"What is the true cost of the premier transportation project of the administration of Gov. Bill Richardson? "

Take a lesson, train fans, from the disaster in New Mexico. (Link requires some clicking through subscription pages, but you can get in free with the right button choices.)

Just as weekend Rail Runner service to Santa Fe is set to end due to financial woes, it turns out the state needs to shell out an additional $16 million for track and system maintenance.

That’s on top of the projected $25 million in yearly maintenance and operational costs – before the weekend service cuts – that have already created a budget crunch for the Belen-to-Santa Fe operation.

The train has about 4,500 weekday boardings going one way and is expected to generate about $3.2 million in fares....

Richardson pushed for a “bullet train” early in his administration and set a deadline of December 2008 for the completion of the entire 99-mile project from Belen to Santa Fe.

However, neither the equipment nor track is designed for high-speed interstate rail travel.

Oh, the Democratic governors and their choo-choo trains! Here's a cool Wisconsin ad from a year ago:



"I will put a stop to this boondoggle the day I take office"... that's how Scott Walker got my vote.

On his last day in office, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson reveals that he will not pardon Billy the Kid.

The NYT reports a "sigh of relief."

Should the President be working harder?

Excuse me if I don't find this as charmingly cute as the NYT does.

IN THE COMMENTS: Freeman Hunt said:

"Mrs. Obama and her staff also visited Miriam’s Kitchen, a soup kitchen, where the first lady bumped into Bill Richardson, a 46-year-old homeless man. Mr. Richardson was so stunned that he could barely stammer thank you as Mrs. Obama scooped a helping of mushroom risotto onto his plate this month."

LOL Okay, so it's not that Bill Richardson, but the mental image was still funny.

AND: Glenn Reynolds answers my question — Should the President be working harder? — "I think he should take as much time off as he wants."

Rodrigo Díaz says:

Can you imagine the OUTRAGE, had GWB been this person with the brewski? The country is going to hell… This ass hat at a B-Ball game.

"Mr. Obama’s approach is like 'a surgical bomb,' he said, while 'the Clintons are more like a carpet bomb.'"

Can we judge the candidates by the way they woo Bill Richardson?

Isn't it clear that the one he's falling for is Barack Obama? And not just because it makes more sense to back the winner. The Clinton people keep calling, and one — an unnamed female — really pissed — he says "ticked" — him off by acting like he owed Hillary his endorsement — in a voice mail. Meanwhile, Barack calls personally at nicely spaced intervals and:

“Barack’s a little looser” in his conversations, Mr. Richardson said. The two men developed a back-of-the-classroom rapport during the presidential debates, exchanging winks or eye rolls when one of the other candidates “would get outrageous or something,” Mr. Richardson said.

And doesn't Richardson look much better in a beard? I'm not a big fan of beards, but Richardson is quite chubby, and the beard covers up his double chin and gives him a cuddly bear look. Too bad beards are verboten in a presidential campaign.

"He portrayed his campaign as a job application for president" with "ads that showed a bored interviewer unimpressed with his dazzling resume."

Well, that didn't work. Richardson is out.

"Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?"

A Washington Post editorial:

AT SATURDAY'S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it's indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush -- political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president -- a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.

What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures -- coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections -- a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.

Read the whole thing.

Do even more difficult aesthetic standards apply to the male candidates?

Yesterday, we were talking about that picture of Hillary Clinton that appeared on Drudge. My son John Althouse Cohen emails:

I read the Dr. Helen post you linked to, which was basically my reaction to your post. A couple additional points along those lines:

(1) What's the simplest explanation for why Edwards and Obama are the only serious male contenders for the Democratic nomination, even though Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are so much more impressive on paper?

(2) At least a woman is just supposed to look good and then there will be no further discussion. In a sense, men have a higher standard to meet: first, they're supposed to look good ... but then they need to somehow convince people that they haven't put any effort into looking good. At least the complaint about that Hillary photo -- she looks bad -- is a clear problem with a clear solution: look better. But the complaints about Edwards -- he cares too much about his appearance -- could only be addressed by letting his appearance go ... which isn't politically viable either (considering the demands that are placed on all candidates to be visually appealing).

