What? All of the candidates missed the chance to point out the disconnect between our overseas "military stance" (basing? huh?) and response to terrorist strikes. Our rapid reaction forces and special forces fighting terrorism are based in the U.S. and "deployed" as needed to respond elsewhere.

It was easy enough to question the premise and the hypothetical, two excellent moves when the question is a bad one. Then, the candidate can do what the three proceeded to do anyway, just talk about how they would respond.

With time to reflect on it, I'm sure we can all do better than the three candidates did. Put your answer in the comments. Mine was on the radio show and you can listen to it.

But the candidates were under great pressure, and the question itself, by its very nature, added to the pressure. An honest answer might start with, "I would shudder to my core, then pray."

The next step would be to consider and craft a message to the American people and to the perpetrators. Then due deliberation with experts, advisors, generals, followed by close consultation with the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker.

Obama
But that stuff does not fit and work in a one minute answer. And Obama was first. No time to think. That's why people like the guy. He has depicted himself as someone of good, careful judgment. His answer almost needs to be more consistently about how he would make decisions.

The pressure was on; and Obama did err. First, he tried to shoe horn Katrina into the question. In my advice to candidates on using this format I suggest "linking" when you can to be sure you can include your agenda in the debate. This debate had almost nothing about race and poverty. Obama linked black infant mortality twice and Katrina this one time. But this was not the right time.

Starting with "an effective emergency response" is not necessarily bad in itself. And the notion of then chcking to be sure there is not another threat imminent would, indeed, be most prudent.

Then, instead of explicitly rejecting the hypothetical of knowing immediately that "beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaeda," Obama's answer seemed not to have heard or understood that part of the question. Why would we need to find out if we had "intelligence on who might have carried it out?" when, "beyond a shadow of a doubt," we already knew?

Then he almost gets it but hedges: then we could "potentially dismantle . . . " but Obama's admirable intellectual instinct then kicks in too quickly and he proceeds to "what we can't do" and talks about how we need good relations with the rest of the world. He's right. But what we want to hear is our president talking to us as if the attack just happened. Concluding with the need for long run strategy is germane, yes. But in all of the minute of the answer, four seconds was spent on how to directly deal with the perpetrators.

Edwards
Better. But a similar problem. He starts out with the same mistake about first finding out who did it in spite of the fact that, as a trial lawyer would say, the fact of Al Qaeda as perpetrator was stipulated.

But Edwards is good because he frontloads his answer, going next to his four seconds of actual answer: "act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that."

Still, though. Just four seconds and no emotion. "Hold them responsible." What does that mean? Where is the passion you display when talking about poverty and injustice? Where is the empathy you evoked when tallking about your dad and the restaurant?

He then spends a lot of time with concrete imagery about port security and saying we would need to study the intelligence failure and homeland security failure that led to the attack. Yes, but that's not the question. How would you respond? How change overseas military?

Folks, you are not running (entirely) against the Bush administration's policy. As Lupo pointed out on our show, your opponent in a question like this one is Rudy Giuliani. The study counterplan, necessary as it may be, won't cut it politically or emotionally.

Edwards then did a relatively better job than Obama giving the long term answer with the "need more tools than bombs" going back (a tactic I coach as often useful, though less so here) to the earlier "war on terrorism" question. Better, I say, because of the metaphor and because he acknowledged the "dangerous people and dangerous leaders"  who "must be dealt with strongly."

Hillary
What a difference. She begins with empathatic connection to the audience and really gets the emotional power of the question: "Having been a senator during 9/11 I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of attack and the impact that it has far beyond those who are directly affected." Neither of the other two paused as she did to acknowledge the terror.

The very next twenty five seconds began with "A President must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate . . . " and ended with "should quickly respond."

Only then did she say what "that doesn't mean . . . ." and she goes straight to the militarily relevant distinction between the Afghanistan war and Iraq, coming right back around to conclude with, "Let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

A President. Must. Move. Swiftly. Prudent. Retaliate. Quickly. Respond. Focus. Everything we can. Destroy them.

Powerful rhetoric. Precicely focused substance.

Perhaps you can improve on her answer after your hours of thought. It is hard for me to say anything better could ever be expectd in the heat of one of these debates, even with the couple of minutes she had to prepare*.

The other candidates would not necessarily disagree with her answer. But their instincts, technique, and preparation did not allow them to produce an answer that was in the same league as her's on this one question.

It was an early debate and the others did not make a gaffe or really answer wrongly except in contrast to this one excellent answer from Hillary.

Conclusion
My advice thanks especially to Lupo's analysis: recognize when the question is an emotional one.

 Obama, you do not need to display policy knowledge at all times just because the pundits say so. You know that. Believe it. Talk about how you would decide and what you would feel.

Edwards, think about how you answered the question about what you learned from the last election on the Hardball College Tour in December. You said that instead of thinking about what people want to hear you have envisioned yourself in the office having to make these weighty decisions. Use that as your prompt.

Hillary, thanks for setting the bar so high.

* Prep time before the debate and prior debate experience counts for a lot. Folks are always amazed that we debaters can "think on our feet" so well and speak well extemporaneously, as if it's all natural talent or instict. It's 60% preparation and 30% technique.

P.S. Never mind the sexist garbage about how Hillary needs to show she is hawkish because she is a woman. Her answer was presidential and rhetorically perfect. Period.