Master Debaters

OMFG! How many more Democratic debates can we have? There has been a challenge issued from the Clinton camp to have a debate hosted by Fox. Given the biases of the host, you can well imagine how substantive the discourse of the conversation will be relative to informing the electorate's decision for a Democratic nominee, let alone President. While I am all for thorough vetting of candidates, out-of-the-box thinking needs to be applied post-haste in this field if debates are to continue to catch our attention. Allow me to posit the following...

I have read other bloggers who have, quite reasonably, advocated (or demanded) debates moderated not by journalists but bonafied conservative or progressive thinkers, pundits and the like. To wit, having a Democratic and/or Republican debate hosted by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be brilliant. Other moderator/hosts who come to mind are: William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Ann Coulter and Tina Fey, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Cosby, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, any prominent poli-blogger (Kos, Atrios, Sullivan, etc...) ... The list could go on for pages. Oh, and me. I want to have a debate too.

When Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000, he rationalized a Bush victory due to Nader leeching of votes away from Gore by stating that it would reinvigorate progressive voters and call attention to the important issues that the Republicans are, from the progressive perspective, so wrong on. Sadly, I don't think his prediction was the case. By some accounts, the Republican Party is now imploding thanks in large part to the unconstitutional and, arguably, criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. But a exponential short term loss for a long term gain does not a justification make for Mr. Nader.

Record turnouts in the primaries and caucuses thus far have shown that people are paying attention. The electorate is invested, motivated and participating like the nation has not seen in, perhaps, a generation. Still, having yet another debate hosted by yet another news entity (albeit decidedly "other" relative to their piers) is dulling the effect of the political process. Sadly, policy and personal convictions are not enough to hold an audience over time. The institution that is American Democracy would do well to take up a bit more self deprecation beyond the White House Correspondents' Dinner and individuals' appearances on various late night talk shows.

There is everything to gain in being informing and entertaining (by incongruity of context or genre) at the same time. The popularity of The Daily Show, et. al., bolstered by analysis showing that a significant percentage of people get their news content from it and the actual facts presented are approximately equal to those of the regular network news programs validates the concept. Its an innovation we need, would welcome and would work.

Oh, and dig this:

Breaking News 12:19 PM ET: Romney Is Suspending Run, According to Campaign Sources. (NYT)

Suck it Romney.

Presidential Posturing, Teething Baby

So, BFD woke us up at 5:30 in the a.m. today for reasons unknown. His usual waking time is around 7:00 a.m. give or take thirty minutes on either side. And he's usually a pleasant little guy about it as well. Not today. Infant rage hath a new vehicle in our child. It was something to behold. If there was any doubt he was teething, let it be cast aside presently.

We've had a good run so far with sleep and all that. We know we're lucky and still are, all things considered. He sleeps minimum of ten hours straight a night and often twelve, which is more than most. Minor bumps in the road that, albeit unusual and jarring, the shock system that is the horseless carriage of our parenthood can surely handle, and happily.

So, whilst holding the screaming BFD, rocking him and trying to figure out what the hell was going on and how to lull the infant back to sleep, my mind wandered. No, not to my delicious tempurpedic pillow, not to the pillow-top queen sized bed that still held warmth and my beloved wife on a chilly winter's morning. No. Of all things, Donna Brazile. I can't explain it. It just enhanced the mildly aggravating nature of my morning.

A few weeks back when the news of An Inconvenient Truth being nominated for the Academy award for best documentary came out, I read some article on Yahoo news via one of the news wire services about it. It seemed relatively benign until about half way down the column. The journalist branched out to incorporate the speculation about Al Gore's '08 aspirations. This I did not find unusual. I chalked it up to the author trying to fill the column. Then there was a quote from Donna Brazile, Gore's former campaign manager.

She stated that if Mr. Gore won the Academy Award for best documentary, there was a very high likelihood that he would throw his hat into the ring for the '08 presidential race. The profile would be to high not to. Something like that.

It colored me a bit perplexed. Ergo I write to you now in the wee small hours of this day in February.

Why would Donna Brazile do this? My memories of this woman are vague. I know she was Gore's campaign manager during the 2000 election, but I am not sure which one. I know he replaced someone during his run. Methinks given that she was quoted for this article, she was the one he finished with. Anyhow, it doesn't matter relative to my musing.

Saying something like this has one of three likely subtexts. First, she is serving as the covert instrument of her once and possibly future boss. He asked her to say something to this effect to see how it would float in the polls. Second, it was a self serving comment made to make it known to the powers that be that Ms. Brazil is still in the game. Self promotion is, without a doubt, an integral part of the national politics world. Histrionics are probably more common than most might suspect.

Lastly, least likely but hopefully the real reason would be that Brazil made the statement as an almost off-handed, hopeful bout of verbal diarrhea. There are those who still feel the sting of the debacle that was the 2000 election. There are surely people out there that are of the firm opinion that Gore should (read "actually is") be President and were he that, we would not be in the extremely sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. So, perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Hopefully perhaps.

Needless to say, it has been a bur in my mental saddle for all this time for reasons I cannot glean. My mind just happened to wander to it while my infant son was screaming in my arms in the wee small hours of the morning. It doesn't really matter. However, if I had to place a bet, I would have to put my money on Brazilean histrionics.

UPDATE: Oddly, Wikipedia has the quote. How about that?
"Wait till Oscar night, I tell people: 'I'm dating. I haven't fallen in love yet.' On Oscar night, if Al Gore has slimmed down 25 or 30 pounds, Lord knows." 1/31/07

Douche and the Future of the DNC

Last week I, perhaps foolishly, thanked George Allen for being a duplicitous Republican in actually criticizing the President. Well, allow me to retract that. Yes it is cool when the President’s own party shallowly criticizes him on a point of common decency, but here we see George Allan’s complete detachment from reality. All cool points withdrawn. He’s back to being a first class hypocrite. Thank you TPM!

I nominate George Allen as douche bag of the week.

In other news, I watched Meet the Press yesterday and Russ Feingold was on. In his introduction, he was mentioned as a possible contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The only things I know about the guy are that he is from Wisconsin (go Packers!) and that he and John McCain (one of the few Republicans I genuinely respect) teamed up to reform campaign finance.

For as much press as the McCain Feingold bill got, this is the first time I have seen Russ’s face. This to me is, initially, encouraging. Here is my reasoning: There are two types of politicians, those who want the limelight and are out amidst the press constantly promoting their agenda and ideas. Then there are those who work diligently on legislation and actually do most of the leg work that makes the legislative world turn. My impression is that Senator Feingold is the latter type of elected official.

So, perhaps Russ Feingold is humble. This would be an asset that would set him apart from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I am not against either of those two seeking the nomination, nor do I think they are arrogant, but baggage and disenchantment linger from years and elections past. Senator Clinton has a lot of bad blood with the Republicans from when she was First Lady. And, she has Bubba in tow (both a massive target and a killer advisor all in one)! Edwards is still Mr. Charm and has good ideas, but the sore memory of a losing ticket combined with his general relative lack of legislative experience might be a an Achilles heel.

It is both my hope and my sincere worry that Senator Feingold might be another Bill Bradley candidate. In the 2000 election, Gore blew it, without question or doubt. Bradley would have blown Bush out of the water. That is pure conjecture, but I feel that it would have been the likely outcome. So, I hope that Feingold is as substantive as Bradley was. My worry is that the Democrats will make a similar “go with what we know” kind of choice and select Hillary or Edwards. However, with Dean as the DNC chair, all establishment bets are off. I entreat you, the reader, to share your thoughts on the Democratic hopefuls.