Worst. Debate. Ever.

– we don’t make a practice of reposting in verbatim other blogs and posts we read but I, severely tired of watching debates, tuned into the Hornets vs Mavs game on ESPN instead of watching the debates. I know, I am a bad American – at least for one night.

What follows is post on last night’s Democratic Debate in Pennsylvania from Salon. It is worth a quick read and reflects the state of the race we are now witnessing, less substance and more nonsense.

Enjoy:

Over the last year or so, we’ve seen debates that were pretty bad. We’ve seen a few that were even embarrassingly bad. But at least in this cycle, I’m not sure if we’ve seen anything quite as train-wreck, cover-your-eyes bad as the spectacle on ABC last night.

What may prove to be the last Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wasn’t just awful on its face, it was hard not to watch wondering if moderator Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity.

At one point, about 20 minutes or so into the debate, Stephanopoulos seemed to encourage Obama to go after Clinton on the Bosnia/sniper story. Obama not only took a pass, but actually tried to explain that there were more important things to talk about: “I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history.”

It didn’t help.

I’m not entirely unsympathetic to Gibson’s and Stephanopoulos’ challenge. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, so the hosts’ task was to focus on areas of disagreement in order to create some kind of television-worthy conflict. Regrettably, that’s precisely what Gibson and Stephanopoulos get paid to do.

But the result was as dull as it was pointless, with a discussion that tells us nothing about the candidates, their visions, or their ability to govern. E&P’s Greg Mitchell called it “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” The Washington Post’s Tom Shales called it “step downward for network news,” and noted that the moderators delivered “shoddy, despicable performances.” Will Bunch noted, “[A] word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must. Stop.” Salon’s own Walter Shapiro added:

This is the way it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. If Wednesday night’s fizzle in Philly was indeed the last debate of the Democratic primary season between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it will be remembered for, well, not much of anything.Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon.

So, who won? I haven’t the foggiest idea, but I’m quite certain we all lost.

Dumb Little Democrats

There are grumblings among us, my donkey bretheren, that for those of you who support Hillary, if she is not selected as our Democratic Party’s nominee, you will either sit out come election day or vote for McCain. I have heard similar threats from the Obama camp. A recent Gallup poll indicates that 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama in a general election and 19% of Obama supporters would take McCain over Hillary.

It is not hard to find these people. As the old African proverb says ‘The fool speaks, the wise man listens.’ There are quite a few fools out there in cyberspace wagging their tongues, ranging from the completely misinformed:

Did you know that 75% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama if he gets the nomination? And 75% of Obama supporters will vote for Hillary is she gets the nomination. So the best thing for the party is to nominated Hillary otherwise that old geezer will win the election. Go, go Hillary! I am a Hillranger. Hillary 2008

(Even if we forgive her mangling of the English language, her lack of correct statistics does her in. Of course, ‘…lies, damn lies and statistics,’ but even still – who could honestly entertain this as being correct? I am more wont to think of her as disingenuously clever than I am as merely ignorant, but I will certainly entertain the later as well.)

And the range continues to the profoundly stupid:

I am another one who will not vote for Obama in the general. McCain will beat him soundly and Hillary will run in 4 years if she cannot make it this time.

Einstein was correct, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” I am not sure about the universe either, but thinkers, and I am being generous with that term in this instance, such as the one above indicate that if we could turn stupidity into an alternate energy all the world would run forever at merely the cost of the cognitively challenged.

I do not mean to pick on people. I am actually a nice guy, but let’s be real here. I am even willing to give these folks the benefit of the doubt that they are merely bitter at the prospect of their candidate not being selected and may come around in the end. Moreover, I certainly do not excuse any Obama supporters who have made similar statements.

Here’s the deal, I was having lunch the other day with a staunch feminist friend of mine who is a die-hard Hillary supporter. I admire her wit and judgment and we have a mutual respect for one another’s opinions even when, in this primary season, we differ. However, she told me that if Obama gets the nomination, as it looks like he will, she will not vote for him. She, who lists the right for a woman to choose as one of her top priorities and who realizes that we will likely replace another Supreme Court justice (perhaps Stevens or Ginsberg) in the next four years, would rather not vote for a pro-choice candidate in Obama and allow McCain to take office due to her own bruised ego. I will make no excuses for this kind of thinking – it has everything to do with ego.

I will now take a moment to vent on McCain’s ‘muddled’ anti-choice stances before returning to my diatribe against Democratic stupidity.

McCain considers himself ‘pro-life.’ (For the moment I will also table the issue on how we liberals have allowed the conservatives to define the terms of the abortion debate with absurd words such as ‘pro-life’ but I promise I will revisit this in another post.)