(Preemptive response to blog commenters: I know someone's going to say, "But he was only criticized for spending $400 on a haircut, which no reasonable person would do!" Well, a price that seems inexplicable for ordinary citizens might actually be reasonable for a national politician who has to constantly worry about looking good on TV. Also, even if it was an unreasonable expenditure, there is still an unfair gender disparity in how much something like that will hurt a male vs. a female candidate.)

"Hey Clinton, Stop Telling Young Voters to Stay Home."

The Facebook Group. (Via Politico.)

We created this facebook group to send a message to Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton and Gov. Richardson.

We targeted the candidates above since they gave conflicting comments about student voters in the press and at rallies.

We wanted each of them to encourage students that are enrolled in a college in Iowa to caucus, even if that means they are not "from" Iowa.

When we say "from" Iowa we mean students who chose to move to Iowa to attend school. Richardson, Biden, Clinton and Dodd seemed to be saying those students should not caucus.

Why pick on Hillary Clinton with the name of the group? They say that's the name they started with, and there's no way to change it. But really, if you're going to put a candidate's name in the title of your Facebook group, are you going to put Biden, Dodd, or Richardson? Of course not. Frontrunners deserve special scrutiny.

Here's the page with the relevant candidate quotes. For Hillary:

"Hillary wants every student who lives in Iowa and wants to caucus in Iowa and is eligible to caucus in Iowa to do so. We hope that they will and we hope that they will caucus for Hillary. The Iowa caucus is special because it is based on Iowa values. We hope and trust that every campaign is making sure that potential caucus goers have all the information they need, and in no way explicitly or implicitly encourages anyone to break the law by participating in two places. Not only is it okay to engage students in Iowa, but it is critical to ensure that they are active participants in the process, and we are doing everything we can to get them out to caucus." –Howard Wolfson, Communications Director

The Iowa caucus is special because it is based on Iowa values. What does that mean? It sounds nativistic. Why do we start with Iowa, anyway?

Let's read Politico:

The argument centers on whether to encourage Iowa college students from out of state to caucus in Iowa — as the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is doing — or to frown at it, as the Clinton and Dodd campaigns have hinted at.

Drawing an implicit contrast with the Obama campaign, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people; we don't have literature recruiting out-of-state college students.”

So, the Clinton campaign is accusing Obama of using underhanded tactics?

And Dodd’s Iowa state Director Julie Andreeff Jensen accused Obama of “scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process.”

Scheming... manipulating...

Dodd declared that students who did not grow up in Iowa should not caucus, saying, "If you're from Hartford, Conn., and you're going to school at the University of Iowa, and you're paying out-of-state tuition, you're [unfairly] casting yourself as an Iowan."

Interesting that the rougher statements are coming from Dodd. Trying to help Hillary?

And what is he saying? Young people who go somewhere to live for years ought to go back home where their parents raised them if they want to participate in politics? The fact that a state school makes them pay more tuition imposes additional burdens?

David Yepsen, the influential Des Moines Register columnist, criticized the Obama campaign Dec. 1 for distributing a pamphlet informing student supporters that even if they are out of state on Jan. 3 they can return to Iowa and caucus at their school precinct.

Yepsen wrote, “These are the Iowa caucuses. Asking people who are 'not from Iowa' to participate in them changes the nature of the event.”

Yepsen himself admits that it’s legal for any student at a four-year college in Iowa to vote. The Iowa secretary of state posts information on how students can caucus from their campus address.

They scheduled the caucuses during the holiday break to drive you kids out of town. How dare you be so interested in politics that you'd come back early! Stay away, you bastards! Shouldn't you be hungover from New Year's partying or snowed in somewhere in New England or hiding from the winter somewhere in the South? You seem like just the nasty little idealists who'd be motivated by that damnably inspiring character Barack Obama.

[O]n Monday former President Bill Clinton [said:] “If this is your primary political identity then you should vote, but if it isn’t and you’re going to turn right back around and vote in a primary the next day then you shouldn’t because it means that your primary identity is not in Iowa.”

He's stuck 2 things together: participating twice (which actually is wrong) and having a "primary political identity." Toward the end of that (manipulative, scheming) sentence he suggests that participating in 2 states' processes is the definition of a "primary political identity." But he's creating a bad feeling that if you came to Iowa to be a student you're doing something wrong by participating without having the requisite "identity." And he's assuming that if you participate twice, the one that's wrong is Iowa. Why isn't it the other one?

