This past week, the Democrat candidates for the nomination of their party met in a CNN televised debate. Unlike the Republican debates thus far, the prospective voter was able to deduce to some degree what positions the candidates hold, how credible they were, and which one of them is immersed in a surrealistic self-deception. The moderator Anderson Cooper was professional and persistent in pressing the competitors to fully answer the questions posed much to the chagrin of the under prepared.

Although some candidates stayed true to their political messages and expressed their ideologies redundantly, others seemed to suffer from myopia and by exhibiting their narrowness of issues lessened themselves from possible consideration by the electorate. Yet, others responded with confounding answers that caused the viewers to question not only their judgment but their sanity, while the winner of the debate may have shied away a lurking competitor from jumping in the race.

The front-runners remained so and the also-rans did little to better themselves in the polls. When one considers that polls drive contributions as much as contributions drive polls, anyone accurately perceiving this race would come to certain inescapable conclusions given the recently reported campaign finance reports coupled with the debate performances. One evaluation is clear – the real race for the Democrat nomination for president currently only has two viable candidates.

Contrary to the Republican debates, which were reminiscent of reality shows on obscure cable channels, the Democrat debate actually was conducted in a fashion worthy of a forum of discourse. Cooper did not stoop toward sensationalism but rather addressed real issues and past records of the candidates before him. With front-runner Hillary Clinton, he asked about the former Secretary of State about her breach of security protocols and her inappropriate private email server. Her answer was lawyerly and mildly apologetic. However, she gained real political ground when Sen. Bernie Sanders virtually exculpated her email mistakes by stating in an unsavory fashion that he was exasperated with the public conversations and press coverage of her dilemma. By doing so he may have sabotaged his own competitiveness by allowing this malingering impediment to her campaign to be diminished.

Cooper caught Sanders flat footed when asked about the crisis in the Middle East. Bernie seemed to stammer when not addressing his pearl issue of economic inequality. However, the Vermont senator did rile the supportive audience in house and did receive widespread positive reactions on social media afterwards. Sanders’ stalwart support has congealed the far left to such a state of solidarity that Clinton has commenced referring to herself as “a progressive who can get things done.” When she stated this new self-description, she was partially co-opting Sander’s identity to pander for votes. Thus, Hillary once again proved she has more political personalities than the schizophrenic Sybil. It merely depends on the audience.

Sanders as always had a blunt, boisterous speaking style in the debate where he continued to repeat the themes of his stump speeches. The devilment of big banks, the super rich’s ruination of the middle class, the absolute need for the forgiveness of student loan debt, and a tuition-free future for state college students, were all barked redundantly despite the true nature of an individual question. Whether or not Sanders can appeal to any voters beyond the true believers of the Democrat far left is questionable. Yet, the most attractive quality of Sanders is that he has been consistent in his stated political beliefs for 35 years. One thing is certain, team Hillary has noticed old Bernie’s solid support and desire to find some way to whittle away at it.

His main opponent, Clinton, was as slick as ever in her responses. Obviously, she had prepared comprehensively for the hard questions asked and her responses were well practiced and non-offensive to anyone. She also said many supportive statements in regard to the Obama administration’s foreign policy record, which she was a significant part of for the first term. In doing so, she not only attempted to acquit herself from the follies of Benghazi and the U.S. failed Middle East policy, but also show her allegiance to Barack Obama.

Undoubtedly, she was thinking ahead to the general election and the corralling of Obama devotees while simultaneously waving a cautionary flag to prospective candidate Vice President Joe Biden – “Don’t jump in, Joe, because I will have the support of Obama’s base.”

In the eclipsing shadow of the two front-runners were former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, and the hapless former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee.

Webb portrayed himself as a militaristic man in search of a war. He justifiably spoke proudly about his service to our country as a soldier in the Vietnam War. Then he talked tough about America’s position in the Middle East and recommended more aggressive action and great augmentation to our current state of military readiness. No matter what question was posed to him, he managed to turn the interrogative into a referendum on the armed forces and foreign policy. This hawkish display did not sway the audience in his favor, nor did it engage more Democrats. In this vein, he would have culled more support if he were in a Republican debate.

Additionally alienating was Webb’s repeated complaint of unfairness in regard to his allowed participation in the debate. He bellowed that he was cheated out of an appropriate amount of time to plead his case. He appeared petulant and juvenile in his protestations.

Similarly, O’Malley tried to convey a record of past accomplishment as governor of Maryland and an assertion that like Webb’s proclamations he was a strong leader. Sadly, O’Malley came across as a minutia-loving bureaucrat who presided as a “go along to get along” governor. He attempted to boast about anti-gun legislation that he championed in Maryland without truly knowing its applicability nationally.

Most distressing to all, and especially to citizens in the Ocean State, was the debate performance of Chafee. His idiosyncratic and incomprehensible reactions and responses have since become the fodder of late night comedy shows and cable news chat shows.

Chafee has long lived within the snow globe of his own subjective reality. This surrealism was exhibited during this forum in which 15 million people were watching. His nonsensical and quixotic quest for the nomination was questioned immediately by Cooper. Chafee’s mercurial party identification was challenged, and his answer was incongruous and almost indecipherable.

When questioned about his vote on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which eventually led to the financial meltdown, Chafee went on a meandering diatribe about just arriving in D.C., his father dying, and being thrust into the position of senator.

Furthermore, Chafee’s campaign has only garnered a few thousand dollars in contributions, while even Webb and O’Malley have yielded at least a few million. Following the debate, Chafee is his typical delusional fashion attributed his lack of success in his campaign and the negative debate critiques to his dovelike positions in regard to use of American military force. His perception was typical of a man who has lost all sense of reality.

All in all, the first Democrat debate indeed resolved a few important questions. First, the only two current viable candidates are Sanders and Clinton. Webb is too myopic and too combative to be seriously considered, and O’Malley is simply a non-galvanizing functionary. Alas, Chafee needs a rest in a sanitarium.

One has to wonder which is preferable – a Republican reality show, or a Democrat display of the politician, the socialist, the warrior, and the delusional.