Can We Agree, No More Idiotic 'Show of Hands' Questions For The Next Dem Debate?

Dem candidates at last debate in June falling into the 'raise your hands' trap - which now Trump's campaign can use in an ad.


'Health Care Puts Democrats On Hot Seat' (WSJ yesterday, p. A4)  highlighted the "wages" that have now come due thanks to Dem presidential candidates decision to respond to a show of hands  question in the first debate.  Thus we read:

"Democratic presidential candidates who want Medicare for All are now preoccupied with explaining their stance on private plans"  

Adding they "seek to add nuance to their stances"

Recall this was in response to co-moderator Lester Holt's gotcha question (of the 'show of hands' variety) i.e. "Who here would abolish private insurance in favor of a government run plan. Show of hands!"

Effectively,  by their Pavlovian response,  giving the Trumpies a campaign gift that might have alarming consequences next year.  In the words of former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala, quoted in the piece (ibid.):

"Calling for ending employer -provided coverage could be a strategic catastrophe that re-elects Trump"

And it didn't have to happen! The Dem candidates could have paused, reflected on their actions and the consequences, then refused to partake in such a halfwit display.

  
Political analyst and University of Texas Poly-sci Professor Victoria Defrancesco didn't mince words last Friday in an MSNBC spot on the Stephanie Ruhle show. She said flatly: "I can just see Trump's campaign team now, cutting their ads from the last Democratic debate when they all raised hands."  

One such cringe -inducing  moment to which she referred  occurred when MSNBC debate co-moderator, Savannah Guthrie, squawked like a school marm impatient for class participation:

"This is a show of hands question so hold your hands up so people can see!"

At which point - had I been a candidate on that stage-    I'd have shot back: 

"What? Are you an idiot or something? I'm not raising my hand  to answer some flip-ass loaded question so the Trump campaign can use it in an ad!"

That would obviously be even before the question was burped out, because anyone with more than air between the ears would have to know such a "question" has to be loaded.  Evoking a similar disastrous occasion back in 1988 when CNN's Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis: ''if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" 

 You can see it asked in the link below, which will surely live in infamy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9_pRmRlzY4

 In this case the Guthrie show of hands question was;

"Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants."

Whereupon all the candidates, so far I could see, promptly committed political hari kari and obeyed like a bunch of brain dead zombies.  If "nuance" is a crucial need in the next debate tonight, I'd say applying it to this ranks even higher than attention to Mr. Holt's question. Certainly if IQ was a critical attribute for a leader all of these dopes would fail.  Let's return to debate Co-moderator Lester  Holt who also  used the “raise your hand”  idiocy on both campaign nights, i.e.. “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?,” 

Abolish private health insurance?  You twit! You just asked the candidates to flat out volunteer who would take insurance away from 150m Americans.  That is 150 m potential voters you've  inflamed or upset. For what? A damned sound bite moment?

Once again, with virtually no exceptions, the Democratic presidential contenders fell into the “gotcha” trap.   Smelling blood,  Trump tweeted before the second debate had ended: “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race.” 

Again, most of those onstage committed hari kari in front of tens of millions of viewers. And Republican National Committee admen.

As anyone with even half a working brain ought to know, "show of hands" questions are the hallmarks of  indolent, dumbed down moderators, trying to cut corners, take short cuts.  They are designed to quickly, definitively, and somewhat simplistically separate candidates from one another on “hot button” policies.   You sure as shit can't get much more hot button than asking about whether you'd provide coverage to undocumented immigrants - especially in a polarized, immigrant anxious country.   Just as you can't get much more hot button than asking a candidate out of the freaking blue what he'd do if his wife was raped, say to get his stance on the death penalty.

But this is what our political, electoral landscape has devolved to: big circus freak shows posing as debates which give precious little leeway for thoughtful questions - opting instead for the noisome 'gotcha' kind.  It's enough to make a citizen barf.

Too, these asinine 'show of hands' questions  often force candidates to instantaneously display  positions they might never have with thoughtful consideration of the full risks, consequences.  This is why it's critical candidates at these events think before they put hands up - in a 'millions of viewers'  image or action - that can be captured by the other side for any purpose it desires.  Then replayed ad nauseam on local or national political ads.

There is, of course, the chance of getting a small win, say in attracting primary voters in their party.  However, in the end it's got way too high a damage potential and ends up scaring moderates or independents in the general election. Exactly the  types of voters you need to ensure Trump doesn't snatch a 2nd term thanks to a deformed Electoral College that long since ceased to live up to its purpose as the Founders envisaged.

In the end, I'd like to believe - I say 'like to' because I'm not sure if the lesson sunk in - that our motley crew of Dems would be able to say a resounding 'NO!' next time a moderator moron asks for a show of hands.  Besides, being able to say 'No' at a critical juncture should also be an essential attribute for a president to be.

Let's say that I hope that in the next two debates the candidates will have the cojones to tell the moderator(s) to stuff if the latter attempt a dopey 'show of hands gimmick.

