Last night, the dumbing down of society stretched to new limits when the Democrats had a YouTube debate with co-conspirator CNN. Political campaigns often have the intellectual depth of a music video so it was fitting that a website that allows anyone to post regardless of whether or not that person knows what he or she is talking about co-hosted a debate with a network that often doesn't know what it is talking about. Thrown in a bunch of Democrats who all think they are the current incarnation of Santa Claus, and the number of people who don't know what they're talking about rises exponentially. But check out my last post about "Who Will The Media Select," and you will see that I was dead on accurate in my assessment. All one has to do is go to CNN's Election Center at the following link:
The debate is scored by three people: Bill Schneider, CNN's political analyst who often addresses Democratic groups; Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez (whom I've never heard of); and former California Democratic Congressman Bill Press. Apparently, CNN's idea of 'fair and balanced' is two Democrats and a marginal Republican. But let's consider what they said.
All three of them say that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Remember my comment about the media selecting the candidate? Go check out the rest of what they said. Hillary's name is only mentioned ONE TIME in the other 18 responses to six questions. How in the world could she have won if that's the case?
Ok, you have to scratch three of them because if she won she obviously cannot be the answer to who was the most disappointing - another consensus for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. But here's where it gets strange: all three agreed that Delaware Senator Joseph P. Biden KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE ISSUES than the other candidates.
If he does, doesn't that mean he won the debate?
Well, of course it doesn't because debates do not measure knowledge. In the television era, they have been nothing short of personality contests, and the notion that Lady Macbeth has a 'nice personality' is at odds with every appearance I've seen her make over the last 16 years.
So how did Hillary 'win' the debate?
She won simply because the three blind mice know her name better and much like a championship fight, the 'incumbent leader' has to actually get bloodied to lose. Since Hillary is a woman who will not hesitate to play the 'you're abusing me' card, the men on stage with her hold their punches back for fear of losing it altogether. If a man on that platform won't stand up to a nepotistic female candidate, why in the world should I believe he will stand up to Osama bin Laden?
And if Hillary was not big enough to stand up to Bill and leave - as any self-respecting woman would have done after NUMEROUS affairs on his part - why should I believe she's big enough to stand up to a big-spending Congress?
The media is having a lovefest at the thought of 'going back to the 1990s.' They will do anything necessary to help her win. Illusions such as these, however, are not the strong medicine the country needs.