KOS and JEROME should Moderate a New Debate

(tiny diary)

Our candidates, no matter how we might feel about them, are both far too intelligent to be wasting their time and ours by participating in conversations under village idiot control.

There are many questions both candidates still need to be confronted with on stage, by actual thinking humans, concerning Iraq, healthcare, civil rights, torture, lobbyists, and the economy.  And these questions need to be framed within the context of reality, unlike everything we've seen thus far in this campaign.

CNN has been doing the better of these debates, but that's pathetic, because they're still completely awful.  And not because they were in the tank for Obama.  They certainly were not.  They're in the tank for McCain, along with the sub-human apes on MSNBC.

They wear it proudly, too.  "Senator ____, in November, you will face a Heroic Immortal War God who will be able to say that you blah blah blah" ....  

I can't take it anymore.  I feel like I'd really enjoy a debate, but I haven't been able to, because the hosts of the parties live on a strict diet of McCain's BBQ-Ribs and Ambien.

Kos is pro-Obama.  Jerome is pro-Hillary.  There would be no venue more fair to everyone involved.  They're both also very smart, informed leaders of the American Progressive Movement, and I can't think of anyone else who deserves the right to question our two weathered candidates if they're ever going to debate again.

•  This

  is a great idea. rec'd

  by librarianman on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

•  Jerome and kos don't belong in the same sentance

  They once did, but not anymore.

  And Obama wasn't kos's first choice.

  by code blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM PDT

  •  Hey be nice!

    I should have mentioned that this was a be nice message or something.  I'm not hating on anyone right now who isn't a vapid talking tv head.

    by Ouroboros on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM PDT

•  Idea for a question.

  I know we're sick of health care questions but I have a few questions regarding the REALITIES of passing health care that can't simply be answered with the typical "It won't be easy but I have the experience/I can work with congress." crap.

  Question 1

  "We've heard a lot about your respective health care 'plans' but in regards to the realities and time tables of Washington, and the fact that only the legislative branch can pass legislation why not introduce your respective plans now while you are still part of that legislative process so it can be ready for your signature come January 19th?"

  And then the follow up.

  Question 2

  "There is no question that by the time your bill makes it through legislation it will have been subjected to countless amendments and changes in a closely divided Congress. Seeing as the bill that ultimated comes across your desk may not resemble your current 'plans' is there any point to discussing a 'plan' that can never be, and will you sign a watered down version of your bill."

  Last question in regards to the predictable "what do you mean 'watered down'/it would depend on what was changed" response.

  Question 3

  To Obama: "If for instance the Senate were to amend your bill to require a mandate, which under Senator Clinton's plan you have opposed. Would you sign that bill?"

  To Clinton: If for instance the Senate were to amend your bill to eliminate the mandate which under Senator Obama's plan you have opposed. Would you sign that bill?"

  by DeanDemocrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM PDT