See also:

Peace & Justice

Dear Moderators of the Presidential Debates: How About Raising the Issue of How to Avert Nuclear War?

by Lawrence Wittner | July 30, 2019 - 5:54am | 

Senate Confirmation Hearing Descends Into Partisan Knife Fight In P.M. - As Kavanaugh Bawls

"BWAHAHAHHAA! Them Dems Is So Disgusting.....!  WAAHHH!"

Question:  When 11 angry, entitled white men with  ‘R’ after their name channel their hate and frustrations into a heavyset female prosecutor to take down a fragile, female sex assault victim – so THEY don’t look bad- what do you get?  Ans.: A Battle Axe!

 And so it was Thursday that the Senate confirmation hearings for accused sexual molester Brett Kavanaugh descended into a full fledged farce,  when the 11 male members passed on their responsibility for questions to Rachel Mitchell – a Maricopa County AZ  prosecutor.  The strategy in using this woman was clear: The Repukes wanted a battering ram – or even battle axe- to tear down the victim’s defenses and render looking like either a phony or fraud.   It didn’t work!  As MSNBC cohosts Lester Holt and Casey Hunt –put it, Mitchell didn’t lay so much as a mitten on courageous Christine Ford.

Speaking in no nonsense, but emotional overtones, Dr. Ford made her sobering opening statement and followed it up by her compelling revelations as well as the impact of the whole thing on her life and her family.   Most appalling was her reference to being called “some of the most vile names imaginable” as well as being  subjected to a barrage of death threats from clearly mentally deficient degenerates.  Rather than face such a woman – bowed but unbroken – the Republican Senate Judiciary misfits chose to use a female avatar (Rachel Mitchell) to do their questioning for them. So terrified were they of the negative optics – for THEM – of besting up on a traumatized woman.

So the pussies had to get another woman to do their dirty work for them – a puppet trick if ever there was one.  In fact, the whole time I was watching Mitchell’s grilling of Dr. Ford (the first three questions) it was plain to see they were all marked by legalistic mumbo-jumbo framing, and hyper fine splitting of terms - all designed to trap Dr. Ford into perjury or inconsistencies.

Mitchell’s dual role itself almost invited a kind of schizoid approach given she had to play both defense lawyer and prosecutor.   The problem was that the “prosecutor” came out way too much when interviewing Dr. Ford and the defense lawyer came out way too much to favor Kavanaugh. In this way the whole event could be seen as one long grandstanding show designed to confer false credibility on “Booze ‘em& Bang ‘em” Brett.  This in order to expedite an unholy rush to judgment,….errr ….confirmation of the arch liar and pussy grabber, for tomorrow.
So no wonder John Clune, a Boulder CO attorney for Deborah Ramirez referred to the Senate hearing bluntly:

“This feels like a setup, designed to obstruct the truth  and guarantee a political outcome.”

 In other words, just like the Warren Commission- concocted by LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.  But in this case, the lies and M.O. were exposed from the get go.  This was especially in the P.M. session when the Reepturds and Kavanaugh dropped any pretense of an apolitical, non-partisan process and turned full rabid rat on the 10 Committee Democrats  - depicting them as the uber villains.

Led by the likes of  Southern Chauvinist Drama Queen Lindsey Graham - pitching his own hissy fits and squawking ‘mob rule” – even as he whined "this is the worst process I've ever seen". Etc.  But we know that what he really meant was too such transparency and democracy had found its way through the hoopla and nonsense.    But the whiny little bitch's biggest outburst was left for last, when he screamed in a high pitched, falsetto voice:


"Boy, so y'all really want power! I hope to God ya never get it!"


Totally failing to grasp, amidst his scripted convulsions, that HIS lot has failed to use ANY power, i.e. in checks and balances, to stop Trump's excesses. So yeah, someone with balls has to take the reins, Little Lindsey.

As for Janice's reaction to Graham's selective hysteria - well I dare not repeat it in a family -oriented blog. :(

Chuck Grassley, the octogenarian Reeptard fossil overseeing this farce,  belched earlier with a gusto that nearly invited a myocardial infarction:

“The goal is to depoliticize the process and get to the truth instead of grandstanding.”

REALLY?  Could have fooled me, Chuckie, old boy!

Cutting out all the fulsome codswallop let serious observers agree that the aged imp had to know the design of this “hearing’ was specifically to accomplish what he didn’t want: politicization AND grandstanding.  That occurred the second he and his Reepo swine decided to forgo an FBI investigation focused on Dr. Ford's further claims – and instead offer up a “he said, she said” circus.

We also know this is true because generally an FBI first pass investigation NEVER delves into a
candidate's high school years - unless red alarm bells go off as they did here. But those alarms delivered the justification for Grassley, Hatch and Co. to obfuscate and spin using their predominant numbers on the Committee. 

But. Whoa,  Nellie! The afternoon scene  devolved into a full -on partisan knife fight,  even eclipsing Lindsey Graham's drama queen displays.  This as the 11 Reeps - unable to tolerate any further pussy footing -  finally took the reins from Rachel Mitchell's hands, leaving her to sit and stew. Predictably,  they literally went ape shit barking in rage at the Dems for their unseemly efforts to tear "a good man" (actually, Bill Clinton's chief inquisitor)  down. Meanwhile, their boy toy Brett didn't help the situation by alternately going "livid and tearful" according to a Financial Times observer.  Brett bawled and howled at various points how he'd never be able to coach his daughter's team again and his family had been dragged through the mud.   Oh, and he might never be able to teach at Hah-vahd again, poor thing. Well, shoulda thought about that when you were a young, entitled punk at Georgetown Prep, mate. 