A core American value is the right of citizens to move from state to state. If you want to talk about "identity," American identity includes an entitlement to relocate in another state. Now what is Iowa identity? What are Iowa values? What does it mean to ask young people to question whether they have Iowa identity and Iowa values?

The Hillary campaign has since issued a statement encouraging students to vote provided they don’t fraudulently participate in both their home state primary and the caucuses.

Okay, so they got caught, it hurt, and they backed off.

ADDED: And speaking of inadequate hyperlinking at the NYT... Glenn Reynolds notes that a NYT book review has a hyperlink on "N.R.A.," in a discussion of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration, that sends us to a list of articles about the National Rifle Association.

It's not as if the Web were invented yesterday. Get up to speed! I'd be mortified if I'd made a mistake on my little one-person operation here. The NYT should be proving to us constantly that mainstream media has a professional quality that puts independent bloggers to shame. Instead, we bloggers have to write posts shaming mainstream media.

"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."

Said Barack Obama at today's Democratic debate. That sounds absurd to me. But let me be fair. He prefaced that assertion with the phrase "it's estimated." Oh, estimated. Well, then. He wants to "emphasize how important prevention and cost savings can be." I get it. The plan is to get the government to pay for all sorts of routine health care for everyone, and we're supposed to think it will actually save money. But the truth is that going to the doctor more is not going to solve our fatness problem. If it did, we'd be paying now for the treatment (not that we wouldn't like the government to reimburse us). The false hope of a solution to obesity and a promise of illusory savings is being used to soften us up for massive spending on health care. I'm estimating.

Then Bill Richardson tells us that 33% of Medicare costs are "related to" diabetes. Conclusion: "We've got to have an elimination, as I did in New Mexico, of junk food in schools. We need to have mandatory phys ed." He's waggling his pudgy fingers at us and his blubbery neck wobbles all over the place while he speaks. He's wearing an elegant blue-gray tie that slopes way out over his big belly. The seniors are soaking up too much money, so... quick take those potato chips away from that kid. Make him do some pushups! Like we did in New Mexico.

ADDED: I'm getting a kick out of watching the graph at the side of the screen that shows the instantaneous reaction of liberals and moderates. It's most fun when the lines suddenly diverge, like when Richardson said "mandatory phys ed." Here's my instantaneous reaction to that (from an IM conversation):

it's like... oh, no, he wants to make me do pushups...

dems are: great, make that kid do pushups

moderates hear: he wants to tell me what to do

liberals hear: he's going to improve things

The candidates and their food issues.

The NYT presents the full array.

Hmmm.... Barack Obama was "chubby" as a child. 

Mitt Romney "eats the same thing every day."

Gerald R. Ford "bit into a tamale with the corn husk still on" in 1976.

Bill Richardson is "a veteran of the Atkins and liquid diets who wears a double chin despite daily workouts."

Mike Huckabee — the anti-Richardson — once lost 110 pounds and now says "If you’re really overweight, some people just look at you and immediately sort of write you off. They just assume you’re undisciplined.”

Big problem for everyone: They have to eat the local delicacies whether they like it or not.

This make me want to dredge up the old Bob Dylan rap song — "I Shall Be Free":

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)

Ha ha. Very hard to understand that last word from the recording. I've listened to that song hundreds of times — mostly back when I let Bob Dylan rearrange all my opinions circa 1966. And right now, this morning, is the first time I've known what the word was.

ADDED: John IMs: "hm, I wonder who the NYT is supporting based on the photos they chose for that food article." LOL.

Big debate tonight.

Did you know? Well, pay attention. And comment here, if you're watching.

UPDATE: Is anyone watching? Based on the comments so far the answer is no:

Prosecutorial Indiscretion said...
But Ann, Bionic Woman premieres tonight. And the election isn't for another 14 months.

hdhouse said...
sorry....Ken Burns' WAR is on PBS...

Trooper York said...
Sorry I am watching the Met game with Doyle as they blow another game, good times.

Revenant said...
I would rather be boiled in beezelnut oil than watch another damned political debate at this point.

Wake me when they narrow it down to two candidates per party.

Michael_H said...
Food TV is showing a sandwich making contest. Much more appetizing than the dembate.

