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.

Michigan, Hillary and Obama

Watching the Michigan primary results last night and then flipping over to the Nevada debate hosted by MSNBC proved fine entertainment indeed. To add to my AADD, I was also constantly refreshing my browser window for TPM getting live coverage of both television events. I was and am pleased for Romney. Mostly for similar reasons that I stated yesterday. Competition is good. Its the American way. And it was almost comical how Romney appeared to be releived to get the win. Telling, don't you think?

Just as a side note, Rudy beat Dennis Kucinich in Michigan. What a relief. And I thought Il Duce's campaign was floundering. Florida can't come too quickly. Shut the blowhard up once and for all.

One thing last night did reveal, despite a crisp debate performance from Hillary, is that she has a major weakness with her campaign. Despite the fact that she was the only major candidate for the Democrats on the ballot in Michigan, she failed to garner anywhere near a majority of the Black vote. In fact, CNN's polling suggest that Obama would have netted about 73% of the African American vote. Even if its not entirely accurate, its too large a number to ignore. This projects heavily on her standing and/or chances in South Carolina.

Given the unreliability of polling lately (which is awesome, IMO), Clinton could be facing third place finishes in South Carolina AND Nevada. (Well, maybe. A fella can dream.) All the same, I thought Edwards and Obama were quite good in last night's debate and showed that however sparkling Hillary can be, the field is really strong as a whole. That is, relative to the Republican field, of course.

And for once, I'd love the Democrats to emulate the Republicans. I.E. a course de trois manières, if only until Tsunami Tuesday.

The last thing that was gleaned from the African American vote in Michigan was how it reflects, actively or passively, on Obama's campaign. Until the Iowa caucus, it seemed that much of the African American community thought that a Black man could not be elected President of the United States. Then in one of the, if not THE whitest state in the nation, that all changed. And it was too big a win for it to be considered a fluke as Hillary, who's husband is considered the first Black President by some, finished third.

So with a substantial key demographic in play, last week's "race" flair up between the candidates and their supporters could foreshadow excactly how in front the race issue really is. Whether in reality it is or isn't does't matter. What does matter is that this Presidential election season is riveting and its keeping peoples involved. All we can hope for beyond this is that United States style democracy and the nation as a whole comes out the better for it.

BD4Mitt

Republican entertainment

I have paying a consistent passing interest to the actual content of the Presidential debates and have noticed how the notion of "change" is so prominent in much of the content of discussion. Edwards and Obama chided Clinton last night in New Hampshire for being an establishment candidate, which she in fact is, more than the others save for Richardson perhaps, but he doesn't count so much for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, the clip below came to mind. Mostly for how Republicans might see Hillary's candidacy. However the same is applicable, perhaps more so to Romney (particularly if you're Lawrence O'Donnell). It all depends on what side of the isle your standing in. This isn't to condemn Hillary, mind you. This is just my strange effort to entertain a broader audience. So, try and enjoy.

Primary Season Eve Thinking

So sayeth TPM, Rudy is in free fall. To this, I say hooray. The once front runner is falling from the fore and for good reason. So, if he does bow out, rather, when he bows out, who will he endorse? Moreover, who will his cash and/or backers go to? Its hard to see him getting behind Huckabee or Romney. McCain's tide is coming back in and, as far as Republican candidates go, he's the most tolerable of the bunch. He also seems to be the least distant from Giuliani in terms of core issues. But I could be wrong on that given my proximity to the left.

Anyhow, you still have to consider the Paul haul of cash, Huckabee's popularity w/ the Rapture crowd (which was largely responsible for Bush's success at the polls), Romney's flip-flopping machismo to those GOPers that just want to win for winning's sake and lastly, the oddly dogged Thompson supporters who claim he's the guy for the job because he'd be loyal to the Constitution and he looks the most presidential (whatever that is). In the end, despite what others say, I think the betting person should be placing their money on either McCain or Romney. As to who ends up endorsing who, only time can tell. But its an entertaining speculation for another time.

Hillary is not doing so well. And the way in which she is not doing so well portends of how it might be if she is the nominee, or elected President for that matter. See here and here to see what I am alluding to. Frankly, its worse than watching Rudy and smacks of the Bush '00 and '04 playbook, but softer. Sort of. Meanwhile, Obama is advertising on Drudge and has voted for every funding bill for the Iraq War that has crossed his desk, despite having voted against the War in the first place (as he frequently reminds his audiences). Clearly he walks the politicians' walk in this regard

John Edwards is consistently in third place overall and nearly every one's second choice. He has been a populist for his entire campaign, not to mention is '04 run. The tone of his populism has strengthened as the primaries have drawn closer and now he is saying he'll have the troops out in ten months. While the initial appeal of that promise is alluring, you have to realize that given the size of our forces in the region, to leave Iraq would take ten months in the best and fastest of circumstances. So, like all the other candidates, he's giving the best case scenario. The reality is most assuredly to be starkly different.

Like Michael Moore, I am not endorsing Edwards. I have called him an ideal candidate and consider his poll position to be a vindication of that prediction. I think he is suited for the job and has championed causes that I think are the most important. However, circumstance and the reality of our modern times are stacked against him. Senators Clinton and Obama are the inheritors of that circumstance and the symbolic, reactive progression of history's equation to date.

America wants change desperately. The blunt, obvious antidote to what we've had in our new security age is either a woman or a man of (if partial) minority dissent. To have a brown skinned man be the President of these United States may be the most important and symbolically helpful thing we can do as a nation to send a message to the rest of the world that we can change, definitively. Electing a woman to the office surely wouldn't be harmful in terms of symbolism. It would, in fact be a great achievement in the identity politics of America as a nation, but only inwardly. The world community has had international women leaders before and will continue to.

Now is not Hillary's time. For all her "experience," Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated to this blogger that she can master the helm of a ship that is currently stern deep in threatening and mineable waters. We are a great nation founded on great ideas. Those ideas and this nation need either be served by someone possessing great ideas or able to seize upon the great ideas that will restore what has been so badly tarnished and worn.

Speaking as a Democrat, if Hillary is nominated to run as the Democrat's candidate for President, she'll likely lose. That is if McCain or Romney are the Republican nominee. If Democrats look past nostalgia, baby boomer gender politics and obvious easy choices and really look forward to righting Bush's wrongs and voting for leadership that will steer our national ship of state to safe shores, Edwards or Obama are the better votes.

Update: Freddy T. likely to bow out! Likely to support McCain!. Tick one of the speculation list. Sorry ALa.