To begin with, I'd like to point out something that should be obvious to even the most casual student of history. Ideas and political movements do not suddenly appear on the scene, mature and wildly popular. They begin as fringe ideas espoused by visionaries (otherwise known as "radicals", "loony-toons" and/or "minorities"), who work years or decades or even centuries before the idea is adopted by the culture. For example, the first anti-slavery society in United States was formed in 1775; but we did not elect an anti-slavery Presidential candidate until 1860, and the 13th Amendment was not adopted until 1865.

It does a huge disservice to the country to try and develop a primary debate system that excludes new or unpopular ideas, or candidates who have not (yet) made the "top tier".

Yes, the current system of "debates" is a farce. Dumbing complex issues down until they are "yes or no" questions and demanding that candidates "raise their hand" if they support a catch phrase is criminally irresponsible. But there are other ways to improve the debates than to limit the number of participants. Some suggestions:

1.) Limit the debate to a single, specific topic. Why not have one debate on Iraq policy. One debate on energy policy. One debate on education. Etc., etc., etc. (Some of us are old enough to remember when this was common practice.)

2.) Actually use a debate format. Don't ever allow candidates to have an entire "debate" which is limited to statements which cannot refer to any of the other candidates.

3.) Have longer debates and more of them.

4.) Candidates: use the debates to explain your plans. Instead of trying to convince us you look the most Presidential by having the most polished performance, why don't you try looking the most Presidential by explaining your proposed policies. Instead of telling us in a sincere way that you support the troops (who doesn't, besides Smirk?), why not explain exactly how you're going to get us out of Iraq. Why we need to start leaving when you think we should start leaving, not earlier or later. How long the operation should take. How your plan keeps the troops from being in greater harm and Iraq from melting down even worse.

5.) Candidates: restrain your challenges/attacks to matters of substance. If the candidate on your right has a health care proposal that will bankrupt the country - - say that. And back up your contention. I know the temptation is great to focus on landing the perfect zinger that will live forever - - the new "You're no Jack Kennedy". But you know what? The guy who said "You're no Jack Kennedy" lost his race by a landslide.

6.) Have old fashioned internet debates. Have the same policy question sent to all the candidates and post them at a private website. Give the candidates 24 hours to send in any rebuttals they feel are necessary. Then publish all the answers on a public website. Candidates are allowed to link back to information on their own website, like "as I explain in detail in my education plan (link to education plan)".

7.) Candidates: Update your campaign website so that it contains actual content. Your facebook links and iPod lists are cool and all, but how about posting - - in detail as well as in summary - - your plan to stop global warming?

8.) Have new fashioned internet debates. Video streaming allows the candidates to debate each other from anywhere on the planet.

9.) Find actual frigging moderators for the debates. Find people who understand the point of these debates is not to catch the candidates with the kind of "gotcha!" questions that will be talked about in DC cocktail party circles for years - - nor is it to pitch you endless softballs. If you can't find a journalist with the integrity of Walter Cronkite, hire the country's top speech and debate teacher to do the honors. You're not supposed to need a "star" journalist to draw viewers. The candidates are supposed to be the draw.

10.) Work toward 100% public financing of elections, with a great deal more free air time for each candidate. Level the playing field so every qualified person has a chance to reach the Oval Office - - and so your favorite candidate will still be able to run even if the big money donors dump him/her in favor of your least favorite Democrat ever...

Dear Mr. Matthews:

I saw your appearance on NBC this morning, where you stated that the American people were upset that there was no real debate prior to the war in Iraq, and that no Democrat had shown any guts on Iraq back in 2002.

I feel very strongly that I must correct you on the second point. One major Democrat has opposed the war from the moment it was suggested, regardless of the political cost. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore gave a major speech at the Commonwealth Club, where he urged Congress to vote against the IWR:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com...

At the time that Gore gave this speech, he was the front runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination, and public opinion polls showed that 67 percent of the American public supported the invasion of Iraq. Gore's opposition to the IWR required a great deal of political guts.

Additionally, there were 126 Democrats in the House who voted against the invasion, and 22 Democrats who voted against it in the Senate. (There were only 6 Republicans in the House who voted against it, and 0 Republicans in the Senate who voted against it.) Again, given that the majority of Americans supported the invasion, didn't those Democratic "Nay" votes require some guts? Didn't they require more guts - - and foresight - - than is required of anyone, Republican or Democrat, who voted for the invasion and opposes it now that Iraq is a quagmire and the vast majority of the American people want our troops home?

Finally, if there wasn't enough debate leading up to the Iraq War, perhaps you should look at the media's coverage of the proposed invasion of Iraq, and consider whether the media shares a large part of the blame for the lack of debate. (I would especially urge you to revisit the coverage of Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the U.N.)

Melissa Etheridge's new music video, "I Need To Wake Up", stars Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (screen captures below). This is the second music video that's used footage of Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" - - the first was Neil Young's "After The Garden".

Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge share a "celebrity playlist" on iTunes right now.

Gore's playlist:
1.) "I Need To Wake Up (From An Inconvenient Truth)" by Melissa Etheridge
2.) "Gone Going" by The Black Eyed Peas
3.) "This Land Is Mine" by Dido
4.) "After The Garden" by Neil Young
5.) "UMI Says" by Mos Def
6.) "I'm Alright" by Kim Richey
7.) "The Brand New Tennessee Waltz" by Jesse Winchester

Melissa Etheridge's playlist:
1.) "Dear Mr. President (Featuring Indigo Girls)" by Pink Featuring Indigo Girls
2.) "Not Ready To Make Nice" by The Dixie Chicks
3.) "American Idiot" by Green Day
4.) "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye
5.) "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young
6.) "Pride (In The Name Of Love)" by U2
7.) "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...

It isn't easy picking George Bush's worst moment last week. Was it his first go at addressing the crisis Wednesday, when he came across as cool to the point of uncaring? Was it when he said that he didn't "think anybody expected" the New Orleans levees to give way, though that very possibility had been forecast for years? Was it when he arrived in Mobile, Ala., a full four days after the storm made landfall, and praised his hapless Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director, Michael D. Brown, whose disaster credentials seemed to consist of once being the commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association? "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," said the President. Or was it that odd moment when he promised to rebuild Mississippi Senator Trent Lott's house--a gesture that must have sounded astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans. "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house--he's lost his entire house," cracked Bush, "there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."

Shortly after Katrina struck Louisiana, private citizen Al Gore organized (and initially paid for) two planes to fly several hundred people with urgent medical conditions from New Orleans to Tennessee. The federal government tried to stop the flights, but Gore refused to take "no" for an answer.

Gore has never spoken to the media about this event. He has never taken credit for it. He has never even mentioned that he was in New Orleans during that horrible time.

The media has done a few follow up stories about some of the people who were rescued by Gore's efforts. And a couple of those articles have mentioned in passing that Al Gore helped these individuals onto a plane bound for Tennessee. But these stories never stop to explain how Gore could be in the New Orleans Airport at a time when New Orleans was too dangerous for relief workers - - making the inclusion of his name look more than a little surreal.

The complete story of Al Gore's mercy flights is available on TPMCafe, written by Greg Simon. Even if you've read it before, I urge you to read it again:

"Al Gore leads Charity Hospital airlift" by Greg Simon
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/1647...


In the New Orleans airport, September 3rd, 2005


At the Knoxville airport, helping patients off the first plane from NOLA, September 3rd, 2005