The spectacle was the most maudlin and sickening since Edward Muskie was reduced to tears in a presidential campaign decades ago (he was the  Dem VP pick at the time). By any standard, the unhinged drama on display this afternoon ought to sink Kavanaugh's chances -  but don't bet on it. The Repukes lost all sense of shame as  well as irony long ago when they opted to get into bed with Donnie Dotard - aka the pussy- grabber- in- chief.

 The American people deserved much better than what they got today, but like the Warren Commission 54  years earlier, the powers- that- be believe the people must be treated as fragile infants for their own good.  Thus, like the WC we got another fraud and farce, only this time for thankfully less money wasted in the end!  That's a 'W' considering Kavanaugh's checkered past, as more voices have made his impacts on them known.

 Yes, the Reeptards may ram this tainted, tear jerking scumball through tomorrow, but in the court of public opinion it will be a fail - and they will pay even more heavily in November. 

See also:
Voting Matters, But Staying Engaged Matters More
--------------------------------

Update - Sept. 29th:

It now appears GOP  Senate Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake has balked at being the 11th vote for the general Senate confirmation to go forward. Flake, after being confronted by two female activists in an elevator, has now requested that the FBI extend an investigation into Kavanaugh's HS background.  Trump, incredibly, has likewise approved the move, giving the FBI a week to complete the investigation. 

The Nation Is In The Hands Of A Psycho Brat 5-Year Old- Now's The Time To Impeach His Ass

The degenerate brat leading the nation - right into perdition along with his deranged followers.

"The Donald" after yesterday's exhibition, in which he tossed four White House personae under the bus in an interview with Lester Holt, shows we're in the hands of  a 70- year old lunatic with serious arrested development. According to my psychologist niece: "I estimate he's at the five year old development stage for emotional IQ but it might well be three. I don't know if he has to wear adult diapers or not."

For those who missed  it, this asshole- in -chief (the only handle by which I can rightfully and properly refer to him), stated how he had planned to fire Comey all along, never mind the pseudo cover "memo" from deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.  Thus totally contradicting his original claim that it was Rosenstein's recommendation that led him to fire Comey. All this came out in the Holt interview along with Trump getting in an ad hominem or two ("He was a showboat, a grandstander"). Actually he was a serious threat to Trump's already warped and disgusting political life. As The Washington Post's Michael Gerson summed it up in a recent column:

"In fact, according to media accounts, Trump has been in a spittle-flinging rage since Comey’s March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, in which he confirmed the existence of an investigation of Russian influence on Trump’s inner circle. On May 2, Trump tweeted that the “Trump/Russia story” is “phony.” On May 9, Trump fired Comey. The president removed a perceived threat, threw an active FBI investigation into chaos and raised the prospect of a Trump stooge being appointed in Comey’s place. "

A "spittle -flinging rage" ? Really? Isn't this the typical antic of a five year old, or better a two- year old who just wet his diapers and is pitching a tantrum?   Well, in any case it's  Trump's modus operandi whenever his petulant will is thwarted - whether by a principled judiciary (Ninth Circuit)  putting him in his place, or a courageous deputy AG (Sally Yates) warning him about his appointment of Michael Flynn, or a serious, no nonsense FBI Director (James Comey)  not willing to be bought off by loyalty oaths. As Trump -  channeling Don Corleone from the 'Godfather' - attempted at one dinner meeting with Comey. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe put it thusly last night ('Last Word', MSNBC):

"He's essentially saying 'if you will assure me I'm not going to be under any investigation then maybe I'll keep you on.'  It's the language of bribery. It's the language of the underworld, of racketeering, not the language of a President who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law. This is like the thirteenth chime of a clock, it makes the whole thing come apart."

But Comey wasn't having any of it. No way in hell was he going to pledge fealty to this lunatic scumbag who he even - in private conversations - referred to as "crazy" after his Obama wiretapping claim. No way would Mr. Comey be the willing stooge of a rabid screwball with the moral development of a mutant Tarantula.  Comey was too principled and honest for that, but he paid for his moral stance because one thing 'the Donald' can't handle is anyone who stands up to him  - coward that he is.  (On the positive note side, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe gave solid assurances to inquiring Senators'  yesterday that the Bureau's investigation will continue. Now we just need to hear why he broached to Reince Priebus on Feb. 15 that the NY Times story about Trump -Russia associations was "BS".)