There seems to be quite a few Independents and Democrats who do not get the full gist of McCain’s anti-choice stance. This is no accident. McCain is on record over the years saying varying things about his opinions on the issue. There are large numbers of women who are in the dark as to what McCain stands for, as evidenced by Morra Aarons on blogher.com:

“Among McCain’s pro-choice women supporters, 50% don’t know his positions and an additional 25% assume his views are in line with their own! McCain has stated (it’s on his website) he thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned.”

Here is the the quote from McCain’s website:

“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that…”

McCain makes it clear. He will work to undo Roe vs Wade and plans on appointing justices who will help him make it so. If you are a pro-choice woman reading this and are still uncertain about what McCain has to offer allow me to illuminate, so that you can ruminate. Here is a quote from NARAL’s president, Nancy Keenan on McCain:

“He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances — that was about violence against women in clinics,” Keenan says, adding, “He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme.”

He is not only against abortion, an opinion I can understand and respectfully disagree with, he is against offering preventative measures such as contraception to teens. He believes in the right-wing misguided notion of abstinence only, an opinion I cannot understand and in no way respect. I have been a teenager and I remember being taught abstinence only…it didn’t take, and I was a pretty good kid. I am thankful my parents were responsible enough also to talk to me about safe sex. But McCain is against this kind of education, and the rights of women in regards to their own bodies:

“McCain’s record is really, really anti-choice. Not only anti-choice, but anti-sex ed, anti-emergency contraception, and anti-women.” – The Political Voices of Women

This is not the kind of vision we need leading us for four years. It is mind-boggling that someone with his reputation for sensibility could possess such parochial views. Furthermore, it is even more mind-boggling that a woman who is adamantly pro-choice would allow this candidate into office! In light of my penchant for quoting in this post, I’ll cite Shakespeare’s Puck, ‘Lord, what fools these mortals be!’

Add to this one of my good friends, who is another Hillary supporter and a gay man, has also said he will sit this one out if she does not win. Ahem, here is another juicy morsel from McCain’s website:

“The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.”

Apologies to the gays and lesbians out there, but McCain will not ever recognize your right to civil unions. In fact, he is totally cool with me marrying a woman, enlisting for the Iraq war, being captured and tortured, returning a war hero, having an affair, dumping my wife and marrying the daughter of a very wealthy family who made their fortune in beer. I know this because he did the very same thing during the Vietnam era:

McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money.

So, because McCain and I are straight, we can trample all over the institution of marriage having affairs and multiple wives, but you who are gay will be denied the right to a civil union. And yet, you prefer McCain to Obama? Really?

Obama has stood up in a black church, in Texas, during a critical time in his campaign and defended gay rights:

Obama’s rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes—race, gender, etc.—that shouldn’t trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

So he took a different tack:

“Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday,” he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers. “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,” he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

You would rather have McCain, who will deny you, than Obama who will defend you? Lord, what fools these mortals be!

I hope we as Democrats can all come to our senses after the primary is over and realize that, in the general election, there really is not a choice. We have McCain, who will do all he can to continue George W Bush’s failed legacy, or a Democrat who will work for real change and a common sense in the executive branch we have lacked for eight years.

Obviously, we here at TNH support Obama…in the PRIMARY. If Clinton is selected then we will throw our full support behind her. We have already registered and begun work on thenakedmccain.com and will be launching a full-frontal attack on the GOP from there.

I think we should all take a deep breath and pause for a moment. Hillary and Obama are not all that different in substance and that is the very reason the Democratic Primary has focused on style and the peripheral issues. If you support one, it only makes sense you should support the other and we must put our egos aside. Otherwise, we will be jeopardizing our own futures because our feelings were hurt. I found this very pertinent and very amusing quote on Bananiastuff:

“If I can’t have the leader I want, I want the country to go to shit so I can do my I-told-you-so dance!”

Donkeys, please let’s not spite ourselves just so we can do the ‘I told you so dance,’ because in a nation ruled by McCain there will be no cause to dance or make merry.

Should Super-Delegates be Beheaded?

I have been watching and enjoying the ‘John Adams‘ series on HBO. I read McCullough’s book on Adams a few years back and found it hard to put down. It has caused me to reminisce back over my college days in the Philosophy department when we discussed concepts of just government and the circumstances that make overthrowing a government necessary.

