The forum however failed to accomplish its goal of bringing the race issue to the national discussion, at least in the way hoped for by hosts and sponsors. Arguably the forum was hijacked by the politics of the event, with nearly all the attention focused on who was not present. The four "top-tier" Republicans were playing at another "more pressing" contest, the "money primary" seen as the only way to stay viable with contributors and media.

Absences at the forum served the political purposes for many, eliciting a steady drumbeat of media recrimination of failures to respect minority voters. Scores of stories emphasized the no-shows as representations of an insular bigoted party of Lincoln. The at Washingtonpost.com was more muted than many: headline, Top GOP Candidates Skip Black-Issues Forum: 4 Contenders Attend Fundraisers. The media Friday morning continued to lead with "who was not there." Michael Cooper's New York Times story 4 Top G.O.P. Candidates Skip Debate With Minority Focus covered the on-stage recrimination of the missing and internal tongue-lashings within the party. Understandably this became the "drama" surrounding the forum and the on-stage highlight of an otherwise predictable evening.

I am working on a series of posts that examines the many issues raised by multiple-debates and multiple-hosts this primary season. Are there too many debates? In what ways does narrowed sponsorship lead to sundry politicization? Are focused debates serving voter informational goals? Which publics ought to be players in the debate process, and other questions raised by the proliferation of candidate forums? Keep posted.

The Actual Forum

What follows are my observations of last night's debate.

Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times observed "The first 10 minutes of the debate were dedicated to bashing the four no-shows and, in some cases, Republicans as a whole." Actually, according to my timing, the first question was thirteen minutes into the program and then host Tavis Smiley asked the candidates to respond to empty podiums gracing the stage, another five minutes of the non-present.

"I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the top-performing Republican to show up, who touted having won 48 percent of Arkansas' black voters during one of his elections

The forum lead with Tom Joyner, syndicated radio host, calling out the missing candidates.

"Let me take a<moment right here and now to say hello to those of you viewing from home: Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Fred Thompson," talk show host Tom Joyner said.<br> He then expressed his own skepticism of the Republican Party, saying there is "a perception out there that the Republican Party holds only the interests of the majority population." It was a theme repeated throughout the night. (Dinan)

The extended introduction felt more like a night at the Apollo: "Lets give it up for those who are here," Lets loosen up, you don't have to waive your arms but at least unfold them." Joyner led a bit of revival, a congregational bonding.
Tavis Smiley segued to the night's theme, `to live in a nation as good as its covenant.' He highlighted audience member Cornel West to note `You can't lead the people if you don't love the people' and pointedly asked the republicans `what is the depth of your love for the people.' He introduced two of the Little Rock Nine from the audience. Smiley recognized Ken Mehlman, a former GOP party chair, who helped plan the event and called forth a roll call of issues for the national agenda. His mode and remarks had overtones of a State of the Union. Finally Michael Steele, Chair of GOPAC and 2004 Senate GOP Candidate from the US Senate from Maryland, sanctioned the GOP's participation in the forum, added solemnity in anticipation of the actual debate.

The Candidates.

My sense was that overall the fare of the debate was remarkably predictable (a judgment not limited to this debate). The general process was to show how their policies were in the interest of minorities because they are in the interest of all Americans. In some instances the candidates did communicate a sense of "getting it" via minority issues (Huckabee - imprison less minorities); condemning racism with a firmness not expected (Brownback). Overall, however, the messages were not to aligned with the audience as much as the audience was instructed to view the policies with more of an open mind.

Winners/Losers, As ordered right to left on stage:

Mike Huckabee: continued his dominance of the republican debates. He persuades even when one knowingly differs. Empathy.
Ron Paul: Always entertaining, continuing to shame republican and democrat alike on Iraq.
Sam Brownback: Seems to have his disappearing-into-the-backg round down to a fine art.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter: Made a convincing argument that there ought to be a third or fourth-tier of candidates.
Alan Keys: a parody on even himself.