The nation turns its eyes to Granite

Tonight's debate was interesting, though the post-coverage, both on ABC and on Chicago local news, was reductive and disappointing (was George watching, to think that Fred Thompson was strong?). Just a few impressions late at night.

The Republicans are a tired bunch, discussing yesterday's issues without engaging any of the real challenges we face. Giuliani's tough-guy act is tired and Bush-esque. Romney is strangely devoid of passion for the issues (which probably comes from his management consulting background - every problem is equivalent to any other, as long as you get paid for coming up with an answer). Thompson seems to be auditioning for a production of Inherit the Wind. McCain, while quite energetic for a man of 71, didn't seem to have anything new to offer.

For my money, the best in terms of actual performance were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. I couldn't vote for either one, but both were engaged and seemed to try to talk about matters of significance.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who tried to bring up larger questions, such as the extent to which Islamic hate comes from our own actions, and how much economics has driven our behavior in foreign policy. But his libertarianism (a philosophy I consider sub-sophomoric) and his loud guy on the street corner manner will forever consign him to the fringe (he's essentially the Republican version of Kucinich). However, that he has a philosophy as opposed to a laundry list of focus group-tested sound bites distinguishes him.

Huckabee has a remarkable style, soft-spoken and so reasonable. He's been characterized as an extremist, but he appears on talk shows and in the debate as a rational thoughtful man whose positions just happen to conflict with the vast majority of Americans. This will ultimately defeat him, but he may continue to do a lot better than people think.

On the Democratic side, Richardson had the relaxed mien of someone who won't win and knows it, Obama was rational and measured (if a little too much at times), Clinton had some hysterical and shifty-eyed moments, and Edwards seemed to have the passion, especially in the second half, and thus, for me, came off the best of all ten.

Overall, I was amazed that there was not more discussion about the economy (one presumes the result of ABC and WMUR's choice of questions, though the previous debates that I've caught have not been heavy on financial issues either). Nothing is more important to the average American than their future and that of their families, and that was just elided over as if it was irrelevant (as opposed to the endless parsing of the word "change," which everyone supports).

I may have more to write as I reflect on this later, but that's enough for now.