Since I had to sit through last night's Democratic debate for work, I figured you - the BTP readers - should be subjected benefit from my exclusive and insightful analysis. Without further ado...

1. The candidates need better coaching.

MSNBC tried to be just a little edgy by asking for one sentence answers, shows of hands, and only letting a few candidates respond to each question. They also limited almost every answer to just 30 or 60 seconds.

The candidates, however, still did their best to fill up those 30 to 60 seconds with rambling, long-winded answers that said almost nothing! They know the format of the debate in advance. You'd think they'd come up with ultra-short explanations of their most important positions and plans.

I think I find this especially aggravating because my whole job is basically boiling down political bloviating to just a few bullet points suitable for the web and email. It's actually quite difficult to say your piece succinctly and powerfully. But no one said running for President was easy!

One question that stuck in my mind as particularly poorly answered was when John Edwards was asked how he'd pay for his health care plan. The question was fair, and Edwards did a good job trying to turn it into an opportunity to actually explain his plan.

The problem was, he just went on and on. He's not going communicate all the finer details of his solution to the healthcare crisis in 30 seconds. And by saying more than just the basics, he opens himself up to gaffes.

So, as a public service to John Edwards and all the other candidates, I will answer the question for him. Mr. Edwards, I give you permission to steal this answer. To the other candidates, let this be a guide for how to respond to debate questions.

MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, you have said you would raise taxes to pay for a health care plan. The question is: Which ones?

ANSWER: My health care plan does two things:

1. Lower your health insurance bill.
2. Provide critical health care for the 47 million Americans who don't have any coverage.

I don't have time to go into all the details now, but you can read all about it on my website, johnedwards.com.

To pay for my plan, I would repeal George Bush's unfair tax cuts that gave huge >windfalls to the very rich.

I timed myself. 15 seconds.

Here's a bonus answer for Sen. Biden on the issue of judges and abortion.

MODERATOR: Senator Biden, as president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

ANSWER: Yes. Roe is established law under the constitution.

Some say "litmus tests" are scary. I say it's second-grader speechifying: Saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.

2. There was one good question.

MODERATOR: [I]f, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

It's a terrifying prospect, but it's a really good question. There's no challenge more presidential than leading the nation through a crisis. I would encourage future debate moderators to ask more of these rhetorical questions. I think they at least give us a glimpse to how a candidate would react if thrust into such an awful situation.

I thought the answer last night were good, if not great. The big thing missing on this issue was some real emotion. Governor Richardson came closest when insisted on answering the question when it was his turn to talk a few questions later.

There are two emotions that would have been good to show in the face of this question: sadness and anger. Perhaps sadness would be seen as a sign of weakness, but it sure seems like it would be genuine.

Most of the answers talked about the need for swift and serious retribution, which is fine enough, but insisting on bombs and guns isn't quite the same as righteous anger that evil people would take the lives of innocents.

It would have been nice to see more passion in the responses.

3. Mike Gravel is nuts.

But he still wins the Al Sharpton Award as the "Democrat we all secretly want to vote for." Yeah, he seemed crazy and cantankerous, but he also was real clear that war should not be a tool of foreign policy. Sad to think that's crazy talk in today's politics, but it shouldn't be.