Last night I was among those in attendance at the Democratic Candidates Mayoral Debate. It was held at Jazz at Lincoln Center in the new Time Warner building - the same location where I saw Robert McNamara give a speech last November. Televised live on NY1, it was moderated by Dominic Carter - my favorite political reporter.

There was drama from the beginning with the question being : Would Anthony Weiner be able to make it? At 5:00 yesterday morning, Weiner checked himself into the emergency room and was diagnosed with a kidney stone. I've been told that this is one of the most painful conditions that a person can be afflicted with. Despite this setback, Weiner not only came to the debate, he excelled!

For much of the debate, it seemed that the candidates were playing it safe - sticking to their talking points, and not attacking each other. Rather, their criticisms were levied towards Mayor Bloomberg. However, the debate got interesting when Dominic Carter started "The Lightening Round" - he asked questions that could only be answered with a "yes" or "no"

From the lightening round, we learned that Ferrer and Miller are Yankees fans, and Weiner and Fields are Mets fans. Ferrer and Weiner said that they would take the subway to work while Miller and Fields said they would not.

Gifford Miller wouldn't comment on sending his kids to public or private school, trying to dodge the question with an "I don't know." Of course it's his right to explore all options for his children, but it doesn't seem right that the person whose campaign is about improving the public schools, won't commit to sending his own there. Miller became downright defensive about it - poor debating form. On the other end of the spectrum, Weiner said that he would definetely send his children to public schools but that he needs to "find a wife first."

But I noticed something interesting. Ferrer, Fields and Miller all said that Bloomberg was a better mayor than Giuliani. Weiner was the only one who said that Giuliani was the better mayor. But then they asked if they felt the city was better off today than it was 4 years ago. Ferrer and Fields said no. Huh? If they think that Bloomberg is the better mayor, then shouldn't the city be better off? An interesting contradiction. Likewise, Miller and Weiner both said that the city was indeed better off. Consistent from Miller but what about Weiner? If he thought that Rudy was the better mayor, then why is the city better off today? Food for thought.

Anyway it was a fun night of political theater.