What's beezelnut oil? Trooper York is friends with Doyle?... Well, I'm watching. I just can't bring myself to live-blog.

ADDED: Would you want second-grade children to read a story about a prince who falls in love with another prince? This seems like a question that could come back to hurt them. Edwards says "yes" outright, but Hillary blabs up a storm without answering the question and gets away with it.

Another interesting question is whether you'd lower the drinking age to 18. They go on about how bad alcoholism and drunk driving are without addressing the age issue and whether delaying legal drinking helps avoid alcoholism and drunk driving. Finally, Russert asks if anyone takes the other side. Gravel gruffly says if you can fight for the country you ought to be able to have a drink, and then Kucinich forcefully makes what I think is the right argument, that the key is -- if you're going to drink -- to learn to drink responsibly. He adds that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Since he has no chance of being the candidate, I feel free to say I like the guy.

AND: Quite amusing to pose a hypothetical (about using torture) and tell Hillary after she answers that it was based on a position Bill Clinton took. She just smiles and says she'll talk to him later. (I'd like to hear that conversation.) I thought it was interesting that on the hypothetical -- about a captured al Qaeda leader who knows the location of a ticking time bomb -- Obama and Clinton stressed that it can't be American policy to have a loophole to the proscription against torture. But I got the feeling that they were leaving a loophole there: It can't be stated outright so that the world knows we'd do it, but still, maybe we'd do it.

AND: What is your favorite Bible verse? Obama says Sermon on the Mount, but then blabs generically. Hillary Clinton says "The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which is not exactly a Bible verse, but okay. Why should the candidates be ready to recite Bible verses? Kucinich holds up a card with a prayer from St. Francis, which fits his theme (peace) but, again, isn't a Bible verse. Edwards is impressive with "What you do unto the least of those, you do unto me." This resonates with his poverty theme, and I like the way he doesn't point out that it does. Richardson says the Sermon on the Mount. Yeah, well, Obama already said that so it's boring. You had time to think of a specific verse in the Sermon to distinguish yourself. "Blessed are the peacemakers" would have been so easy. Gravel: Love! Dodd cites the Good Samaritan. Biden: "Christ's warning of the Pharisees." Which is a clever answer to the question, essentially critiquing the question. The idea is: Don't parade your religion in public.

FINALLY: Some general observations on presentation (not based on whether I agree with the positions taken). Obama seems tired. And he's tiresome. He needs to learn to give crisp, clear answers. Hillary was strong and solid and sometimes charming. Richardson did nothing to distinguish himself. Edwards was on fire. Smart, sharp, and clear. A lot of passion, but not in any way out of control. Dodd and Biden did fine for guys who know they have no chance. Best guy with no chance is Kucinich. Very clear. Knows what he wants to say and says it. Gravel is the old guy that wandered onto the stage to say that teenagers should drink and love is the answer.

WRITTEN THE FOLLOWING MORNING: You know what would have amused me? If, asked to give a favorite Bible verse, somebody -- Gravel? -- had said: "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

Okay. Richardson: Officially crazy.

IN THE COMMENTS: Some people are saying this was humor, in the style of Letterman or Reagan. (Take your pick.)

UPDATE: Richardson attempts to explain his remark:

"Look, that was an off-the-cuff comment where I said Iowa and New Hampshire should be first.''

When pressed further, he said Iowa should launch the primary calendar because "it's a tradition in American politics that has worked.''

"Iowa scrutinizes candidates through a grass-roots state. They are very good at winnowing down candidates,'' he said. "They don't listen to national polls. Iowa voters are very independent and issue-oriented.''

So, he's not going with the humor theory. He's got nothing, really.

If no news is good news...

Is news that you thought already happened good news? Feels the same.

ADDED: Now, I'm actually reading the article and seeing something that is news to me, and indeed, that I find so shocking that I must strike the person who had been my favorite of the Democrats entirely off the list:

Breaking with some of his fellow candidates, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Richardson pledged to “leave no troop behind in Iraq. No airbases. No security patrols. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces.”

The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely.

"Moderate Ann Althouse waited for the transcript and called it a win for Bill Richardson."

