A big shit sandwich, want a bite?

There are alot of angry people on the left side of the American political spectrum this week. In a democratic race that has been contested from Iowa all the way to Pennsylvania, the two leading candidates were all set to debate last week.

But where was the debate? Where was the information on the topics that we all want to hear about? The American public has a knot in it's collective stomach about the economy and the lending crisis, but instead the moderators asked questions about the goddamn Weather Underground, a mildly violent group from the 1960s.

We wanted to hear about how the Iraq quagmire might be resolved sooner rather than later, but the moderators felt that a few questions about a former first lady's trip to Tuzla was more important than a current war.

To tell the truth, the YouTube debates which were a mockery themselves probably had more political substance than that reeking pool of festered cat urine that saw two hours of air-time last week.

Ignoring the very idea that a moderator may have gotten one of his questions directly from right-wing mouthpiece Sean Hannity, it seems clear to me that they weren't at all interested in trying to advance the public knowledge of the candidates' stances on issues. Rather they decided to shoot for the Pulitzer prize for moderating by asking such zingers as "What's the deal with that flg pin (or lack thereof)?" and "Didn't your pastor once make an off-color comment?"

I'm generally surprised they didn't ask Mrs. Clinton about how her period affects campaign strategy, or who Obama's favorite rapper is.

This is it. This is what political discourse has come to. Not only are television ads worthless in determining any sort of information about a candidate (not a new development), but debates are lowest-common-denominator. The moderators may as well have farted into their mics and had the candidates rate the tone, timbre and smell.

I have yet to decide which is worse, the debate, or the hordes of right-wing flunkies who are falling over themselves to call out the candidates for failing to acceptably answer "hardball" questions.

Let me pose a hypothetical question: If you take a ball of wet manure, stick a rock in the middle of it and then wrap it in a filthy gym sock before throwing it, does that count as a hard or soft ball?

I really don't know if the moderators (Stephanopolous and Gibson) are stupid or just ridiculously out of touch with the American people. Maybe in some high Ivory tower, it matters a lot weather Obama has lunch with a man who had ties to a radical group fourty years ago. Did we forget that Ayers (the man in question) was pardoned? Or that his group never killed anyone, taking great pains to warn the occupants of the buildings they intended to blow up?

Clinton jumped all over Obama and said that the Weather Underground killed innocent people with their bombs. That's either a lie or a misrepresentation of facts depending on how you look at it. The only people who died were members of the group who accidentally touched off an explosion while manufacturing bombs. It would seem then that they were hardly innocent.

I don't care who you support. That debate was a big garbage sandwich that we shouldn't have to swallow it.