The Democratic Debate: Political Theatre

By Stanford Matthews It is not often that I take exception to something written in the Washington Post. And those of you who rightly pound on the main stream media on a regular basis should not get the idea that I ever blindly defend the news media. But I do feel that the Washington Post frequently does a reasonable job. But this time they're annoying me. And that's their right. It is also my right to point it out. It comes from the article titled, 'Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft.' To say that the Democratic field of candidates match the quality of any in decades is preposterous. The same could be said of the Republican field of candidates. This does not mean they are not necessarily unworthy of the right to run. It may be more accurately described as this is what is available. The minimum number of decades considered to be plural would be two. Obviously it is 2007. In 1987, George Herbert Walker Bush was the default GOP candidate of a successful two-term President by the name of Ronald Reagan. And if limited to Democratic candidates whether nominated or not in the last two decades the WaPo author may have a point. But if there are no shining examples of worthy Presidential candidates in a particular time frame, defining the current field as matching the quality is at best misleading. If merely being elected to the office of governor, congressman or senator distinguishes a candidate with some laudable quality than the bar has been set way too low for vetting candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton represents New York in the Senate. Could it be the Democratic party determined this one time Republican could win in a big 'D' district and have the GOP concur by providing only a sacrificial lamb as an opponent to her re-election? Why else would Hillary Rodham Clinton be a Senator from New York. Check the success of the other candidates and see if their stories are not similar. Before the over-hyped Democratic debate that was refused to Fox News in favor of MSNBC, Brian Adams was on David Letterman's show dissin' the notion of the entire thing and debates essentially being a joke. For the author of the WaPo piece to express any positive impressions over their responses to 'debate' questions is also meaningless. Why do so many place such importance on what candidates say before an election? Have we not learned of the legions of campaign experts, professionals, gurus and the like employed by candidates to have them stay on message and do what they are supposed to in achieving the desired result. And how about the well established criticism of American election politics that have rendered it a mere game of ye who raises the most money wins? Quality candidates would be a laughable description if the absence of a quality field of candidates was not so pathetic a reminder of this important component of governing that has gone AWOL from American politics. The other article source with this post is simply provided as a reminder on what the quality of the Democratic field of candidates for President as well as the party leadership focus all their attention. Bashing the President rather than lending a hand to allow this country to succeed. And offering valueless proposals for the country's future that pander to a clueless voting demographic is equally reprehensible.

Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 -- In the final minute of Thursday night's televised Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware was asked by NBC's Brian Williams if he saw anybody on stage, aside possibly from himself, who could lead the party to victory next year.

Candidates Unite in Criticizing Bush ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 -- Democratic presidential candidates largely set aside their differences here Thursday and presented a united front of opposition to President Bush and his Iraq policy, urging the president not to veto newly passed legislation that sets a timetable for beginning the wi...