Gerson went on to write:

"All of this is consistent with — even mandated by — Trump’s contempt for institutions. He has called the FBI investigation process “rigged.” If the system is dirty, only a fool would not play by the same rules. This is the logic of conspiratorial disdain for government. An independent, nonpolitical FBI? What a joke. It is all political. And politics is power. "

Ah yes, right out of Machiavelli.  And even channeling Nixon this morning by making tweeted threats that Comey "better hope there are no hidden tapes of our conversations before he goes leaking to the press". Wow. I'm sure Mr. Comey must be quaking in his boots about now. But personally, I don't buy that Trump Turd made any secret tapes. He simply ain't a Richard Nixon-  lacks the smarts or foresight - so imho it's all empty threats. At least when the fictional Don Corleone made a threat you knew he'd carry it out if he had to, but Trump is no Don Corleone though he fancies he is

The problem at its core is that this nation is not designed to be governed by a latter day Niccolo Machiavelli or a wannabe Don Corleone. Recall that in his masterwork, 'The Prince', Machiavelli described immoral behavior (dishonesty, killing innocents etc.), as being normal and effective in politics. No surprise that many critics, including my former Loyola Ethics prof (Fr. Holloway) insisted the author was "teaching evil, and providing evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain their power."   This has led a number of latter day observers and pundits to speculate that Trump may well be using Niccolo's playbook, but my take is that it's more a case of Trump doing what he wants to stir consternation and discord - or acting the part of the high conflict personality he is. (But one also can't discount an innate aspiration toward American-style fascism.  See Henry Wallace's article, “The Danger of American Fascism,” describing a breed of super-nationalist who pursues political power by deceiving Americans and playing to their fears, but is really interested only in protecting his own wealth and privilege.)

Anyway, whether it's a high conflict template or Machiavellianism, the reason that our form of government can't accept either is because it's based on trust. That is,  trust that our leaders tell us the truth, and they they will respect and adhere to the Constitution. That means accepting the checks and balances on executive power inherent in that document. It doesn't mean undermining and trashing them at every point. If the Constitution means nothing  - just a "piece of paper" - we could as well have an autocracy or dictatorship. In that case, only the autocrat's word is true - all others are false.  THIS is exactly the model Trump is displaying with every move he makes and every misbegotten utterance and foul lie that escapes his degenerate mouth, and reptilian brain.

And the Trumpies? What do they believe? According to a NY Times piece yesterday they believe their poor little standard bearer is being hard set upon and "held to standards of no other President".  Please tell me these people can't be this historically retarded.  Please convince me they know something about the history of Nixon and Watergate, his firing of Archibald Cox in the "Saturday Night Massacre" and his threat to the Constitution. Please tell me they at least half way see we're in similar territory now. Well, of course, they can't see that because of their brainwashed myopia and acceptance of the "fake news" meme. Hence, anything coming out regarding Trump and the Russians or Comey's firing is instantly bagged into "fake news".   Further, their favorite bogeyman "the Left" - is simply "hysterically hyping everything to bring Trump down". Errr no, nincompoops, Trump is bringing himself down with his ham-handed, derelict handling of even simple matters - like whether his Comey actions were motivated by a DOJ memo or his own instincts to get rid of Comey as a "showboater".

This is precisely why the Electoral College fell down on its job back in December by rubber stamping Trump's electoral college win as opposed to challenging it on the basis of mischief of faction. Recall the founders established the Electoral College as the final fail safe barrier to an unwise electorate committing the crime of "mischief of faction".  As  noted by James Madison in The Federalist #10:

"Mischief of faction is when citizens - whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole - are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion to cast their votes adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". 

This is exactly what the Trump voters did, motivated by inflamed passions and moral recklessness via Trump's often violent rallies to give a middle finger to the rest of the country - thereby militating against the majority's interests.  This is also what they continue to do by standing in opposition to the rest of us in demanding a no-holds barred, independent investigation, via a select committee, or with a special prosecutor. Some Trump supporters, as blind to history as they are to ethics, were even quoted in the Times' piece as mocking Dems for insisting Comey's firing (described by Charles Krauthammer as a "political ax murder") entered the Constitutional crisis phase. That they could treat the failure to recognize the latter in such a cavalier way discloses how historically ignorant this lot is.

And make no mistake there will be hell to pay both for these myopic, poorly educated Trumpies and the Republicans who refuse to put country ahead of party. As WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin put it in her recent article ('Pro- Trump Republicans Will Get Nothing Even Retention Of A House Majority') :

"Republican members of Congress deluded themselves that President Trump’s narcissistic personality, dishonesty and abject ignorance didn’t matter. Turns out, he’s so clueless that he essentially confessed to obstruction of justice in firing FBI Director James B. Comey, who was intensifying the Russia investigation"

Lawrence Tribe spelled it out: "Trump is guilty of attempting to suborn obstruction of justice.  As with the first article of impeachment with Richard Nixon, this is a series of high crimes and misdemeanors all by itself, irrespective of whether Trump was or was not a part of a collusive plot with Russia to steal an American election."

Or to use the words of a reporter after Watergate, "it's always the cover up that does 'em in."

In Rubin's words (ibid.):

"If Trump is still around by November 2018, a thrashing at the polls may be the only thing to persuade Republicans to walk away from Trump. The irony is that by pushing furiously now for an independent investigation, they might actually chase Trump and his clown show from office, get a President Pence, pass some of their agenda and save their skins. Are they smart enough to figure that out? Stay tuned."