Slate's blog rounder upper Michael Weiss, perhaps a little to eager to disrespect Bill Richardson, reads this post of mine as signifying that I only read the transcript of the Democratic debate. It's funny to think if you only didn't have to see (and hear) him, you might like him. But, of course, as you can see, my post plainly begins saying I watched two thirds of it before turning to the transcript . In fact, after reading the final third on transcript, I watched it too. I do admit, however, that Richardson is not eye-pleasing. He's most impressive on the radio.

Weiss begins his round up with this:

Barry Rubinowitz at The Nattering Nabob discovered newfound respect for Mr. Kucinch after seeing the Mrs.: "Most Surprising Moment: Seeing Dennis Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth. He got a tall, hot, redhead with a British accent. Not sure how he did it, but damn, he got the respect of a lot of men across America. If he can get that babe, maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem."

I've got to give Rubinowitz credit for not making the usual witticism, which he deftly made us feel that he was going to do by starting with "he got the respect of a lot of men across America." You know you thought he'd say: If he can get that babe, the rest of us guys have hope. So it was funny to say "maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem." But ordinary men can't compare their babe-magnetism to that of a man with power and celebrity (even at the Kucinich level), and war and the health care problem have no propensity to yield to the seductiveness of power and celebrity.

And I'm impressed by what some of what Rubinowitz has in a sharp summary of Richardson:

Bill Richardson – It isn’t good in a Democratic primary to be referred to as the NRA’s favorite candidate. His favorite Supreme Court Justice – Whizzer White...Whizzer White??? A man who was opposed to Roe v. Wade? Horrible speaker, bad impression – may have seriously damaged his VP chances. He has no Presidential chance at all.

I don't think he's a horrible speaker. As I've said, I was impressed when I heard him on the radio. But I think Rubinowitz -- and many Americans -- may be repelled by the way he looks. While we are wallowing in self-love over our acceptance of the black candidate Obama, we ought to think about whether we are feeling an aversion to a man whose facial features are Mexican.

Anyway, Rubinowitz is right about the way the question about the NRA hurt Richardson and how bad the Whizzer White answer was. It's bad if people know enough to remember how conservative White was on rights issues, but it's also bad if they don't. I think most people -- well, maybe not most people who'd watch a debate this early in the game -- would just think Richardson was absurdly out of it to name someone from so far back.

Maybe Richardson has the idea of trying to be like President Kennedy (who appointed White). Richardson did not go to law school, so it's not as if his sentiments about Supreme Court justices grow out of reading court opinions. "Whizzer White" probably popped into his head because he likes President Kennedy and because he knows -- the name "Whizzer" helps you remember -- that White was a great football player. Isn't Richardson the manliest of the Democratic candidates, with his guns and his sports? Unfortunately, he doesn't look athletic and, in any case, Democrats seem to be immune to such red state attractions. At least not until after they've chosen their candidate.

Finishing the debate in transcript form, I give the win to Richardson.

I think I got about two thirds of the way through the debate last night. Here's what I managed to write. I was just about to watch the end of the debate this morning to finish up, but I found this handy transcript. I like a nice transcript. It's quicker to read than to watch, you don't have to type out the quotes, and evading the question is so obvious that what's irritating seen on TV becomes almost amusing.

Let me start reading where I left off last night and pick out what interests me.

Obama is asked "what are America's three most important allies around the world?" He throws in so much extra material that he gets around to naming two: the European Union and Japan. A follow-up question is asked: "I didn't hear you mention Israel, and I ask because there is a quote attributed to your name. You said recently, 'No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.' Do you stand by that remark?" Answer:

Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said.

What the remark said. There's that remark, talking away, and I'm over here, so I guess you can say I'm standing by it. Standing by, watching with amazement, wondering what that darned remark will come out with next.

But in his next sentence, he takes ownership of the remark:

And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.

And:

Israel has been one of our most important allies around the world. It's the only established democracy in the Middle East. It's the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East.

Has been? So it "has been" an important ally, but it "is" a "linchpin" of our "efforts."

Hillary Clinton is asked about Giuliani's statement that "the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," and "America will be safer with a Republican president." She responds with what looks like her favorite debate move: say the current President is a failure.

We haven't secured our borders, our ports, our mass transit systems. You can go across this country and see so much that has not been done. The resources haven't gotten to the front lines where decisions are made in local government the way that they need to. And I think that this administration has consistently tried to hype the fear without delivering on the promise of making America safer. And its foreign policy around the world, as you've heard from all of my colleagues here, has also made the world less stable, which, of course, has a ripple effect with respect to what we're going to face in the future. So I hope that we can put that myth to rest. It is certainly something I will try to do during the campaign.

