 If it were a standard debate, there was only one choice: Madia by several lengths. In an event sponsored by veterans' and peace organizations, Madia started with a statement about his background as a Marine, establishing his bona fides on Iraq (having served there) and didn't stumble. He garnered the best applause of the night on a question concerning the future of the U.S. role as superpower, saying "our nation is strongest when leading not by size or strength, but by who we are. I want to go back to the time when we led on ideals." He went on to outline specific steps -- stop the practice of extraordinary rendition, stop parsing words about what torture means, go back to international law, and respect Geneva conventions -- each of which produced a spate of applause from the audience. This question was toward the end of the event, and should stick in attendees' memories.By contrast, Bonoff and Hovland experienced significant stumbles. Although having the advantage of going third on a question about Iran, and having heard the positive responses Madia and Hovland garnered with their opinions that Iran did not pose an immediate threat, Bonoff went full-bore into an explanation of why Iran is a threat because "they want to wipe Israel off the map." She explained, upon some light laughter and clucking from the audience , "Do I think force is the right way to deal with that threat? Absolutely not. The administration should be embarrassed by what they've been saying about Iran." She continued with a wonky answer, advocating a multilateral diplomatic solution to the Iran issue, as the other two candidates did.  Hovland generally did a good job demonstrating his "one of you" appeal to the audience, mostly liberal Democrats, who are still getting to know the Mayor who only recently switched his party affiliation. On the Iran question, Hovland produced a great quip: "Iran cries out for a diplomatic solution. There's no reason to be rattling sabers like President Bush did with Iraq....when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Hovland also had the misfortune of being the first respondent to the most divisive question of the night, one issued from an audience member: "Has President Bush committed impeachable offenses?"
It was at this point that the event went temporarily from thoughtful and congenial to, dare I say, angry and slightly disrespectful. Although I can understand the drastic feeling of hopelessness for our country, our Constitution, and our government among those who want President Bush gone as soon as possible, to put the question to these candidates as more than a simple hypothetical is worse than useless. As Hovland quipped, "[Bush] will be going out the back door as one of us is coming in the front." But Hovland, answering first, garnered audible moans and several louder protests when he expressed uncertainty that President Bush had committed such offenses. At what point do we, as thinking, rational people, realize that Bush will be gone in a year, and then we can get back to the business of fixing our country and its reputation, and stop putting loaded hypotheticals to candidates for Congress? The Democratic House leadership doesn't want 2008 to be a repeat of 1998, when Newt Gingrich's Republican caucus thought they would ride impeachment proceedings to a crushing national victory and instead lost five seats. For better or worse, we need to accept this, folks. Hovland, answering first, garnered audible moans and several louder protests when he expressed uncertainty that President Bush had committed such offenses. Madia and Bonoff had the advantage of following Hovland on this question. Bonoff said "there are so many things we could go after President Bush for and say it's an impeachable offense. Who cares about Monica Lewinsky? Has [Bush] done things that make him impeachable? I think the answer is yes. Do I want to right now pursue impeachment proceedings? No." This answer garnered another series of sighs from the audience. Madia pivoted well from the question of impeaching Bush, saying that while he thought Bush had committed impeachable offenses, more important issues include balancing the federal budget and getting the U.S. out of Iraq. The event format reserved time for three minor candidates to speak as well. Kevin Smith, who briefly opposed Wendy Wilde for the Third district DFL endorsement in 2006, spoke briefly on peace issues, garnering polite applause. Mary O'Connor, a Libertarian city councilwoman from Brooklyn Center, spoke (but not very well) and advocated letting Israel be removed from the map, returning to the pre-1947 standard. The crowd's response was tepid at best. Amy Alexander, who says she is seeking the Green Party nomination in the race, was given time before the microphone, but her time could best be described as a rant, and did not appear to have the effect that past third-party bids have had upon activists discouraged by the two-party system. Bottom line: Terri Bonoff and Jim Hovland had strong moments, but each stumbled a bit. Madia was the strongest performer in this forum, and not by a little, and his rhetoric wasn't focused solely on appealing to the liberal-leaning audience. If he can get a few high-profile endorsements, raise a solid chunk of change in the fourth quarter, and work hard on the ground leading up to caucuses and the CD3 convention, he could be a contender. |
