This morning, mayoral candidate Joe Azar stopped by my office and asked what I thought of last night's mayoral forum held at the Eau Claire print building.

I hadn't given a lot of in-depth thought to it at that point, so I gave him some quick, off-the-cuff observations: Sparkle Clark was ill-prepared and out of her league; Gary Myers was poised, articulate and had a good strategic-level vision, but needed a better grasp of the issues; Aaron Johnson, rather than just being the lovable insurgent, was a more serious and better-prepared candidate than I had anticipated, but not quite hitting the stride of a serious contender; Steve Benjamin did very well but nonetheless under-performed my expectations; Steve Morrison was rock-solid and over-performed my expectations.

Then there was Councilman Kirkman Finlay, who had the firmest grasp of the details and was unafraid to tell the audience what it might not want to hear in terms of the city's ability to invest in various projects, but also failed to articulate a positive vision of what he would like to achieve in office.

I stand by those snapshot observations. But the more I thought about the debate, the more I realized that it was Steve Benjamin who had the most to prove -- and that, to my mind, he didn't prove it.

Fair or not, politics is a game of expectations. And most close observers of city politics have Benjamin pegged as the odds-on favorite to be the city's next mayor. (In a nutshell, Benjamin's mix of support from blacks, white progressives and the business community is seen as a formidable if not unbeatable combination.) Sure, he might end up in a run-off against Finlay or Morrison, but I have yet to come across anyone who doesn't think Benjamin is the man to beat in this election.

That casts Benjamin in the role of frontrunner -- and gives him a lot to live up to.

So, how did he do?

He did well: He was well prepared and well spoken. He emphasized the importance of education, saying that many other city problems would go away if the city got a handle on educating its young people. He lamented our city's regressive stance on public transportation, noting that we're still grappling with our bus system while other cities move ahead with light rail and other forward-thinking projects. He stood firmly against any new tax increases. He stood firmly in favor of full funding for city police and fire protection. (Never mind that these are potentially contradictory positions ... this is politics, after all.) He repeated, over and over, that his number one priority for Columbia is safety. 

Look a little closer though, and the Benjamin sheen isn't so glaringly bright. Where Councilman Finlay unapologetically told a North Columbia audience why he did not and would not support a TIF (tax-increment financing) district for their area, Benjamin danced around the issue -- and didn't answer the question.

Instead, he said that in general TIFs work and that the two under discussion at City Council would work better if they had the support of Richland County and Richland School District One (they have the support of neither). But he didn't present a clear position on the issue.

When the candidates were asked how they would fund development in North Columbia, Johnson and Morrison presented the clearest answers. Johnson admitted upfront that the needs far exceed the dollars and that the solution was therefore to get creative and go grassroots: If the bus stop looks like crap, get a few neighbors together and fix it up. 

For his part, Morrison said: "We need to quit whining about money and start building things that bring in investment." It's basic, he said: safe neighborhoods with good schools bring residential and business investment, which creates a new tax base, which can be re-invested for further development. 

Benjamin's answer wasn't bad -- he said "we have a lot of plans, the problem is implementation" and that working on education would make a lot of North Columbia's problems go away. But he didn't own the issue the way a frontrunner needs to in order to cement an air of inevitability that is the key to his candidacy.

Instead, it was Morrison who seemed the clearest and most commanding on this and many other questions.

On the strong mayor question, again, Benjamin was good but Morrison was better. Benjamin said we don't need a strong mayor system to have a strong mayor, and that City Council needs to set a strong vision and set priorities regardless of the system of government.

It was a good answer, but Morrison's was more concise and emphatic: "Let the people decide. Put it on the ballot."

As for Finlay, he's refreshing in his honestly. Far from pandering for votes, he relishes telling people the truth: The city is broke, so don't get your hopes up. But that's also where Finlay loses the chance to gain traction with voters -- straight talk only goes so far; at some point you have to present a positive vision, too.

Back to my morning chat with Azar. One of his concerns about the debate was that he felt the three candidates generally presumed to have a real shot at winning -- Benjamin, Finlay and Morrison -- are stealing the other candidates' ideas, in some cases making up for their own lack of detailed knowledge about the issues.

I told Joe that I could understand why that would bother him. But I also said, "That's how campaigns work." 

And, truth be told, we're all better off when candidates are stealing each other's ideas. It means they're listening to each other and they're open to embracing new solutions. That can only be a good thing for a city that desperately needs some creative thinking -- regardless of who the next mayor is.