Last night's Democratic debate was on target

Those who think that politics and governing should be blood sports -- or at the least should take place in an arena where the weapons of choice are puerile verbal put-downs and taunts -- have probably been disappointed in the Democrat presidential debates so far.  Why?  Because these events feature people who actually talk in complete and informative sentences as they answer questions put to them about things that the nation's voters have said are important issues.  Yesterday's event was Part 1 of the current debate cycle; we get Part 2 tonight.

I've got to give credit to the CNN folks who anchored last night's debate.  They had good questions that covered the issues of the day, they were polite but firm, they kept track of a candidate's answer to each question and circled back if the answer was not on the topic of the question, and they managed the entire event according to the rule book.  Also, Detroit supplied a beautiful venue.

For their part, all of the candidates were respectful of each other, of the audience and of the moderators.  Disagreements did not change any of that; these people were professional.  Donald Trump's name came up often -- as should be expected -- but always in the context of a legitimate governing issue.  There were no personal attacks, no sleazy name-calling, nothing disrespectful.  (Although Trump defenders might quibble about a remark regarding Trump's record on truthfulness.)

It was a lively two and one-half hours, including commercials for the television audience.  (What did they do in the theater while the rest of us waited for the commercials to end?)  All of the candidates were articulate and thoughtful.

We heard a lot about healthcare; I suppose that was the most-discussed topic.  It had top billing, anyway.  But significant time was spent on immigration; education; climate change; foreign policy; employment; innovation; infrastructure; taxation; slavery-related reparations; geographic appeal; structural governing changes; constitutional amendments; age appeal; nature of leadership; ethics; it was a busy evening.  (Interesting thing:  I don't remember any mention of election meddling by Russia or other hostiles, or of the increasing Federal debt.  Did I miss those?)

There were some agreements among the candidates on how things should get done; there were lots of disagreements.  This is how government works best -- something needs to be accomplished, there are different ideas on how to do that, the ideas get tossed around, a plan emerges and eventually there is action and legislation.

All of these candidates gave me the feeling that if they were to be the next president of the United States, they would be capable of the give-and-take, wheeling-and-dealing machinations that have been the lifeblood of great and significant governing accomplishments.

Sure, it's messy and time-consuming, but that's democracy for you.  If there's a better way to run a country I'm waiting to hear about it.

Did somebody (or somebodies) "win" the debate?  Probably, but we won't know until new opinion polling is done, and new fundraising is tallied.  These things are not real debates, where an impartial authority judges according to evidence presented and the logic in doing so.  These are "get to know the candidate" events.  Last night, ten Democrats who want to be president told us about themselves and their ideas.

I like all of them.