1. The major significance of the way the Democratic nomination competition has been handled so far is what it appears to say about the complacency and/or corruption of ordinary Democrats. Why is there no outrage—hell, disgust— over this sham of a race? Are Democrats so devoid of character and standards that they are satisfied with a Communist regime-like process where the Party’s hand-picked candidate has a giant box next to her name in the ballot while it is made clear to all that the other candidates are window dressing?
2. Well, they did it: this debate was scheduled so cynically to avoid viewers that even I was foiled: I had other things to do. [ I’ve read the transcript, here.] Scheduled on a weekend, against NFL football, on the biggest shopping Saturday of the year, right before Christmas…Wow.
I actually laughed out loud to hear CNN analysts expressing puzzlement at the scheduling. “It’s really mind-boggling; I can’t conceive of why the DNC would do this!” one said. “I know, it really is incomprehensible,” said the other, looking befuddled.
Pop Quiz: Lying, or stupid?
This reminded me of the TV reporter—I can’t recall which network—who said, after the second airplane slammed into the second tower, “Now, the tendency will be to assume this is a terrorist attack, but we caution viewers not to leap to conclusions.” That’s right, it might all be a horrible coincidence! The head-scratching over the DNC’s third straight weekend debate is just about that ridiculous. They don’t want Hillary, who is a shaky campaigner and debater, to be seen or heard by any more undecided voters than necessary.
With that, back to #1. What kind of respectable political organization tries to minimize the opportunities for citizens to know its leader? No kind, that’s the answer. Deceptive, manipulative, dishonest, suspicious, untrustworthy organizations behave this way, and only them. Do Democrats care? Does this trouble them? By the evidence, I guess not.
3. The most famous incident in the debate will undoubtedly be Hillary wandering back on stage late after the “debate” had resumed, and saying, Bluto-like…
I’m sorry too, but this is signature significance, proof of an entitled, lazy, arrogant, entitled candidate who is going through the motions. This has never happened before, and the reason is that there has never been a debate involving a candidate who knew the nomination was rigged in her favor before.
4. Last week a memo was declassified that showed that Clinton was warned by the State Department in 2009 that using her personal Blackberry for State related communications was a security risk. This again proves, as if more proof is needed, that Hillary’s protestations that everything she did regarding her communications was “approved” are lies. Apparently ABC’s moderators hadn’t heard about it.
I know: Bernie Sanders twice used previous debates to announce that the public doesn’t want to hear about Clinton’s “stupid e-mails.” The truth is that Bernie is a stooge, and the DNC and Hillary don’t want the public to hear about her e-mails. The ABC moderators, however, as journalists, have an obligation to question candidates about matters related to their character and fitness to lead. Naturally, they never mentioned the memo.
5. Bernie Sanders is a disgrace. He has accepted all of those individual contributions from supporters who think he is trying to win the nomination, and he so obviously is not. He refuses to confront Clinton on her vulnerabilities, which are legion, and lies, which are ubiquitous. He began the debate with an apology, which is essentially baring his throat to his opponent, a concession before the “battle” has even begun. I am a great believer in apologies, but the objective of a debate is still to beat the other debaters, not win “Miss Congeniality.” Sanders had many possible and appropriate forums in which to apologize for his staff’s conduct. This was the worst possible one if he cared about winning. He doesn’t. He’s betrayed his supporters, and they are too naive to realize it.
6. Back to #1: the gall of commenters on various political websites who extol the pleasant and contrived unanimity of the Democratic debates (with pathetic Martin O’Malley reduced to taking harmless potshots at the real and semi-real candidate) over the genuinely contentious Republican debates is as astounding as it is depressing. The idea of passionate disagreement is increasingly offensive to progressives, as their apprentices on college campuses have obviously learned well. Their concept of democracy is not what the Founders envisioned, nor what has advanced the United States this far.