I watched my first Presidential Debate of the season straight through tonight, and I remembered why I don't watch these this early - they are basically stupid.

That said, let me give my take on it, because I watched it, and darn it, I am going to tell you what I think, whether you like it or not. First, from my point of view, it was a good night for putting pressure on the Congress to end the war, through the use of the Not Spending power. It was the early focus of the debate and Edwards pounded on Clinton and Obama on showing leadership in Congress on ending the war through use of the Not Spending power. It was the highlight of the debate.

The second to last episode of the Sopranos, Number 85 is tonight: "The Blue Comet." Could they be any more cryptic?

This week, the allegiance of those closest to Tony is put to the test. Meanwhile, a case of mistaken identity has serious ramifications

Update: and Spoiler Alert:

Wife of Iraq soldier is asking a question: The candidates are now seated. How do you plan on re-building the military after so many years of conflict?

Goes to Kucinich. Peace is the way we reflect our strength. Wants a strong peace-keeping force. Cut military spending 25%. There's a lot of waste. We need to encourage people to serve in it so it's a strong military.

Obama: Weapons system is outmoded relic of Cold war. When soldiers come home we must treat them with dignity and honor. This Administration tries to do it on the cheap. (He didn't answer the question.)

Dodd:

Must be prepared to use force but not as the first arrow in the quiver. Another non-answer.

More...

The debate is starting. If you are watching and online, please chime in with your reactions.

Time is on the honor system. Answers should take about one minute. They must stay on topic of the question or they will be stopped. There are no opening statements, just introductions.

First question to Obama using yesterday's terror bust. He says Bush doesn't get credit for lack of terror attacks since 9/11.

Goes to Edwards. Global war on terror is a Bush bumper sticker. Hillary doesn't agree with Edwards. We are safer than we were, we are not safe enough. Kucinich: Patriot Act undermines civil rights and as President he would repeal it.

They move to Iraq. Lots of blame for George Bush. Questions about reading the NIE report. Edwards defends his not reading the report but says he was wrong to vote to authorize the war.

More...

Some basics on tonight's Democratic debate.

Who's participating:

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden; former Sens. John Edwards and Mike Gravel; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

The moderator is CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

The format:

The contenders were expected to take questions from a team of journalists for the first hour. In the second hour, questions were to come from about 100 New Hampshire voters who say they are undecided in the contest.

Where you can watch:

• TV: CNN
• Online at WMUR New Hampshire or CNN. CNN's Pipeline is now free and they have multiple feeds going, right now they are showing a lot of secret service agents and footage of the candidates' arrivals.

The question I would like to see asked in tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate:

It was reported today that 14 US Soldiers have died in Iraq in the first 3 days of June. Last month, 127 US soldiers died in Iraq. Since the start of the war, 3,493 American soldiers have died.

Most of you have committed to withdrawing from Iraq if you become President in January 2009. The question for each of you is the following:

Do you commit to an immediate redeployment of American troops in Iraq from the moment you become President? And, given the fact that the President has indicated that he will not be redeploying troops from Iraq during his Presidency, what should the Congress do in the face of the President's stated policy?

Newt Gingrich is sounding the alarm: the Bush administration is dysfunctional. Where's he been the last seven years?

"We have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government," he said.

Gingrich added, "The key question is: Is somebody prepared to stand up and say that the American people deserve fundamental change in Washington?"

The answer is: Yes. Pretty much every non-Republican in the country has proclaimed the need for change. Hasn't Newt noticed?

From the GOP Talking Points-addled mind of Fred Hiatt:

As painful and costly as the war in Iraq has been, the United States stands to lose far more if it simply abandons a country in the heart of the Middle East and hands a victory to al-Qaeda and other extremists.

A victory for Al Qaida and other extremists? The Al Qaida part is . . . well, just idiotic. Non-dirty effing hippie Fareed Zakaria writes:

The first thing to admit is that our mission in Iraq has substantially failed. . . . If anything, Iraq has become a model in exactly the opposite sense from what Bush had hoped. It has become a living advertisement of the dangers of illiberal democracy. . . . It would be far better for us to reduce our exposure to the current civil war, draw down our forces, let Iraq's internal political forces play themselves out and restrict our troops to certain limited but core missions. . . .

It's Sunday and site traffic will be down today, so I'm going to go off-topic and self-indulgent.

With Steve Gillard's untimely passing and the 40 year anniversary of the release of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper, I've been contemplating today how fast life goes. And how much we change physically over time, but in many other respects, stay the same .

As my eye doctor would say when he's testing my vision, "Better now? Better then?" And just like I usually tell him, I can't tell.

I'd be curious to see how other bloggers and commenters have evolved over time. Here's me:

• 1967
• 1981
• 2002
• 2007

Now I'm off to see my mother (who at 84, has really changed over time) and will be back in time for the New Hampshire Democrats Debate and the Sopranos.

This is an open thread, feel free to discuss what you want.

J sends me this link to the complete, unfirewalled text of the Frank Rich column where Rich writes:

What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” In an echo of his ideological opposite, Mr. Limbaugh labels the immigration bill the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act.”

In all seriousness, it was very gracious of Mr. Rich to include the link, though I take serious issue with his characterization of what some of us favor regarding the Iraq Debacle.

Via andgarden, Frank Rich seems to believe that those of us agitating for the Democratic Congress ending the Iraq Debacle by setting a date certain for not funding, what I term the Reid-Feingold framework, are being unrealistic and unreasonable. Like the Democrats in Congress and many pundits and bloggers, Mr. Rich believes Republicans will end the Debacle:

Contrary to Mr. Edwards, only Republicans in Congress can overcome presidential vetoes and in so doing force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. As the bottom drops out of Iraq and the polls, those G.O.P. votes are starting to line up.

If only this were true. Mr. Rich must know that Republicans have been singing this song for a while. Mr. Rich's colleague, David Broder, has told us that John Warner is the key. And Senator Warner is illuminative on the subject. Senator Warner has made noises for some time about ending the Debacle, but always votes for the Bush plan, whatever it is at the time, including the Surge. A review of Senator Warner's statements and actions is instructive:

In light of today's JFK bust, and the soon to come call for further restrictions on our constitutional rights and civil liberties in the name of the war on terror, I thought it would be a good evening to begin reading ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero's new book, In Defense of America: The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror, which he co wrote with award winning journalist Dina Temple-Raston.

I am really liking this book. First because it tells stories, as opposed to reciting statistics. Second, because of the way it is written, in succinct, non-rambling, straight forward sentences. There's new details I hadn't known about the NSA warrantless spy program, the John Walker Lindh case, and it's great to see the authors leave a lot of the legalese behind. This is not a book just for lawyers.

Do yourselves a favor and buy a copy. You won't be sorry.