The happiness gap: During debates, my dominant emotions are negative

This is going to hurt to say, but.... I think I actually *agree* with Chris Matthews.

In tonight's democratic debate on MSNBC, Hillary Clinton's attempts to avoid making any statements that could offend potentially any part of the democratic party-- and what's more, statements that could offend anyone of any party-- only reinforced what I consider to be some of the strongest criticisms against her.

Clinton held a commanding presence on the stage, but her evasiveness made her seem insincere and too similar to republicans.

With regard the latter issue, John Edwards skillfully insinuated that with Clinton as the democratic nominee, there would be little difference in next year's presidential election between what either party had to offer in terms of policy on Iraq. I am not sure yet how I feel about Clinton's strategy for the Iraq war, but Edwards' point at least seemed worth noting.

As for her insincerity, I was miffed that would not even give an opinion as to whether the Clinton Foundation's donors should be made public. She appeared to be incapable of answering any question without consulting her pollsters and strategists, even questions that could be called tangentially significant at best.

More seriously, she was obstinately silent on the topic of social security and on Tim Russert's very viable hypothetical involving Israel and Iran.

Clinton's refusal to answer questions bothered me for this reason: at such a critical juncture in the country's history, the last thing we need is a president who is willing to keep the American people in the dark for political gain.

More than ever, I am simply looking for a candidate at this point that I believe I can trust. I have never been one to put more stock in "character" than in a candidate's stance on the issues, but the Bush administration has certainly shown the devastation that can come out of dishonesty. I am not calling Clinton dishonest-- yet; I simply wish she were more forthcoming with her opinions.

When Clinton introduced her health care plan last week, I was impressed. It appears to be a well-crafted, viable plan, and its unveiling raised my hopes that Clinton could accomplish great things as president. As she resorted to calculated, vague statements tonight, however, my cynicism was roused.

All that said, I have not made up my mind about Clinton, or any of the candidates, really. There's plenty of time before the primaries for Hillary to 'fess up as to how she'd actually run the country. And while she might offend some people with her answers, she could very well win me over.

War on Terror Over-- Kanye Wins!

This is old news by now, but I'd like to point out that Kanye West won the War on Terror for us. It should come as no surprise that West, the only American straight-up balla enough to say on national television what everyone else was thinking-- "George Bush doesn't care about black people"-- has led us to victory over the fundamentalist ideologues attempting to overwhelm the American psyche. Props to West for remaining hardcore thug in front of the terrorists while keeping his fresh-to-death, high-end preppie style. The sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks passed this month amid a flurry of events that would concern any red-blooded American: Congress extracted tense testimonials about the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President rebuffed his detractors in a live address to the nation, and the elusive Osama bin Laden released another video (apparently after a nice trip to his neighborhood Pashtun salon).

But the terrorists don't seem to be winning this war to control the hearts and minds of Americans-- a New York Times/CBS poll conducted the first week of September shows that for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, there are as many Americans who think an imminent attack on U.S. soil is not likely as there are who think an attack is likely.

Yet while bin Laden's tape may not have elicited that much fear, President Bush didn't seem to pique much interest with his address to the nation, either. According to Nielsen Media Research, President Bush's Sept. 13 speech drew in 28.8 million viewers. This sounds like a lot (at least to me, anyways), but it is a paltry number compared to the 42.4 million who tuned in to watch Bush propose a troop surge in Iraq on Jan. 10. Furthermore, on CBS-- which had the highest number of viewers watching the speech, at 6.9 million-- the speech was just about the least popular program of the night. 8.8 million people decided to watch an episode of Big Brother 8, which was on before the speech, and 9.12 million people tuned in after the speech to watch part of a rerun of CSI and a rerun of Without a Trace. Hmm.

So if people weren't too concerned with Osama bin Laden or President Bush on Sept. 11, who were they interested in listening to? KANYE WEST. In a true showdown between two American heavyweights, Kanye West and 50 Cent both dropped their albums on Sept. 11, to see who could garner the highest record sales and thereby prove themselves the better MC (let's forget about proving that by, sayyy, rapping). Kanye had knockout sales reaching nearly one million. On top of that, 1.3 million viewers watched a Sept. 11 showdown between West and 50 on BET's 106 & Park. That is a considerable number for a cable network; it is 89 percent higher than the channel's average viewership on Tuesdays this season so far.

With all of this in mind, one can only reach the conclusion that Kanye West now has a more powerful grip over American life than the president or the terrorists. Congratulations, Kanye, and thank you for making us forget about the terrorists.

All this Fed stuff can get confusing...

I think I may want to read Furby's book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, after watching him on The Daily Show tonight. After Jon Stewart asked him why the Fed seemingly rewards the large investments of the wealthy over the modest savings of the working class when it lowers interest rates, Greenspan retorted the comedian should read his book again. It seemed like a good question to me, and it sounded like I could get a good answer from the book. Based on Furby's simple and articulate talking points during the rest of their discussion, his book may actually be pretty enlightening. A lot more, anyways, than watching "The Briefcase Indicator" on CNBC, an old favorite of my mom's back in the day.

NO ONE in Baghdad thinks the surge was beneficial.

MoveOn.org is in full force this week, having sponsored a highly contentious full-page ad in The New York Times calling General David Petraeus "General Betray us."Of course, the nutty protestors who made their way into today's congressional hearings, featuring the general and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, took quite a liking to the nickname.

I appreciate MoveOn's ability to mobilize ordinary, progressive citizens, but I find this particular ad counter-productive. General Petraeus is well-respected by both political parties, as evidenced by the Senate's unanimous approval of his tenure as leading commander in Iraq. Resorting to name-calling and placing blame on any number of individuals is not going to solve anything at this point. Perhaps it could have before we were so deeply entrenched in Iraq, but at this point, it seems clear that Petraeus is doing whatever he can to simply keep us above water.

MoveOn should focus more on the facts-- information that no one can dispute and that makes it clear that drastic change is needed. The organization highlighted in an email today a factoid from a new ABC News Poll that I think should be getting more coverage: NOT ONE Baghdad resident who was polled thinks the surge has worked. The poll presented a number of dismal findings, but this completely consensual response from every living person from Baghdad (who was polled, of course) really blew me away. Here is the direct text from the report:

Every respondent in Baghdad, and also in Anbar (where George W. Bush paid a surprise
visit to a sprawling U.S. base last week), says the surge has made security worse now
than it was six months ago (anti-U.S. sentiment in these areas is very high, and likely a
factor in these direct assessments). Views in the rest of the country are hardly positive:
Outside Baghdad and Anbar, still just 26 percent say the surge has improved security.

What a tragedy that on this sobering anniversary we face such bleak news.