emerged out of the shadows to challenge those frontrunners.