If the Dems were serious about accomplishing anything, wouldn't they:

1) Plan to follow up in unified fashion on the themes enunciated (& the tone struck) by Gore's address yesterday? Rather than just leaving it all hanging as an isolated under-reported statement by a lone individual? Recall Kennedy's remarks about the Iraq war (a "fraud manufactured in Texas") a month ago, which were powerful for the few minutes they lasted -- but which subsequently received no support or follow-up whatsoever.

2) Demand a format for these moronic debates that better served the party, the candidates, & the social goal of presenting substance rather than soundbites? Obviously, the Democratic Party has considerable leverage in staging these debates. The TV channels can't very well stage a debate without cooperating Democrats. Why don't the candidates and party demand a format that allows in-depth discussion, rather than sounding an idiotic bell every 30 seconds, just when a speaker begins to approach the core of his thinking on a given subject?

The existing debate format robs the candidates of dignity. It makes (& probably is intended to make) them look childish, like amateurs. They all have less power than the moderators; they are made to sit on stools; to behave ingratiatingly towards the moderators; they are silenced & sent to the corner for a timeout whenever a silly bell rings. (I don't know about you, but I was treated with more dignity than this when I was 11 years old.) Most importantly, imposing a 60 second limit on responses to huge & significant questions -- even while the feeling is created that we're all in a great rush to "get on with" further questions -- defeats the very purpose of the debates altogether.

I'm reminded of a great Father Guido Sarducci line. He said, about a dog he saw racing down the street, "What's the big rush? Late for your next nap?" IOW - what in the world is the purpose of rushing through debate questions? Just to guarantee that we pack in a lot of questions, ALL of which can be truncated, treated inadequately, & rendered into superficial soundbites?

If the Democrats were serious about not being displayed as a pack of lightweight amateurs on TV, they would demand a format that encouraged depth, substance, and thoughtfulness. The fact that they submit to this biweekly humiliation shows that they either aren't perceptive enough to notice its shortcomings, or they simply have a death wish. // Similarly, since NONE of them has said anything remotely as penetrating & excellent as what Gore said yesterday, you might think there'd be room here for a great deal of UNIFIED party follow-up. If they don't do it -- and trust me, they won't -- it can only be because they actually believe that their rightful place is as submissive doormats. No party that had any pride, took itself seriously & believed itself a winner would let a magnificent speech like that go by, without a highly visible expression of support, solidarity, & follow-up.

Look, the Dems are either completely incompetent, or (and I support this theory), they REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH BUSH'S PLAN. Their argument is one of semantics. "The Iraq war was right, but we should've done it this way...", "The tax cuts were a good idea, but we should've done it this way...", "The Patriot Act was right, but I would use it this way..."

Either they are fools, or they are complicit. Pick one. It doesn't matter because both options suck.