Why not ask if they would all pledge regardless of any extenuating circumstances to fire immediately upon charges been brought against and not to pardon any member of their adminstration found guilty of a federal felony involving or related to publicly revealing the identity of a secret agent of the United States?

Or how about asking them all if they would start enforcing the immigration laws already on the books against employers who hire illegals?

Either one of them would be pretty good for starters.

Actually, the question about ROTC and military recruiters was fair and important, but the answers were a disappointment, although hardly surprising. It once again underscored how egregious it was that Kucinich was not in the debate.

As I first saw the screen, my heart sank on seeing that there were only three candidates (I had just walked in the door and had not heard the news circa 8pm that MSNBC's appeal had been successful). With Dennis Kucinich there, it would at least have brought to the debate the awareness that there are indeed other approaches to the issues within the Democratic Party than tweedledee/tweedledum platforms.

It was further painful to see the interchange between Edwards and Obama where Obama considered, apparently for the first time, keeping his terrorism strike force outside Iraq. (I say this as a supporter of and a donor to Obama).

At the same time, I am active in -- and a donor to -- the reborn sds/mds (students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society). Contradiction? Well, the mainstream of the Democratic Party obviously sharply veers from the general vision and particular demands of sds/mds, though not as much as Kerry's stance on Iraq (whose candidacy of course predates the re-emergence of the new sds/mds nationally).

We should not forget, when it comes to Iraq and Iraq-related issues the HUGE difference it would have made, even assuming defeat (which Kerry managed to attain anyway) had Dean been the nominee. The platform of the Democratic Party as a whole, starting in 2004, would have been antiwar. The charade of seeing a Democratic TV debate with NO ONE willing to take a principled stand on ROTC and military recruiters would not have been possible; indeed the consensus might very well have been the other way.

It should be particularly important to remember the MANY MANY voices, on or at least ostensibly on the Left in 2003-4 who couldn't stop trashing Dean -- seizing upon comments like the one about the confederate flag or, even less substantively, the slightly pink-tinted "red-meat" speech to his campaign following the Iowa caucuses (the so-called "scream"). The sniping was widespread in venues like WBAI; this is something that should not be forgotten, when we considered how it ill-served the anti-war cause.

It was heartening that none of the candidates were willing to advocate the expansion of nuclear energy, though I can't for the life of me understand how HRC could be 'agnostic' on nuclear energy. Wha? It is one thing to have a complex position, like Obama's notion that he would seek expansion only if the science somehow renders nuclear energy safe (an interesting argument if applied to Star Wars). I suspect that this is one position a president Obama (not making a prediction) would breach, compromising to sign bills that promote nuclear energy like mad handed up from Congress. Edwards came off looking very good on this issue, though this 'I regret my votes in the Senate' platform he is running on doesn't exactly inspire.

I would also mention that, even though Barack Obama (surely a politically savvy position, even if not wholly true) insists that there was absolutely nothing to the provokatsiia of Hillary Clinton herself as well as her campaign; at least for a short time, they (Andrew Cuomo the most brazenly) made statements that, while not in and of themselves necessarily racist, were pregnant with the temptation to make race an issue. Here the press managed to let the candidates get away with denials, presumably in the greater good. I am not bound to amnesia on this matter, any more than I am going to somehow forget Edwards' long shpiel in his ONE TV debate with Cheney dwelling (positively, of course) on the gay sexuality of the latter's daughter. I suppose the presidency -- and indeed other social positions as well -- is off-limits to anyone not sufficiently "diplomatic" to get with the program when a lie is 'objectively' in the national interest.
(There is probably more justification for the idea that we should remain silent on the issue of race-baiting, at least in the tactical interests of Obama and of the Democratic Party than most mandatory lies, the ones that are far more unchallengeable (more mandatory)than this one will undoubtedly prove to be, at least in some circles.

Overall, the candidates seemed to avoid any noticeable gaffes, and Obama managed to defuse the spin rather unjustly put on the 'likeable enough' remark, for example by a fulminating Krauthammer. You'll notice that Obama said nothing about the press unjustly reading into his words something that wasn't there, while insisting, at least by implication, that such a reading, including by his own staff, of something that WAS consciously there in a PATTERN).

There was also an interesting discussion of a few other issues, such as the 'managerial presidency'. But that will have to wait for another bout of logorrhea.

(I would especially like to see a discussion, perhaps with a Constitutional lawyer, both of the Kucinich suit and of the disenfranchisement suit in this campaign).

...to ask all the Republican candidates if they will pledge to cut off Federal aid to schools that teach the pseudo-science of "intelligent design"?

I'm not sure the Left really wants to open the can of worms of the Feds rooting out pseudoscientific nonsense being taught in universities. They've got a lot more to lose if the govt. really started looking at Chomskian political science, black and women's studies, pomo approaches, etc. than a few Bible-beater colleges do.

Speaking of Russert,

disclaimer: I am NOT a Ron Paul fan.

Russert had Ron Paul on Meet the Press and the subject of Iran came up. Paul wasn't showing the fear of Iran that Russert wanted. Russert brought up missiles that Iran ahd that could reach Israel, Paul still didn't bite; Russeert was really pissed by now, so Russert asked what I consider one of the dumbest questions ever asked on MTP;

"Suppose Iran invades Israel" Russert asked.

This caused me to wonder if Russert ever saw a map of the Middle East, and I had the following thought;

"What route would the Iranian assault divisions take if they invaded Israel?"

What about not giving Guliani a free plug: he did not take the money from the Kuwati, what the heck did that have to do with the question? The question was about foreign investment in the mess we call American corporations: Citigroup, Merril etc.

Russert is unbearably bad. What is his obsession with pledges? Has he even thought through what he is supposed to be doing?

You left one question out.

"Tim Russert, will you pledge to step down and let someone credible host your show instead?"

I expect the answer to that one will be no, just like all the rest.