Stay tuned indeed!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/72733/donald-trump-is-attempting-a-coup-we-must-have-a-special-prosecutor

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kali-holloway/72760/top-republicans-are-helping-trump-channel-his-inner-tyrant

Hillary Got Debate Questions Beforehand? One Of The Dumbest Conspiracy Theories Ever

The sure sign of a sore loser is to confect dumb,  sour grapes excuses for a loss - like in a debate- or to confabulate stupid conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or rationality. In the case of Donald J. Trump himself, we already heard his lamo excuse following Monday's debate with Hillary that "they" gave him a bum mic.  But as Hillary stated after hearing his absurd excuse, when you start blaming the mic "you know you are having a bad day".

Now we also have assorted Trumpies promoting the latest conspiracy theory that "a secret Fed-Ex courier delivered the debate questions to the Clinton campaign and Robby Mook days beforehand."  They have actually further conjectured this "courier" was a Clinton campaign intern or some such rot. Honest to god, if people have to invent this level of bare bullshit to explain Hillary's total composure and their hero acting like a half-crazed ape,  this country really is in need of general therapy.

It appears the Trumpies, like Trump himself, disavow and reject the virtues of preparation for a debate.  So because THEY or their master wouldn't do it, they can't conceive anyone else spending 4 days sequestered like Hillary did to prepare. But recall Trump mocked her over those 4 days (Thurs.- Sunday) bragging he didn't have to conduct mock debates and he wasn't going to "over prepare".  His exact words, quoted from The Washington Post, were that "he thinks preparation is overrated and that a 'seat of the pants' approach makes sense for the most important debate of his life'".


Well, it sure as hell showed in his abysmal, incoherent, ranting performance Monday night - in between his incessant sniffling.. Indeed, Trump's own advisers - to his discontent  - have talked openly in the aftermath of how he didn't prepare enough and basically "blew it".  So, there is no need to drag in ridiculous conspiracy theories concerning Hillary getting debate questions early. It's stupid, unseemly and irrational bollocks.

But rather than give HRC credit for her diligent, heavy prep these yokels confabulate the nonsense she was "given debate notes beforehand". Who did it?  They don't say.  The Federal election commission? NBC - the network carrying the debate? Or some nefarious guy in a  trench coat handing the folder off in a darkened car park (a la Watergate's "Deep Throat")?   These characters ought to be writing pulp crime fiction!

That Hillary did it all on her own, is beyond their comprehension, because frankly they have no idea the intensity with which she historically prepares for debates. In his Sunday Review NY Times piece "The First Face Off", former Obama political strategist David Axelrod  writes how Obama was crestfallen after one of his early debates with her in the primaries in 2007. According to Axelrod, Obama told him: "Hillary looked like a president up there, and I didn't"

Both attributed her crisp and composed showing to her relentless preparation and holding mock debates before hand - which also put her in good stead in Monday's showing. Why any outside observer would refuse to give credit to serious prep for such an event is beyond me. Choosing instead to believe some bull pockey that she was "handed questions beforehand". (And, of course, they are unable to account for how - if that was so- she managed to fumble on the issue of the TPP and get caught in the fib she never said it was the "gold standard" for trade. Certainly if she really had questions before hand she'd have avoided that pitfall)

But again, this goes to the heart of the Trumpie trope - mainly that because Trump himself is a lazy asshole who takes short cuts every other power person or politico must be too- and that means taking short cuts like Trump does. So, because Trump would cheat if he could - given he didn't prepare at all - others including Hillary would too.

But in the NY Times yesterday, one read the headline "New Debate Strategy for Donald Trump: Practice, Practice, Practice".  The piece notes "Campaign advisers to Donald J. Trump, concerned that his focus and objectives had dissolved during the first presidential debate on Monday, plan to more rigorously prepare him for his next face-off with Hillary Clinton. They intend to drill the Republican nominee on crucial answers, facts and counterattacks, and coach him on ways to whack Mrs. Clinton on issues even if he is not asked about them"

In other words, Trump's own people concede he got his ass beat by Hillary (described as a "beat down" by the Washington Post) because he refused to prepare and chose to skylark instead, playing the fool.  But even after that drubbing, Trump's advisers are "concerned that he will be open to meticulous practice".

The fact is, Trump blew his one -on -one chance to knock Hillary off her game big time. And contrary to the fantasies of his delirious followers that chance won't come again - where he squares off one -on -one against HRC. The reason is that the next two  formats will be different, and won't allow for it. The next debate will actually be in the format of a Town Hall meeting, taking questions from the audience. In that scenario Trump dare not get too uppity and aggressive with Hillary when voters in the audience will want him to address their specific questions. (Which includes facing them in the course of his response, not getting in Hillary's face.)

