The debates this week were great, not at all painful.  Come on you clearly were not paying attention.  Granted the media spin is that the interesting moments could be best counted in seconds and that there simply “was not much there, there”.  I thought we had our moments.   

First a requiem: the amusement value provided by the “won’t win in my lifetime” Democratic candidates was unfortunately absent; I’ve grown to depend on those folks.  Alan Keys did what he could but he’s no Dennis Kucinich.  

The moderator was no_______________! (fill in the blank, you can’t screw this one up)

Fred Thompson firmed up his national security creds by refusing to raise his hand. 

Mike Huckabee left words out of sentences.  I know because I’ve heard them a few times.  

John Edwards passionately declared war against corporations not radical Islam, American corporations. Wait a minute, there was no discussion about radical Islam.  I found myself wishing he could be as passionate about terrorism and security as he was about American corporations. I think a rational threat assessment would bring American corporations in somewhere behind terrorism and radical Islam.

Mr. Obama wiped the cackle out of Hillary for a moment.  Mr. Obama may not get my vote but he has my respect.  I have a weak spot for snappy repartee as a retort to the snarky.    

Mr. Richardson suggested that as a component of trade agreements with China, China should adopt a constitutional form of government.  He rather threw it in at the end of a penetrating 30-second answer, but there it was, Bill is going to lead China to democratic institutions.  Why didn’t I think of that! 

Mrs. Clinton talked about “equivocal commitments” in relation to trade policy.  What is an equivocal commitment? 

There were a number of moments that left me confused in terms of the relationship between human rights abroad and U.S. Security Policy.  Since the major threats to us are Islamists, Russia and China and insofar as they don’t really seem to care what we have to say about human rights, I’m having trouble making the connection.  Granted an epiphany on the part of Osama, Russia and China would do the trick but, personally, that does not appear on my horizon.

Questions on new taxes were met with “cover” and with “ease”.  Mrs. Clinton said Taxes “would have an effect on people”, excellent cover for the future.  A wide variety of taxes was addressed carbon taxes, gas taxes, taxes on the rich taxes, corporate taxes, corporate carbon taxes, tobacco taxes. When Mr. Biden was questioned on the ability to pay for all of the new proposed programs, he noted, “It can easily be done”, yup easily

done.

Mr. Obama wants to end the war and concurrently politically stabilize the Middle East in our absence.  What? How?  No one has been able to politically stabilize the Middle East. I’m afraid I’m going to need a few more details on this one.     

Mr. Edwards, questioned on how he would procure corporate cooperation in light of his attacks said, in essence, that he would not attempt to procure corporate cooperation. By extension, you have to assume that Mr. Edward’s goals would be accomplished with regulation, not negotiations and engagement.  There is a logical disconnect associated with the idea that it is apparently OK to negotiate with Iran and Syria but not with American Corporations. 

I would venture a guess that average Americans would put the threat from American corporations somewhere down the list from radical Islam, weapons proliferation, terrorism and cultural incursion.  And yet, American corporate greed was an almost singular theme for Mr. Edwards the entire afternoon.

The conscientious on global warming was total, and voluntary hand raising was in play under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership.  In that context Mr. Richardson, want us to be “patriotic about something besides War.” 

Note to Mr. Richardson, we already are!  Second note to Mr. Richardson: your comment says a lot more about your attitudes than mine. How intellectually dishonest and shallow do you have to be for this to even occur to you to say?  This is exactly the stuff Democrats whined about for months, as they accused the President of trying to define patriotism.  The difference with Bill Richardson doing the same thing would be exactly what?

There was another conscientious about intelligence gathering and intelligence community behaviors.  It’s going to be rolled back!  American lives and rights will not bear the same importance as water boarded terror suspects with valuable information.  The culture of the Intelligence Community will return to a risk adverse status quo.  No good will come of that. 

Mr. Obama as the agent of change said in relation to the question about foreign policy advisors (post Hillary’s cackle): “there are a lot of good Clinton and Carter people available”! 

Carter people? Carter people?  No, please no!  Anything but that, I’ll do anything you ask, I’m begging you, please no Carter people!

Of course, we’re going to restore American’s image in the world.  Nevertheless, we have a problem or two here.  Many of the restoration statements called for eliminating the image of American arrogance by insisting that trading partners comply with our standards of human rights, unions, working conditions and a constitutional framework acceptable to us.  Sounds a bit arrogant to me and I’m an American.  This approach should really play well with the Chinese, Russians, Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East to name a few.     

The “what would you do in your first year” question had, as I recall, not a mention of substantial security policy initiatives other than “keeping the American people safe”. 

I hope Usama is not planning anything significant in 2009.