We re-posted a diary written by Jeffrey Feldman on his experience with the Leadership Forum earlier today. This diary was written by one of the moderators, Joan McCarter (aka mcjoan) at Daily Kos. It includes some of the questions that you didn't hear asked because they were sacrificed to the time clock.

~~~
Sitting on a stage with the leading lights of the Democratic party, one of whom will very likely be the next president of the United States, is a surreal experience. Add to that the fact that you are supposed to be asking these people intelligent (and intelligible) questions, the lights, and the 2,000 people sitting in the room with you, and life gets a little weird. Knowing that thousands more are watching online and blogging the whole thing (and that they will be brutally honest about your performance) raises the stakes a bit. Alternately exhilarating and terrifying, but mostly weird in that totally engrossing and yet out-of-body kind of way.

We three moderators, the New York Times Magazine's Matt Bai, Kossack, Frameshop proprietor, and author Jeffrey Feldman, and I, had hoped that the Presidential Leadership Forum would be more interesting, substantive, and interactive than previous debates. We tried to go for questions that would speak more to leadership and governing philosophy than hot-button issue reactions. Many topics that have been covered in previous debates--as important as they may be--had already been talked out, and we were highly unlikely to learn anything new from them. On those issues that had already been addressed, we tried to come at them from an angle that would hopefully get us something new.

We wanted to try to force them out of their stump speech talking points--to set them a little on edge and to try to force an informative conversation out of that discomfort. We were only partly successful in that--they have a hell of a lot more practice at this than us, and can turn a question on a dime into the one that they want to answer. Even so, up there on stage, it felt like we had the most lively, engaged debate yet among these candidates.

The discussion sparked on lobbying was a complete surprise to me, a good one. We had decided early on that if that kind of conversation happened between them, we'd let it go, sacrificing our "script" in the hopes of getting into some new territory. One of the key elements, I believe, in this level of engagement between the candidates was the intense energy they were getting from the crowd. They obviously recognized that this was not your average partisan rally crowd, but a demanding, informed, and critical audience that wasn't going to be talked down to. But at the same time, the raucous energy of the audience came onto the stage in waves, and really contributed to the passion you saw from the candidates on stage.

We obviously had flubs--I won't soon live down "President Clinton." A miscommunication between Matt and me on a follow-up question early on left us with a 20 minute gap between questions to Senator Obama. First lesson from this experience--it won't go according to plan. Within about 10 minutes, it was obvious that we just weren't going to have the time we wanted to have substantive answers, and we had too many questions. We weren't going to let the conversation we were trying to force get in the way of any conversation that organically erupted. So many, many questions went by the wayside.

My own perceptions on performance were that only Governor Richardson and Senator Dodd really showed us something we hadn't seen before. Richardson was more engaged than I'd yet seen him in a debate, and it was gratifying to see Dodd's passion and intelligence come to the fore. I'm no closer to making a choice on a candidate than I was a week ago. But I'm more convinced that any of the top tier of our candidates will be a fine choice by me.

Below the fold are some of my questions that had to be sacrificed to the timeclock. Some of them aren't particularly friendly to the candidate to whom they are addressed--we wanted this forum to be a challenge, not a lovefest. Some of them are a little quirky, again, trying to get to issues that haven't already been talked about. I would love to see any of the candidates answering these questions in diaries, if they are so inclined.

Domestic Policy

To any: When President Clinton nominated Justice Ginsburg, he consulted with Senator Hatch. Would you likewise consult with the highest ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee on your nominations?

Obama and Edwards: In contrasting the two health care plans proposed by you, the primary differentiation between them is that Edwards' has mandates, Obama's is opt-in. What are the drawbacks of a mandated health care system, and are those drawbacks at all outweighed by the fact that mandates are the most effective way to ensure that we really do have universal coverage?

To any: In 2003, Tom Friedman argued for a $1 gas tax, quoting energy expert Philip K. Verleger Jr.

''Until we raise energy prices we really aren't fighting the war on terrorism, because we're doing nothing to deny the countries who fund terrorists the cash they need to destroy us.

All of the candidates talk about the importance of lowering gas prices while at the same time achieving energy independence, but is it possible to achieve both goals at the same time? Isn't it possible that we need a gas tax to make energy independence achievable?

To any: Last week, Sen. Webb differentiated himself and the new populists in the Senate from the so-called ìRubin Democrats,î saying

"the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party," . . . share the same problem as many Republicans: "We're not paying attention to what has happened to basic working people in the country."

The hallmarks of Bob Rubin's tenure as Treasury Secretary included MFN for China, NAFTA, CAFTA, and administration fast-track authority for trade agreements. How would you describe yourself? A Rubin Democrat or a Webb Democrat?

Foreign Policy

Dodd: Latin America has been largely ignored by the Bush administration for the last six and a half years. What problems have been festering in the region during this period of neglect, and what would be your approach to rebuilding a policy toward Latin America?

Political Philosophy/Experience

Clinton: Your husband, President Clinton, who is arguably the most effective Democratic politician in a generation, was often referred to as a "triangulator," a practitioner of what was termed the third way of politics. Recently Noam Schrieber, senior editor at The New Republic, argued in an op-ed that this kind of politics, particularly as followed by the Democratic Leadership Council, has become in essence an anachronism, saying;

For seven years, Democrats have faced a radical administration that operates in bad faith. Yet there was the Democratic Leadership Council, still arguing that teachers unions endanger the republic.

Sen. Clinton, do you think the politics that your husband so effectively practiced in the 1990s will be effective in todayís political climate?

Follow-up to Obama: Sen. Obama, in the last debate you answered a question about how we would be better off with you as president by saying

Look, I don't think this is just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people, America.

Democratic strategists Ruy Texeira and John Halpin have argued that the current political climate requires what they call the politics of division, that

Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

Will a Democratic nominee Obama be applying a third way of politics, a politics of saying the problem is both one of Democrats and Republicans, or will he provide a clear, concise contrast of what it means to be a Democrat vs. a Republican?

Kucinich: You paid almost nothing in dues to the DCCC every cycle you've been a member of Congress, until the last one, when you paid up just before election day. In light of this, as well as your numerous criticisms of Democrats, how would you characterize your commitment to the Democratic Party as an institution?