It's way more than a year before the next presidential election, but we're already well into the candidate debate season. And so far, the debates are some of the best shows on television.

On NPR this morning, news commentators speculated that voters will get tired of the debates. I hope not. Americans need to make a better choice than they did in 2004. And since the primary season has been moved up, it's not too early to start studying.

Last night's debate on CNN, like the earlier debates, displayed a gratifyingly strong Democratic field. And even with the extreme time limits, even with eight candidates on the stage, we got a good look at the Democrats' similarities and differences. And surprisingly, even within 60 seconds, the candidates made forceful arguments on complicated subjects.

Among the highlights for me: Joe Biden and Barack Obama explaining their opposing positions on funding the Iraq war; Dennis Kucinich's insistence that the only solution to the United States' health-care problem is a universal, single-payer system; John Edwards' declaration that the "war on terror" is nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan designed to frighten Americans; and Biden's attack on the don't-ask, don't-tell military policy.

Quick candidate impressions: Hillary Clinton is coming off less shrill - to me, at least. Obama is confident and congenial and is obviously the most charismatic of the eight. There's something about John Edwards' personality - I can't identify it; does he seem too youthful? - that seems to be keeping him from getting traction. Joe Biden is a superior candidate whose experience and thoughtfulness would make him a good president, and he ought to be getting more attention than he is.

And frankly, other than Mike Gravel, there isn't a weak candidate in the bunch. Like Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are having trouble getting attention. In last night's debate, they were practically shut out. CNN's Wolf Blitzer did a good job as moderator, but he should have made certain that all of the candidates got equal exposure. Debates like this one, after all, are among the few chances we get to see the candidates talking about the wide variety of issues a president must deal with.

The closer we get to the election, the more we'll be bombarded with campaign ads. And not too long from now, some of the current candidates will withdraw - not because they're not good candidates, but because they don't have enough money to continue.

The ugly truth about American politics is that it takes money - way too much money - to run for office. And the more money candidates can raise, the more likely they are to be elected. Money, more than anything else, will determine which candidates will be on the New York primary ballot next February. I'd bet that half the field will be out of the race by then.

Next up: a debate by the Republican candidates, Tuesday night at 7 on CNN.

Good merciful heavens. Have the Republican presidential candidates not learned anything from this disastrous presidential rule?

At last night's debate on CNN, there was plenty of sparring among the candidates, and a surprising number of attacks on the Bush administration. But mostly, there was strong support for the war in Iraq. The problem, most of them insisted, is not our attack on Iraq. The problem is the war's execution.

And there was a dismaying amount of right-wing rhetoric.

This is one scary bunch - ready, with few exceptions, to muscle the world to get our own way. John McCain, apparently, will stay the course in Iraq, no matter what the cost in human lives. The "surge," he said, must work. "I am convinced that if it fails and we have to withdraw," he said, terrorists "will follow us home."

Only Texas Representative Ron Paul, who disagrees with the other Republicans about almost everything, said it was a mistake to attack Iraq.

On the complicated issue of immigration, the Republicans were sharply divided, some of them flat-out xenophobic, some more rational. (Only Ron Paul showed any sympathy for undocumented immigrants, noting that they're being made scapegoats in the discussion over an immigration bill.)

On other issues, far-right conservatism was in charge. While Rudy Juiliani stuck to his principles and defended abortion rights, Mitt Romney bragged about his switch from pro-choice to anti-abortion. And once again he gave his weird explanation for the change: the possibility of cloning convinced him that with Roe v. Wade, "we had gone too far."

Among the most distressing responses were to Wolf Blitzer's question about gays in the military. The don't-ask, don't-tell policy is working just fine, the Republicans agreed. Fine? A blatantly discriminatory policy works just fine? A policy that forces out qualified people, including linguists, when we desperately need them?

Worst of all was Romney's response: to change the policy, he said, would be a "social experiment."

Last night's debate makes it clear: whoever is nominated, there'll be stark differences between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president next year. The Republicans will be offering a candidate who endorses right-wing views, and that candidate's campaign will be designed to play to Americans' fears and divide us still further.

Residents of the Beechwood Neighborhood in the northeast section of the city say police emergency response time is getting worse for the east side. And, they say, so is crime.

"Mayor Bob Duffy says that public safety is his highest priority and he believes in results," Kyle Crandall said at a news conference today in front of Northeast Area Development office. "We support our police, but we don't think the results are good."

Response time data obtained from the Rochester Police Department for 2006 shows that the average response time for priority 1 calls --- 911 calls where the crime is underway --- was 14 minutes and 31 seconds. Priority 2 calls --- calls to police after the crime took place --- had an average response time of one hour and 14 minutes.

For 2007, average response time for priority 1 calls is taking 19 minutes and 14 seconds; average response time for priority 2 calls is one hour and 38 minutes, according to the police department.

Crandall said he is not sure the data is correct because priority 2 calls can turn into priority 1 calls if an incident escalates.

"Some residents are not calling at all because they know the police won't be able to respond quickly enough," he said.

Crandall said there are three reasons why he thinks the response time is taking longer: the consolidation of area substations into two stations, not enough officers, and problems with officer dispatch.

Crandall says he has been in talks with Mayor Duffy and Police Chief David Moore, but he says the problem continues to get worse.

What are police response times in your neighborhood like? Comment below.