Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Tucked away between the moderators' obsessions with flag lapel pins and questions designed to get the candidates to attack each other were a few good questions that our candidates gave delightfully insightful response to. I truly appreciated hearing Hillary Clinton own up to her dishonesty on Bosnia sniper fire, though she didn't use quite those words. At least she looked us right in the eye and apologized. She didn't deny lying or embellishing. We need to see that kind of character in our leaders, especially since admitting we made mistakes in Iraq might help us untangle ourselves from the occupation there. Hillary's truthfulness was a welcome change from politics as usual.

Another hidden gem is Sen. Clinton's description of an umbrella of deterrence for our allies that goes much further than just Israel. Both she and Obama made it clear that if Iran attacked Israel, they would retaliate, plain and simple. The umbrella concept would mitigate some of the criticism our government has gotten for supporting Israel (U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget). This umbrella idea would expand the purpose of that financial backing to Israel.  It also would establish in no uncertain terms our new Democratic President's foreign policy stance, dispersing any fears that Obama or Clinton won't stand up for America's interests and allies as we find a way to extract ourselves from Iraq.

The third gem that should have caused a big heads-up is Sen. Obama's response to a question about blanket affirmative action and quota programs. Sen. Obama reiterated his perspective on the complexities of race issues in this country by suggesting that ethnicity in and of itself should not be a determining factor for affirmative action programs. Here's an African American who actually understands the reverse discrimination side of the issue, who validates white frustration with quota systems and is willing to make changes that remove barriers for all underprivileged people, even poor whites. Wow, that's huge! White middle class men should be rushing to vote for Barack Obama!

Now for the missing questions that George Stephanopoulos & Charlie Gibson should have asked the candidates in the Pennsylvania debate:

1. Pennsylvania's middle class and blue collar workers have suffered from job loss and economic downturn due to outsourcing. Did Hillary Clinton oppose or lobby for NAFTA and CAFTA that were passed during the Clinton presidency? Why were Hillary Clinton's key campaign advisor/ex-manager Mark Penn paid $300,000 and why did Bill Clinton received $800,000for  advocating a trade agreement with Columbia while she claims she is opposed to trade agreements that result in job loss in our country. If she wins the nomination, how will she dispel the impression that her campaign and future administration have already been bought off by foreign interests? Inquiring minds want to know.

2. Will Sen. Clinton disclose contributors and amounts contributed to the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation so voters can assess potential conflicts of interest?

3. How will Clinton or Obama stop the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution, handle the issue of illegal torture by our military and CIA, and prevent spying on Americans while still keeping our country secure from terrorists?

If the debate hadn't been turned into a debacle rehash of Republican screaming points, we might have gotten to these important policy questions. Maybe the DNC should run the next debate instead of leaving it to networks trying to increase ratings.