Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Friendly Fire

After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet. 

The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.

NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers? 

This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.

I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.

Winners and Losers of the National Intelligence Estimate

The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.

LOSERS

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.

John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)

Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.

WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.

Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.                 

All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.