First of all, Alison King did a fantastic job in last night’s debate of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Very nice work, Alison. You can ask my question next time.

That said, I learned quite a bit about these eight candidates.

• Clinton is playing it safe and protecting her lead—her response about the Yankees-Cubs World Series said it all. Still, she came across as highly confident and knowledgeable, and I liked her response when Russert suggested Bill Clinton would have answered a question differently. “Well he’s not the one standing up here, is he.”
• Obama sounded naive on foreign policy. I know he is trying to say his lack of experience is an asset, but I just don’t see that as being the case. At this point in his career, he probably would make an excellent Vice President.
• Edwards said “I was the first [blah] [blah] [blah]” about 600 times and came across salesy—me, me, me. In response to each question, he spoke not about policies but about himself.
• Dodd impressed me—I had not expected that. I’d like to hear more from him.
• Gravel is a huge distraction and needs to get out of the race, like, now.
• Kucinich, as much as I like some of what he says, also should bow out—he’s adding nothing and last night came across as self-aggrandizing.
• Biden I once liked; now he just seems bitter and brusque.
• Richardson I once thought I liked.  He has vast experience in the foreign policy arena, but he was able to demonstrate none of that experience last night.  He, too, should bow out.

Perhaps early primaries are not such a bad thing, as they could weed out some of the excess. Fewer people up there would make for a better debate, as we could get longer answers and challenge people to be more specific.

I was very disappointed that none of the eight candidates challenged the appropriateness of Russet’s question about the Bible. (”What is your favorite passage from the Bible?”) Maybe all of them are church-goers, I don’t know, but the question brought Christianity (and only Christianity) into a debate where it did not belong. Moreover, the question and its answers were meaningless. It’s possible that Russert was looking for a challenge and did not get it. I would have been impressed if one of them had said, “Tim, it is inappropriate to bring religion and religious texts into this forum. If you would like to ask me about my favorite clause in the United States Constitution, I would be happy to answer it.”

A good friend of mine by the name of Alison King has been given the honor of co-hosting the Democratic presidential debate this evening along with Tim Russert. Alison is the political correspondent for NECN, and those of us who graduated from Colgate University with her and consider her a close friend are continuously thrilled (although not surprised, of course) by her success in journalism.

While preparing for the debate, Alison recently asked a group of us for question ideas. As I said to Alison, last year I was listening to a call-in debate between two Maine Republican gubernatorial candidates. A caller said, “I am looking for a very conservative governor. Could each of you please tell me why you are more likely than your opponent to appeal to my conservative values?” After they had answered the question—each trying to outdo the other on how right wing he was and, essentially, boxing himself into a very tight conservative corner—a second caller said, “I’m a Democrat looking for an alternative to the incumbent Democratic governor. Now that you’ve both gone to the effort of explaining how terribly conservative you are, can you give me a reason why a moderate voter—Democrat or Republican—would vote for you?”

I thought it was brilliant. How do you answer this absolutely crucial question without alienating the previous caller and similarly conservative voters? Here in Maine a Republican candidate must appeal to a large number of Democratic voters to stand any chance of winning. Neither did a good job with the question, however, both essentially saying that their positions should appeal to everyone.

Candidates frequently are preaching to the proverbial choir, usually because it’s that choir–and only that choir–that is listening. Democratic candidates are saying what they think Democrats want to hear. Republicans are saying what they believe Republicans want to hear. However, to win the general election, a candidate from either party must be able to attract votes from the other party.

What I proposed to Alison, therefore, was something along these lines:

There is an enormous number of moderate to conservative Republicans in this country who are deeply dissatisfied with the current administration’s social and economic policies. These people are seeking an alternative to the Bush administration’s agenda, but they are not interested in what they perceive to be liberal social and economic policies. Still, to get elected, you will need many Americans to cross party lines. If you were the Democratic presidential nominee, therefore, how would you win the support of these voters?

In other words, the Democrats are likely to be up there trying to outdo each other on how “Democrat” they are. But winning the general election will require votes from people who voted for George Bush in both of the last two presidential elections. I’d like to hear how they’re going to attract those voters. Because if they can’t, they can’t win.

I hope Alison asks my question.

Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus yesterday. Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia, took severe criticism for extending the invitation. Personally, although I support President Bollinger’s decision, I was disappointed to hear him introduce Ahmadinejad with direct, personal attacks.

President Bollinger said in his introduction:

Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

These lines were not necessary during the introduction, even if true. Challenge Ahmadinejad, point out his country’s record on sponsoring terrorism, accuse Iran of being a root cause of the continued chaos in Iraq, say what you want about the country’s treatment of homosexuals, demand clarification on their position toward Israel (i.e., whether they want to “wipe them off the map”), but the personal attacks–even if deserved–were a step too far during an introduction.

It is possible that President Bollinger was attempting to respond to the criticism that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia–a highly prestigious university–somehow legitimized the man. Perhaps, but if that is your concern, don’t invite him at all.

Do not get me wrong: Ahmadinejad does indeed show all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator who, in all likelihood, is both brazenly provocative and astonishingly uneducated. Many of his comments during his speech (that, for example, Jews live peacefully in Iran and that the country has no homosexuals) were flat out lies. Still, as much as I protest the man and his country, I do not protest Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. I only wish President Bollinger had shown the unearned respect and courtesy not to cast personal insults during the introduction.