More?

Hooray for Alicia Machado. But shouldn't we Democrats - and especially the first major party candidate for president - be denouncing beauty pageants generally as archaic, misogynistic, obsolete relics of a bygone era that really have no place in 2016 America? This part of the problem with Trump and Clinton. 

Democrats criticize Trump for uncouth remarks while accepting of the underlying premise of the topic. Yes, it was wrong to call beauty pageant winner Alicia Machado "fat." But in this day and age isn't it just as inappropriate to judge women on their beauty and looks (and talent) in a formal "competition"?

Serious Steve Case

The Washington Post has trotted out another "economic elite" to endorse Hillary Clinton. This time it is disgraced AOL co-founder Steve Case - he of the most cataclysmic business merger in US history, the infamous Time Warner-AOL deal. The fact that the Post thinks that Case's opinion is worthy of printing is perhaps more telling about the Post's disconnect with the American public than Case's support of Clinton. 

Why again should we be heeding the "wisdom" of a business leader whose company's fraudulent bookkeeping, questionable business practices, and overstated value helped destroy billions of dollars of shareholder investments? All while he walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars for himself.

Does Case even realize that when he writes that, "I get why Trump has been such a potent political force this year. I am well aware that millions of people are angry about their prospects and fearful that the forces of globalization and digitization have left them behind," the anger is directed at people like him and his actions? The Post certainly doesn't.

Debate Wrap

A few quick thoughts on the Clinton-Trump debate:

* Don't kid yourself, Trump scored impressive points early (an important time when more viewers are tuned in) on Hillary's flip-flops on the TPP trade deal. He also scored on his counter when Hillary touted Bill's record on the 90's, specifically NAFTA. And certainly no who is on, or perhaps watches, MSNBC could envision a situation where Hillary is going to get dinged on fact checking. In this case, here "gold standard" TPP claim (or denial depending on your point of view).

* What was up with Trump's sniffling? Post-nasal drip? A nervous tic? Someone get this man some Afrin, stat!

* Hillary "won" the last 45 minutes of the debate, but, honestly it was a tedious slog at that point and it was a surprise that both candidates only talked in broad generalities.

* Not a single question about education. But to my mind, a good thing.

* The revenge of the Gore-ites. For a party that still smarts from Al Gore's debate sighs and attempts at invading personal space, tonight was a god send as liberal commentators have a field day with the speculation that Trump didn't prepare for the debates ("and it showed!" they crow) and the Trump scowl during the split screen. Really? This is what presidential debates have sunk to? Audio-visual asides?

* Lester Holt is definitely in the "less is more" style of moderating. He was so loose - and at times so non-existent - it was hard to tell what the debate rules were in regards to points and rebuttals and time constraints. Admittedly, it was a thankless job but Holt clearly figured that he wouldn't be criticized if he let them play.

* Pay no attention to the polls showing who "won" the debate. Hillary Clinton had a better debate performance. I think most polls will show that. But that is focused on the wrong metric. Donald Trump won in the sense that he didn't commit any profound gaffes and acquitted himself in a way that was not disqualifying to be president. Yes, it's a low bar. But Trump did clear it. Alternatively, Clinton did not dominate to such an extent that made her the undisputed favorite. In short, this debate likely did not change many (any?) voters' minds which, given Trump's momentum at the moment, equates to a win for him.