I didn’t watch the candidates’ debate last night, and after reading the transcript I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything.

All of the major candidates came across well, but none of them said anything newsworthy. Hillary went a bit further than she normally does about the need for universal health care. Edwards, as usual, was the most substantive candidate when talking about policy. Obama, surprisingly, was best when interacting with the moderators (”I thought the tree thing was pretty good”) or with the other candidates, and weaker than expected when delivering pure oratory.

Brad has a good candidate-by-candidate write-up, and provides a non-partisan link to some of the most vapid analysis I’ve ever seen. Ann Althouse reacts to a war question:

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 …

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

Obama, whose first paragraph emphasized the need “for an effective emergency response”, goes on to say, in the very next paragraph, that he would take action to “dismantle the [terrorist] network”.

Edwards says that he “would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible”, and then follows that up with the need to eliminate the causes of terrorism, as well. Ann complains that:

His idea seems to be about winning the hearts of the next generation. How do you fight the terrorists?

Hillary answers the question by saying, “So let’s focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.” Ann likes that:

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

Every one of the candidates is saying the same thing: coordinate a domestic response, evaluate what happened, and then go after the people who are responsible.

Is Ann really basing her vote on who uses the most belligerent language? Or is she assuming that someone who talks of dismantling terrorist networks, or holding terrorists responsible is somehow more weak-willed than someone who talks about destroying them?

Ann calls this the “key question of the night”, which is completely wrong. It’s an incredibly dumb question that reveals nothing about anything. How can you possibly determine what changes are needed in the “U.S. military stance overseas” based on a hypothetical about a terrorist attack? Who attacked us? What kind of attack was it? Where were they operating from? Were they supported by another country?

Without knowing the answers to the questions, you’re left with vague platitudes. Triage the disaster. Analyze the intelligence. Get revenge.

That’s all you can say, and that’s what everyone said. But if you’re just reading what you want to read, and seeing what you want to see, you’ll come up with ridiculous, non-partisan arguments about why Obama and Edwards flubbed the question, and are thus “unacceptable” candidates.

Posted by Ben Brothers at 10:30 am, 27 April 2007 and filed under 2008 Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.