It's a good thing that Donald Trump watched the first Democratic Party Debate of this election, otherwise nobody would have! Well, that's not really fair - apparently the debate set a record for Democratic debates, though still their audience was a far cry from the Republican's score.
What wasn't revealed, though, is how many viewers stayed awake all the way through. It wasn't nearly the snoozefest that might have been expected considering the advanced age of the primo participants, but there certainly wasn't any sign of the fireworks that kept the Republicans hopping when it was their turn.
The debate did illustrate one thing, though: the Republican Party has a silver lining hiding in the oppressive bias of the liberal media.
America has known for a long time that the media prefers Democrats, and the proof is on display any time the two encounter each other: Democrats simply don't get the "gotcha" questions that Republicans are hit with every day. If a journalist asks a Democrat a question he doesn't like and he waffles, almost always he's allowed to get away with that; when a Republican tries that trick he gets a snarky "You didn't answer the question" which becomes a soundbite on the evening news. It's impossible to know how many brilliant and well-qualified Americans stay out of office due to these tricks.
But the flip side is, those superlative people who do manage to survive the gauntlet and take office as a Republican, really are the best of the best. They have to be incredibly quick on their feet, a master of pithy quotes, a font of detailed knowledge on every possible subject, and of course never rude no matter how provoked - Donald Trump being the exception that proves the rule.
Contrast this with Hillary Clinton, who has such a hard time keeping her story straight that even Anderson Cooper couldn't help but jab her:
“Even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency,” Cooper said. “You were against same-sex marriage, now you are for it. You defended President Obama’s immigration policies, now you say they are too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times … now suddenly last week you are against it.”
“Will you say anything to get elected?”
We all know the answer to this - a resounding YES! - but even though there was no chance of Cooper's getting a truthful response, his merely asking the question is harsher treatment than Hillary has received in decades. And her response showed her inexperience:
I think like most people I know, I have a range of views, but they are rooted in my values and experience.
Well, duh! The whole point of the question was wondering what exactly those values are - and as far as her experience is concerned, even her most fervent supporters have a hard time coming up with anything she's actually accomplished. Scott Walker famously pointed out that everywhere in the world she's visited is worse off than before she dropped in, which at 112 countries plus our own, is a pretty thorough record of destruction.
For goodness' sake, even Hillary Clinton herself can't come up with any accomplishments when asked, always referring people to her book instead. Presumably she never bothered to read it when the ghostwriter was done.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is an extremely smart person because you don't get where she has without being smart. She obviously she has access to the very best advisers money can buy. Nevertheless, when it comes to public verbal combat, there is simply no substitute for experience, and her loyal allies in the media have badly let her down by not giving her any.
Bernie Sanders has a different problem. Unlike Hillary, he has steadfastly stood for the same political positions and policies for his entire career if not his entire life. What's more, his views actually make a sort of consistent worldview, based on the false but appealing premise that people are generally good and government really can help them. Being from Vermont, that's not as patently insane as it would be in most places, but to his credit, Bernie has stayed loyal to his socialist and paternalistic beliefs even in the face of overwhelming and historic evidence that his ideas simply do not work in a venue larger than Vermont and never have.
It is healthy for America to hear socialism argued for by a man who truly loves this country and has no aspirations to turn it into a Communist dictatorship. It is good for the Democratic party to be able to openly discuss what they all secretly want, instead of hiding behind weasel words and flummery. On the debate stage, Sen. Sanders had a golden opportunity to give his dearest hopes and dreams a public display they have not received since, oh, 1989 or so.
Alas, he failed. His delivery was remniscent of Ben Stein's legendarily soporific economics lesson to Ferris Bueller.
Unlike Bernie, Ben Stein had the advantage of being right; unlike Ben, Bernie had a highly sympathetic and interested audience, so he didn't fall nearly so flat as he might have. Still, the good Senator, despite his age and years spent in genteel Senatorial debates, is clearly Not Ready for Prime Time. Sarah Palin did far better in her debate, and we know how that ended up.
Contrast this with the glorious spectacle of the Republican debate, which held vast numbers of Americans enthralled from start to finish. In truth, the Democrats probably offered more actual discussion of real issues; true to form, Megyn Kelly specialized in personal attacks over policy debates. But we live in a world of drama, and the Dems didn't have enough drama to make the medicine of substance go down.
Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton holding her own against Donald Trump on a debate floor? Bernie Sanders would actually have a better chance, being a genial old duffer who'd make people feel sorry for him getting thrashed. Either of them could, given enough experience; but neither of them will, because they won't get it. Even any of the other Republican candidates, no-hopers included, would stand a fighting chance against the combined power of the Clinton machine and the biased media moderators, because they simply know what they're doing on an immeasurably higher level.
We don't yet know who the final nominees will be, but with a little bit of luck, we may get the most lopsided Presidential debate since JFK vs Nixon - only with the parties in opposite roles. Pass the popcorn!
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.