BYRON YORK: What If Democrats Had A National Security Debate?

The Democratic presidential field, such as it is, gathers for its third debate Saturday, in Manchester, N.H. Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine it were devoted entirely to national security.

The Republican debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night focused almost exclusively on security and foreign policy. The CNN moderators had not originally billed the debate that way, but after Paris, San Bernardino, the Islamic State and more, that’s what it became. . . .

Bernie Sanders, for example, has not been able to hide his annoyance that questions of terrorism and security have imposed themselves on his campaign. Sanders prefers to talk about corrupt billionaires, universal healthcare, and evil super PACs, but troubling world events keep happening.

Earlier this month, Sanders appeared in Baltimore for a discussion of economic inequality and the Black Lives Matter movement. Before Sanders talked to reporters, his press secretary warned, “Don’t ask about ISIS today.”

Of course that didn’t work. So Sanders told the assembled journalists, “You want to ask me about ISIS? We will talk about ISIS. But what I have said … is that obviously ISIS and terrorism are a huge national issue that we have got to address, but so is poverty, so is unemployment, so is education, so is healthcare, so is the need to protect working families. And I will continue to talk about those issues.”

That is not a man who wants to talk about national security threats. Hillary Clinton, as a former secretary of state, is more comfortable discussing terrorism. But she, too, sticks more to domestic issues — in part because that’s what her base voters want.

Also, Hillary doesn’t really want to discuss — much less debate — anything.