Six dwarves, two nobles

Watching the (eight!) Democratic candidates debate tonight I was struck by what a smug group it was.

Most of them spoke almost-dismissively of President Bush and his policies; there was a sense that if not them personally, someone else on the stage had the obvious fix for Iraq, health care, immigration--just put a Democrat in office, give him/her 67 votes in the Senate, and our problems would be solved.

It all seemed very un-Democratic, this attitude that the winner of the primary was a shoo-in to be the leader of the free world, and rightfully so.

I mean, sure the Bush administration has been a nearly unparalleled disaster (worse since Hoover? Hayes?) But that doesn't mean some ex-Senator from Alaska, or a Midwest representative, should have any sense of entitlement to the office.

Heck, Bush ran and won two national campaigns; with the exception of Sen. Clinton, who remarkably was one of the more down-to-earth members of this group, none of the candidates have anything near that accomplishment.

Besides which, I don't see how it helps Democrats to simplify the problems we face; people associate decisive, straight-forward policies with Republicans (the daddy party). We depend on Democrats to deal with tricky, complicated situations (the mommy party). The post 9/11-world has become more complicated; Pres. Bush hasn't dealt well with it not because he's evil or stupid, but because he's ill-equipped; that doesn't mean the solutions are easy.

That's why it was interesting when Senator Biden lashed out halfway through at how the other candidates were oversimplifying the situation in Iraq, reducing it to pull out, everything will be fine.

It was a good role for him to play, given his stature in the Senate. Biden probably did the most to join what has been a three-person race, coming across as experienced and adult, nearly gruff. And given that he's barely a blip in the polls, he was treated by the other candidates almost as the expert arbiter on Iraq.

By contrast, I had an almost-visceral dislike to Sen. Edwards. Sure, he needed to try and break up the Clinton-Obama logjam at the top; but go after them on legitimate big differences, rather than saying he'd have handled himself differently during the latest vote on Iraq reauthorization.

It didn't help matters that Obama pointed out John, you're 4 1/2 years late on that. Which led to Edwards later going through more contortions, contrasting himself with Clinton by saying he at least has admitted he was wrong for originally voting to go into Iraq but sequeing into praise for Obama for being right, first.

The other oddity of the evening was how much time was spent talking about Bill Clinton, either in comparison or contrast to his policies or, more overtly, in response to moderator Wolf Blitzer's question of what role they'd give the former president in their administration.

I mean, that's like asking Paris Hilton what she'd let Audrey Hepburn do for her.

But this group showed no self-awareness, with most saying they'd send Pres. Clinton around the world as some sortof goodwill ambassador. Only Senator Obama displayed any sense of reality, remarking "obviously Senator Clinton may have something to say about how I use Bill Clinton."

She laughed and appopriately blew off the question, although in the process referencing her "husband" for like the tenth time.

Clinton had an interesting night; Edwards really went after her, and a number of candidates also took cheap and historically incorrect shots at Pres. Clinton's policies (on Bosnia and gays in the military in particular).

She resisted the impulse to slap them down, turned on the charm and in general acted like she was leading the Democrats in a campaign against President Bush.

I was struck at how good she is at sounding presidential and how she managed not to be just one of eight. Her worst moments were when she fake-laughed off attacks on her or her husband.

She's got the classic powerful woman problem of trying to be strong without people invoking the b-word; given her front-runner status, her camp's obviously decided to let her take the shots under the assumption it's only a story if she reacts. I'd advise her to be herself; the American people don't vote for people who come across as inauthentic.

Senator Obama also did well; he started out a bit rough, stumbling over answers and very obviously thinking as he went. I was surprised, based on his rep; but after a while it made him seem more like a normal person and less like the slick politicians a lot of the others came across as.

Hopefully we'll get more of the tough truths than easy glibness as the race unspools.

Reuters photo of Sens. Clinton and Obama by Brian Snyder