There are those who would say, the British perhaps, that our own revolution was more of a rebellion and not as justified as we may think. This type of argument is always heavily weighted by your perspective. History is written by the victors though, and so we had a model American Revolution as far as history is concerned. And this is where my thoughts began to wander: What would justify another revolution in our country?

Part of the health of a democracy rests in the ongoing transfusion of power from those who make up the constituency to those who make up the elected. It is our obligation as citizens to remain informed, participate actively and hold our government accountable at all times. Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed his stance in that the power rests with the people when he said “And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” We must, as a general population, demonstrate at least a willingness in theory to tear the whole mess down if it starts to bloat.

The United States is a peaceful place in terms of our own government’s processes. We rightly pride ourselves in the peaceful transfer of power we witness at every level of our government. I am not going to give us too much of a pat on the back, but it should be noted that a peaceful transfer of power between individuals and between parties is not always an easy task. If, however, your voice was removed from this process would that instigate you to revolt, John Q. Citizen?

I pondered our current primary and the consequences of if it were it to continue on into a state in which Senator Obama maintained a lead in the delegate count and a marginal lead in the popular vote but the contest was still undecided. Let us assume Clinton has continued her string of ‘big state’ wins and is exerting her influence on inner-political circles. The race is coming down to the super-delegates and there is a growing consensus within them that Hillary is the more electable candidate in a general election.

Of course, this is the entire purpose of our super-delegates. They exist in fact in order to ensure that our party puts forth the best candidate and that, through our standard primary procedures, we, the average John Q Citizens, do not put forth a less than desirable candidate. They are the safeguard against ourselves and our own pedestrian judgment.

So, if these enlightened voters take a stand and go against what would appear to be the general will of our party, in terms of a small margin in the popular vote and a lead in pledged delegates, and they make the choice to nominate Senator Clinton, what do we do? It would be hypocritical of me to say that there is anything to do since I am on record making arguments in this same vein about how our current nominating process is not ideal but it is our process and we cannot change it in medias res. I have said that, after this primary, we can go back and address the faults in the process but, as of now, we have a process and it should be allowed to run its course. Therefore, since the super-delegates are part of this very same process, it follows that I would consent with however the super-delegates choose to vote.

Luckily, my hypocrisy knows no end and I would have to withhold my consent while I took a moment to explore my options. Can I sit idly by and watch the party elite stifle the voice of the party members? Doesn’t this type of act cast its gravity down on the tide of revolution that, according to Jefferson, should be latent just beyond the capital steps for moments when the elected must be washed away? What kind of republic are we if the people cannot impact its government through an organized system of elections?

Such an event should be the broken and discordant string in the otherwise harmonious instrument of democracy. All our heads should tilt a little as our ears register this subtle wrong note: The party elite will choose for the people. If this were to happen, what would our options be?

The most obvious option is the party convention. It was not designed to be the coronation ceremony it has become, but instead the final battleground in determining the nominee. Of course, the super-delegates have cast their votes in the very hope that the fight will not continue to the convention floor, but such a fight might be necessary. We could send our delegates to the convention and follow them to Colorado with the kind of protests that Democrats have not seen since the Chicago Seven and 1968. We could register vociferous opposition to the machinations of the party establishment and rattle our collective sabers with the threat of abandoning the polls this year and allowing McCain to sail into office along the calm waters of the GOP. But would we have the courage to see that through? Is this cutting off our noses to spite our faces?

It seems odd to me that the Democratic party is the one with this very undemocratic safeguard. Would the threat of the election being forfeited to the Republicans force the Democratic party elite to reconsider how they determined our nominee? If we did make such a threat and the party called our bluff, what then? How much are we willing to lose?

It becomes an interesting matter of principle versus reality. I have mentioned before some of the still festering scorn I bear for the Nader voters of 2000. They stood by their principles and it was just enough to allow Bush to take the reins. Could Democrats, and more importantly liberals in general, make such another drastic decision?

I tend to think that if we were in a situation in which the party elite voted against the wishes of the majority of the party, there should be some protest and the threat of revolution. And yet, there is a practical side to me that says even the candidate who is more the establishment’s choice and less that of the people is still preferable to the ongoing legacy of George W Bush that McCain has promised to implement.

Perhaps I haven’t the stomach for revolution. Regardless, I am certain I haven’t the stomach for McCain, making my revolution more of a whimper than a bang.

Viva la revolucion…unless that leaves me with McCain – then I will just take some Hillary and take my party to task afterwards.

Dream Ticket: Not Hillary and Not Obama

We here at TNH have been taking pop-shots at Hillary Clinton for a while now. Most of it has been fair and constructive criticism aimed at debunking some of the mythology of Hillary Clinton. However, speaking only for myself, I may have overstepped the line once or twice.