If he instead uses his time to try to attack Hillary - especially to get knocks in that he should have on Monday - he will live to regret it.  So, what really accounted for Trump's pathetic showing Monday? Was it Lester Holt (sic),  a "secret mole" for the Democrats? (Holt is actually a registered Republican). Is it that Hillary got crib notes from a "secret Fed-Ex messenger"  before hand? In fact, Trump's own advisers - as the Times piece put it:

"blamed his overstuffed schedule, including a last-minute rally in Virginia that was added days before the debate. They blamed the large number of voluble people on his prep team, including two retired military figures with no political background. And they blamed the lack of time spent on preparing a game plan in the first place"

Ah, the truth at last! Maybe the Trumpies will read it and use their heads for once, that their man failed simply because he didn't prepare. Like a lazy ass physics student who thinks he can just walk into an exam and ace it without opening a book, or working a problem.  And the comparison is more than apt, as Axelrod observes (ibid.):

"In the end, presidential debates are less a trial of fact than a televised final exam for the most exacting job on the planet. They offer Americans a window into how each of these candidates would deal with excruciating pressure."

Well, from what I beheld on Monday night there's no issue of who would deal with pressure better. A woman with decades of experience who knows how to prepare for debates or a con man braggart who dodges preparation then invokes supercilious nonsense to excuse his performance. Would I want such a turkey around the nuclear 'football'? Hell no!

But as Axelrod also points out, ultimately it may not matter if too many of the uninformed simply judge the debate by crude impressions and don't even see it to the end. In his words:

"The hell of our political process is the brevity of too many Americans' memories and the shallowness of their engagement, which could be a final stroke of good fortune for a con man who has been too lucky already."

See also:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cca9a3a-8635-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5.html#axzz4LeiughU5

Excerpt:

"It was probably the moderator who gave him a bad microphone. Also, Hillary ate his homework. She did......he was the best prepared candidate ever, but the biased moderator did not ask him the questions for which he was prepared."

Hillary At Hofstra Debate Shows Who Deserves To Be President

Trump is on the defensive after Hillary lands a potent blow to do with his tax issues.

Let us concede first that,  for the ardent Trumpie, his standard bearer did "amazing" at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. He hoisted Hillary on her own petard. He "didn't skip a beat" and hauled her "over the coals"  for every and any bit of dissembling she's done in the past 30 years.  He even caught her out in a major whopper, as when she declined to admit she originally embraced the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, and referred to it as the "gold standard".  But, one or two opportune jabs - usually attained by going over one's allotted time - do not a debate victory make. (Never mind those bogus online polls in which reddit users tried to spam the targets and distort the outcomes.)

Now let's transfer to the parallel universe in which reality rules over PR and propaganda. Where global warming is as real as a heart attack, and reason and disciplined rhetoric triumph over harangues, demagoguery and disdain for basic financial facts - such as that trickle down economics and tax cuts do not work, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/bushs-revenge-or-how-zombie-tax-cuts.html

In this parallel universe where objective perceptions trump Trump's insanity it was almost like seeing a mama alligator eat an impudent pup in the first presidential debate last night. Even long time Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted how Trump had descended into "babbling and complete incoherence" by the end of the trade and tax segments.  Before that, Trump barely held his own - and he only managed that because the lackluster moderator (Lester Holt) allowed Trump to drone on and monopolize the time with no checks made. In the end it didn't matter, because all most of us heard was the Trumpsters's incessant sniff, sniff, sniffing.  At some point we wondered if he needed an O2 tank.

But certainly the sniffling display showed us he didn't merit being considered for President, even on the basis of stamina. If a guy has to sniff for oxygen (or maybe he had a cold, even worse) even 25 minutes into a 90 minute debate how the hell is he going to hold up in a 6 hour critical meeting with Vladimir Putin?  Will he tuck himself in bed and let Donald Jr. handle it? But beyond the sniffling, there was the spectacle of the guy devolving into bombastic replies that were more apropos of  a three year old pitching a tantrum than thoughtful responses in a presidential candidate.

By contrast, Hillary evinced confidence and appeared cool, calm and collected, Her answers were crisp-  mostly within the time (2 mins.) allocated - and showed a thorough grasp of the issues, whether on the economy, trade, taxes, national security or cybersecurity. She also easily rebuffed Trump's desperate attack lines, often themselves misplaced, distorted or outright lies (e.g. the one about Sidney Blumenthal having originated the birther bilge on Obama- and Trump himself being responsible for Obama producing his birth certificate )

Here, Lester Holt finally grew a pair and pointed out that Trump was blabbering about the birth certificate issue even five years after Trump claimed to have resolved it. Holt also went after Trump's rhetorical jugular when he insisted (on his "Law and Order" shtick) that 'Stop and Frisk' was just fine and a judge's original ruling was overturned. But Holt pointed out to Trump: "Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young people."

Trump insisted . "You're wrong, it went before a judge who was very against police and it was taken away from her."

But simple fact checking discloses he's a liar. In 2013 a district judge ruled it was unconstitutional saying 'stop and frisk' violated the 4th and 14th amendments, against unreasonable searches and equal protection, respectively.  Subsequently a higher court upheld that ruling, as noted last night by Justice Dept. specialist Pete Williams.

In the initial economics segment Trump reverted to his usual past talking points - heard in the Reepo debates- about monumental tax cuts. Of course, we've seen that one before - during Bush Junior's reign, which fueled a $3 trillion plus deficit we're still trying to manage. Hillary had the perfect phrase for this recycled trickle down malarkey:  trumped-up, trickle-down.