There is absolutely nothing there about why she would do a better job as the next President, and we were just reminded of Giuliani. Who do you want to trust, Clinton or Giuliani? That's the question. She gives not one shred of a reason here to go with her. Is there some way she would secure our borders and ports better than he would? Picture her standing at a debate next to Giuliani a year and a half from now. That's what you ought to do if you're trying to pick the best Democratic candidate. Is she the one you Democrats want standing there?

There's a "show of hands" question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Kucinich doesn't raise his. I don't bother to read his explanation.

Let's read something important. Obama is asked "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas" if there were another attack on two American cities and we knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that al Qaida did it:

Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

The first thing he thinks of is Katrina. Bush failed there, don't you know. Think fast, Senator. It's another 9/11! What is the military response? Show us you can think like a Commander in Chief:

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

So the military response is: think and talk.

Edwards is supremely fortunate to get a shot right now at the same question:

Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.

The second thing I would do -- and, of course, some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how did this happen without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage; how did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?

You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here, and how do we stop it from happening again?

I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.

But we have more tools available to us than bombs.

And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.

So, be strong. But mainly just try very hard to figure out how they did it and how we can defend against the next attack. His idea seems to be about winning the hearts of the next generation. How do you fight the terrorists? Why not make them love us so they won't want to be terrorists anymore? Surely, if they see the Democrats have brought their new tools into the White House, they'll feel the love.

Now, Clinton gets her shot. Come on, Hillary, show you can do it! Your two biggest opponents have set this up perfectly.

Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

Boring. Non-responsive.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

Yes! Retaliate!

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

Attack! Destroy! Thank God, one of them is willing to say it. Hillary wins.

No one else is given a turn at this, the key question of the night. But the next time Richardson is called on -- with the special Hispanic question "How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?" -- he insists on going back to the "two cities" question. Good for him! And he must have been pissed to have been excluded from the A group.

I would respond militarily, aggressively. I'll build international support for our goals. I'd improve our intelligence, but that would be a direct threat on the United States, and I would make it clear that that would be an important, decisive, military response, surgical strike, whatever it takes.

That beats Hillary. Richardson is my favorite of the Democrats. And Obama and Edwards are unacceptable.

But wait.

Taking a cue from Richardson, when Obama is asked a question about lightbulbs -- yeah, really, what kind of lightbulbs! -- he goes back to the terrorism question. Now, that he's heard the others answer, he knows he's screwed it up.

But one thing that I do have to go back on, on this issue of terrorism: We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down, networks have to be dismantled.

There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.

And that, I think, is going to be one of the most important issues that the next president is going to have to do, is to repair the kinds of challenges that we face.

Am I going to let him off the hook for this? "In some cases, lethal force"?

Kucinich is spurred to challenge Obama.

My good friend, Senator Obama, that's a very provocative statement. You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. And I think that it's important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war.

Oh, no. Kucinich is pushing him back into the peace corner.

I think it's important that we move away from global warming and global warring. And the connection is oil. We're in Iraq for oil. We're looking at attacking Iran for oil.

Oh, no.

And until we change our international policies, which quit using war as an instrument of policy ... and change our energy policies ... we will continue to repeat this sorry cycle.

Obama responds (with Kuchinich interrupting him throughout):

I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.... And I don't think that's disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism... Hezbollah and Hamas.... There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world -- but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.

Gravel goes wild here and says, among other things: "Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?"

Obama's all: "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise."

Well, now I do want to watch the video. It seems as though Obama comes to life at the end, that he does best when he's reacting to the other candidates, rather than answering the question cold. This is a good sign that he may be an engaging candidate. I'll say more when I've seen the video.

From the transcript, I like Richardson best. Hillary didn't do anything wrong. Obama worries me. Edwards did not impress me. The others... I don't have to have an opinion on them. But what a nut that Gravel is.

UPDATE: Mere Rhetoric notes a discrepancy in some transcripts and questions whether Obama said "Israel has been one of our most important allies" as I have it quoted or "Israel is one of our most important allies" as the quote appears elsewhere. Since I have the debate TiVo'd, I checked. My quote is correct. I am certain.