captb58071c3ef584b2299bac010b0d60d63nh_debates_nhjc101.jpgThe Democratic Presidential Candidates are all in New Hamshire tonight for a televised debate. CNN, one of the co-sponsors, will have live coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. EDT for the two-hour event, plus a "spin" session afterwards. I'll be there.

At Jane's suggestion, we obtained

need to be asked not only their positions on the occupation but also their explanations for why they've been unable so far to deliver on the implicit promise they made last November to end the occupation. And they need to respond to the White House stories that the US is there to stay. Do they think this is Korea, and if not, then what? What do they intend to do about the ever changing phony stories this White House has created just in the last six months alone? Are the Dems committed to ending the occupation, and if so, how will that be done? And why do a couple of them think that leadership is waiting until the last minute on the funding vote to see how the other votes? 

Close behind Iraq should be questions about our intentions and policies toward Iran and the Israeli war with Palestine, along with spreading violence in Lebanon. Do they see that the predictions about simultaneous civil wars in the Middle East are all coming true? How do they explain its causes and solutions? And do they see a link between their own careless rhetoric and the Bush/Cheney regime's Jekyll and Hyde approach to foreign policy? These people owe us answers other than "I can be tough too." Are we really stuck with expecting the incompetent Rice to keep the crazy Cheney in check while the President of the US babbles incoherently and people die?

Domestic issues should receive at least equal time -- universal health proposals, immigration, equal pay for women -- and what about that Supreme Court case, folks? -- just to name a few. The candidates all support the goal of universal health something -- but it's usually not universal care so much as universal insurance coverage requiring and expanding the role of the insurance industry. Why does that make sense? Why are they asking employers to be the vehicle, and why aren't there elements of single payer systems in their proposals. And do we really have to accept a very gradual phase in, as some suggest, and how long will it take to get everyone covered? The could spend the night on global warming, so I'm hoping for more than the obligatory question about whether they support the WH's head fake last week. And how do these candidates connect their climate policies with their energy strategies. Do they have any clue about hard this is and how much leadership it will take? Do any of them it in them?

I'm hoping that Wolf and/or the audience will be concerned enough about the assualt on the rule of law to ask a lot of tough questions on Gonzales, torture and Guantanamo, the MCA, CIA programs, warrantless surveillance and so on. They could spend a whole night on that as far as I'm concerned. But I want to know what the Congress intends to do about these abuses and when, because it's not getting better, it's just getting more embedded in our system. I'm not sure whether the Senators can be asked about impeaching Gonzales, but the issue of his leadership and it's connection to the White House criminality need to be made. There are dozens more questions I'd like to ask these people, and I'm sure all of you have more.

While they were running security check of the venues this afternoon, I drove over to a local restaurant for a late lunch, and couldn't help overhearing some of the locals. They're talking about the debate, they know it's here and they're interested. But the conversations I overheard were about whether Hillary, being a woman, could put aside her innate female emotionalism and be a tough President; about whether they really believed this global warming hoopla; and about whether Obama was really a Muslim. Fox may not be sponsoring the debate, but it sure has framed it. Now I know why the candidates have to say some of the things they do.

I'll add updates as I can during the debates, so feel free to comment along.

******

7:20 p.m. Update: Clintons sees Edward's "it's not a war on terror; that's a bumper sticker" statement as a opportunity to sound tough by reinvoking 9/11, but she's embracing the Bush talking point.

To: Biden: why was he the only one on the group to vote for the Supplemental? Did anyone here an answer? "I'd don't want to judge my friends." Will someone ask how they expect to end this?

Edwards points out that Clinton and Obama waiting to last minute to announce their vote; that's not leadership, but Obama says Edwards is 4 1/2 years late on "leadership." And Hillary says this is George Bush's war -- asserting herself to speak for the group. "The differences between us are minor; the differences between us and the Republicans is major." She's won the rhetorical point and Edwards seems on the defensive, IMO. Iranic that Obama and Clinton join to neutralize Edwards.

Dodd finally gets a chance to speak, 18 minutes in, but his not on the issue they've been discussing, nor is Richardson.

UPDATE: 7:30 p.m.

Biden finally gets to the responsibility of Bush and the Republicans; all the votes are meaningless, he argues, until they get a new President or 60 votes.

Now Hillary tries version 721 of why she got hoodwinked by Bush. So it wasn't here mistake, even though she didn't read the intelligence reports in full. She's left herself open again; if she thought the inspectors needed to finish their job, you shouldn't authorize war -- doesn't anyone know how to vote note or write a condition?

Obama lets Edwards stay in the race even though he voted for authorization. He attacks the "fear mongering," but doesn't take the opportunity to support this reframing away from "war on terror."

Hillary trying version 722. She needs to be asked, why did you trust George Bush when others saw he shouldn't be trusted? Why did you miss this? Gravel says it's a matter of judgment.

UPDATE: 7:45 p.m.

On to immigration -- Richardson argues the proposal is not amnesty. Fence not needed. Biden points out impossibility of rounding up/deporting 12 million. A president sometimes needs to be "practical." "Being practical" draws a laugh from the reporters in the gym. Obama agrees with Richardson, Biden -- but acknowledges need for "securing the border."

Democrats vote against making English the "official language," and people applaud. Obama -- it's a way to divide us. I think Wolf was surprised that this means Lou Dobbs might be a demogague. Dems are united and articulate on this. Well done. A proud moment.

On the health care and how to pay for it. Edwards -- "we can't do it all for nuthin." Obama focuses on driving down costs by "taking on the insurance companies" but doesn't explain how. Clinton thrilled that "universal health care" back on the agenda. What she learned from past: need political will and broad coalition to withstand the challenge from big pharma and big insurance -- she's playing their leader again, and the rest have to listen.

Richardson, Dodd, just piling on the Democratic argument. The message I'm hearing from Democrats is clear; we stand for universal health care, and the rest is details. Edwards hammers on making sure everyone is covered. On this issue, the "debate" is a lovefest. Hillary is beaming to be in the middle, just smiling, to be in the exchange between Obama and Edwards.

Single payor system finally introduced -- and gets an ovation.

(AP Photo/Jim Cole)