I would like to go on record saying that I now support Hillary’s experience claims and grant her the red phone privileges she has been seeking to obtain. Although not direct or literal presidential experience, what she has obtained closely resembles it. Hillary has gained the needed experience by being the wife of a President. In saying this, I believe I have the basis for the compromise Democrats have been hoping to find.

Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman is ever bit the orator and every bit the African-American that Obama is. Furthermore, Freeman is also the most experienced presidential candidate we could nominate. Morgan Freeman might very well be the most qualified presidential candidate in our history – ever, period.

In granting Clinton vicarious experience credentials, it occurred to me that Freeman should be awarded those very same credentials. Hillary was married to a US President, which is super, but Freeman played a President, in Deep Impact. She received her experience via osmosis, but Freeman actually slipped into the skin of a US President and wore it for a few weeks. Sort of like Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, but without all the ‘put the lotion in the basket’ stuff.

Think about how the kinds of decisions Freeman had to make in Deep Impact dwarf any of those of any President we have had in our nation’s history. What greater crisis could a President face than the imminent destruction of the entire planet? Could landing in a plane under sniper fire possibly compare to whether you should allow Tea Leoni or that old lady from Girl Interrupted to live? A President is most presidential when the country is in crisis. As the scant legacy of George Bush has shown, one event can legitimize an entire administration. Surely even the still-at-large Osama bin Laden looks like a complete pansy compared to a comet 7-miles wide, racing from space to destroy everything we have ever held dear.

Add to this that not only is Morgan Freeman black but he also has experienced the oppressed African-American experience firsthand in Driving Miss Daisy. Some black candidates have referenced their ancestral heritage as part of their own oppressed American experience. Morgan Freeman played a black man in the segregated south. Who understands this better, the descendant of a man living at the time or Hoke Colburn, aka Morgan freaking Freeman?

If you happen to be a voter who is looking for military experience in their candidate, Morgan Freeman has it. He marched alongside Matthew Broderick in Glory. Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever donned a military uniform. Not only is Freeman a vet of the Civil War, he also served in that crazy army operation in Dreamcatcher. He represents both militaries past and present.

For those voters who view the most crucial metric of a candidate’s readiness as their history in terms of being ‘tough on crime’ they merely need to think about the intense crime solving skills he brought to the table in movies such as: Seven, Along Came a Spider, and Kiss the Girls. Freeman understands what it takes to enforce justice.

For many voters, a candidate with international experience who can navigate the politics of foreign waters is crucial in today’s world. These voters need merely remember his turn with Kevin Costner in Robin Hood. Not only was he part of the Merry Men, fighting an unjust ruler in England, but he was also a Muslim. He was a Muslim in King Arthur’s Court…more or less.

Some of the best news of Freeman’s candidacy is that he will appeal to the right wing of Republicans as well. If evangelicals are willing to line up and support former pastor Mike Huckabee, consider how much more excited they will be about voting for God. Morgan Freeman played God twice. Why vote for the messenger when you can vote for the Alpha and Omega himself?

People who have been critical of Hillary Clinton’s campaign have often cited progressives such as, Molly Ivins, who claimed they would not vote for Clinton. Those same progressives are likely to be enticed by the strong environmental credentials Freeman established when he narrated March of the Penguins. He lent his time and his baritone to serve as the soundtrack for the wondrous journey of these fantastic little animals. No doubt Freeman is black, but he is also green.

For those voters who admire Obama’s poise and style, they should gaze upon the gravitas and grace Freeman brings to everything he does. He no doubt matches, and perhaps even surpasses, Obama in this arena. Obama has delivered an attractive message of hope, but Freeman once said “Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane. ”

If you believe we need someone removed from the quagmire of Washington in our White House, well Freeman is a goddam actor from Memphis.

If Democrats are really worried about disenfranchising black voters, why not have a black compromise? Freeman, even his name hearkens back to the slave experience, is the ideal candidate who will be able to unite the sharp divide emerging between the white and black donkeys of our party.

Since we are becoming more liberal with what we now constitute as experience, I believe it is unquestionable that Morgan Freeman has far more experience than anyone else we may want to consider. As far as Hillary’s resume goes, I believe it is plain to see that her experience, coupled with both that of McCain and Obama, looks frail when compared to a man who has been a soldier, a hero, a President and even a god.

Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, et al. – ask yourselves if you really want to vote for the just another politician or do you want a new voice, a deep, gravelly and comfortingly familiar one, speaking for you.

Vote Soon

Vote Often

Vote Freeman