Regarding efforts to return jobs and prosperity Trump appealed to the old trope of cutting corporate taxes, and pushing the bunkum that the corporations are too impecunious (because of taxes) to create new  jobs. In fact, they have been sitting on more than $1.3 trillion and been using to do share  buybacks rather than invest in new plants or labor. Putting the country in further fiscal jeopardy by cutting corporate taxes will merely make matters worse.

What I loved most is seeing how Hillary got the Donald to lose his cool on multiple occasions, often leading to increased sniffling, interruptions and aimless demagoguing rather than debating. For example, at one point Hillary got a jab in noting how Trump declared climate change to be a "hoax". This elicited the instant Trump response: "I did not say that!"   (He did, in 2012.)  The idiot actually fired off a tweet to the effect that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese."

In fact, if this ignorant twit knew anything, he'd have known that the "concept" was actually proposed more than a century ago by Svante Arrhenius, see e.g.

http://warming.sdsu.edu/

But in any case, Trump was caught in another lie. Overall his lie ratio to Hillary's was something like 25:1, if anyone was actually counting.

Trump went on to claim he "believes in all forms of energy" - which means the most CO2 generating fossil fuels including coal, shale oil and tar sands crap. All of which also implies he cannot take seriously their proven impacts on global warming.

What I hated the most was a (mostly) meek moderator (Lester Holt) who repeatedly let this bombastic clown talk over his time limit and interrupt his opponent.  I could maybe tolerate Holt overlooking Trump's parade of lies and exaggerations (which later fact checkers would expose), but when he permitted Trump to exceed his two minute limit for about the tenth time, I got fed up. As wifey asked: "What is wrong with Hillary? Why doesn't she interrupt him?" I had to point out she was probably drilled in proper debate decorum and told not to be so boorish. But as we know, Trump, on the other hand,  makes up his own rules as he goes along. Of course, this appeals to his "basket of deplorables".

One woman in a focus group this a.m. on CBS, asked what advice she would have given Trump last night, offered:

"I'd have told him to answer the question asked, then STOP talking!"

Bingo! She summarized Trump's primary debate defect in one sentence. The boor's predilection to talk over one's debate opponent as well as the moderator. As CBS political guru Bob Schieffer put it: "A debate with the worst decorum I've ever seen."  (Thanks to Trump).

The most amusing part was to do with Trump's taxes and him trying to compare his not releasing his tax returns with Clinton not releasing her emails. In fact, that's a false equivalence. Hillary's emails have already been litigated, both by the Justice department (FBI) and by the media. On the other hand, Trump has kept his tax matters a virtual state secret so we don't even know who he is beholden to, or if he even paid any taxes at all. When Mr. Holt asked him why he would not release his tax returns, as other presidential candidates have done for four decades. “I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit,”

Hillary correctly pointed out this is total balderdash as the IRS has made it patently clear a person  undergoing audit is perfectly free to release his or her tax returns. So, that was an invalid excuse, and we must wonder what nefarious aspects Trump is trying to hide. More worrisome, what mass of information might he keep from us if President? A nuclear deal with North Korea?  Maybe giving them lower yield nukes (which might fit on rocket warheads) if they turn in higher yield ones?

Who the hell knows? This is a character who - by his current refusal to disclose - would offer the only reply as "Trust me".  As Hillary put it:  "It must be something really important, even terrible, that he’s trying to hide. If he were to get near the White House,” she continued, “what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to?”

When Trump criticized Hillary for using a private email server, Hillary didn't hem and haw this time, but came out directly and admitted: “I made a mistake using a private email,”

Almost every media observer and commentator in the days leading up to last night all agreed Trump had one major task: to persuade uncommitted voters that he had the competence and temperament to be commander in chief. Most everyone also agreed that was a relatively low bar for a traditional nominee to pass, but a critical one for Trump given his history of making inflammatory and insulting remarks to almost every demographic group. Alas, for Trump groupies he failed to even meet that low standard last night.

Best debate moment? When Trump brought up Hillary's stamina and she retorted: "When you travel to 112 countries and sit through a House committee for eleven hours then you can talk to me about stamina."

Don't let the spinners blind you: in a crucial venue to decide the next President, Hillary Clinton made a superior case, even with her foibles. She was well prepared, had the majority of facts at her command, while Trump was grossly unprepared - opting for rambling repeats of his earlier Reepo rhetoric. Worse, he was easily rattled - often losing his train of thought -  making one fear what would happen in a ferocious encounter with Putin or the Philippines' Duterte (a Trump mirror image).  Hillary isn't perfect by any means, but anyone who watched last night's debate and doesn't believe she's better prepared to be President than Donald Trump either needs a brain transplant, or a psychological exam.

In the choice offered in this election, she clearly trumps Trump. The rest of the world and most rational people know it. We can only hope there are enough sensible voters left in the U.S. to ensure this clown doesn't emerge a commander -in -chief.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/hillary-dominates-and-donald-trump-gave-the-worst-debate-performance-of-any-candidate-ever/

And:

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/the-most-abnormal-event-ive-ever-witnessed-in-a-wild-battle-between-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-lester-holt-was-the-big-loser/

Bernie Takes Hillary To The "Woodshed" in 2 Hr Screamathon

The last NFL playoff game finished hours earlier, but this Democratic debate in Charleston, SC(sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus) was a knock down drag out, with Bernie keeping Hillary Clinton on the defensive in the health care and Wall Street responses - with an aggressive stance nearly the whole time. As MSNBC political commentator Chuck Todd put it at one interlude:

"Bernie Sanders very much being the revolutionary candidate for major change. But Hillary Clinton saying she very much wants to build on the things President Obama did, wrapping herself in President Obama"

And that is Hillary's mistake, because much of the nation distrusts Obamacare and that it can work to their overall cost benefit. Many of these are among the 3 million or so already dumped from state exchanges - like here in Colorado - because the medical care costs have been too high for the private insurers to tolerate. Others are seeing premiums rise, as originally predicted would happen, because not enough young people (in the healthier 23- 29 year old range) are enlisting to share the medical costs burden. As we know, in the standard health care models that work healthier members who need less care shoulder more of the cost burden to that sicker members can remain. This simply isn't happening.

In addition, the absurdly high deductibles of many ACA plans are leaving many millions under insured because they can't afford the more 'gold plated" options.

These are the primary reasons we need to go to a single payer system best described as "Medicare for all". And let's get it into our craniums this is not a "freebie" or simple entitlement. Wifey calculated the total medical costs and premiums for our Medicare last year and it came to over $10,000. And this did not include the extra $5,500 shelled out for eyeglasses, eye exams and dental work (including a new crown for me at about $1500).

Thus, new enrollees to a single payer system under Bernie's vision will have to pay, but it will be mainly in higher taxes not actual premiums. But you simply can't get this single payer system gratis. Let's be clear on that.

Sanders was also excellent in taking Hillary to task for insisting that Dodd-Frank will do,  in so far as preventing another banking debacle. God forbid we bring back Glass -Steagall, which Sanders rightly wants - as we all should. For those with short memories,  Glass-Steagall had (before being removed under Bill Clinton's administration) prevented the mixing of investment banks with commercial banks. Under its purview I could sleep at night without fretting my money was being used for "gambling" purposes - e.g. trading in swaps, derivatives - without my knowledge and also with the participating banks benefiting with super high leverage and low capital requirements.

Meanwhile, Dodd-Frank attempted to right the wrongs and herd the cattle back in after they'd run off. But it was an impossible task given the law has been tweaked and re-tweaked mostly in favor of Wall Street interests and banker lobbies. Indeed, some articles I've read in the WSJ actually conjecture that Dodd-Frank might be reduced to a "toothless" farce within 2-3 election cycles.

But again, this is no wonder, since as Sanders vigorously pointed out, our campaign finance laws threaten the civic underpinning of our society because the money changers and makers can use them to shape legislation to their monied will. So long as money is treated as "speech" and floods our system it will undermine the public interest, whether that is tilted toward breaking up the big banks, rebuilding our infrastructure, or fighting man made climate change.  We have to clear this money out of our political process or reap the whirlwind as it continues to trump the votes of actual humans.

True, the responses at times reached the decibel level of screams, but often it was necessary in order to finish a point above the noise level of the moderators (Andrea Mitchell  and Lester Holt)

My one minor continuing complaint with Sen. Sanders - in the segment on dealing with ISIS and Iran (as in previous Middle East forays) - is that I wished he'd stop saying "EYE-ran" and "EYE-rack".. Those pronunciations are more befitting of the knuckle dragger enclave on FOX and its followers than a standing U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate.

As for Hillary, it was amusing for me to hear her harangue (in that classical scolding harpy voice)  about "taking a more aggressive stance against Putin" when it was her Neocons (led by Victoria Nuland) at State that instigated the uprising against then Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich. And now they have the nerve to complain after Putin reacted to what he saw as an underhanded move to get Ukraine into the NATO orbit.

In the end, what transcended all the debate details and fine points was Sen. Sanders' integrity which shone through like a beacon. For those of us who want to see real change, and aren't so brainwashed as to spurn him as a :"crazy socialist" this debate was an even more defining moment:  disclosing the character of a man who is probably too good to be elected President in the U.S..

It is just a pity that the scheduling of these debates - by the DNC and Hillary 'homer' Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- has been such as to keep more viewers from seeing him and his articulation of sober proposals for badly needed change. This is as opposed to the irrational changes offered by the fool factory of Trump et al, with 1,000 mile long fences as high as the Empire State Bldg. and other nonsense.

Bernie showed more than ever he's ready to take Iowa and New Hampshire, and I believe he just might..

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-scheer/65596/hillary-blames-bernie-for-an-old-clintonite-hustle-and-that-s-a-rotten-shame

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/65592/rethinking-bernie-sanders-attacking-wall-street-and-the-corrupt-us-political-system-makes-sanders-a-g

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/65576/six-responses-to-bernie-skeptics