The election race for President of Earth is in full swing, with two clones as candidates and the Planet Express crew registers to vote. Meanwhile, a mining disaster on Titan sends the price of titanium through the roof, and Bender seizes the opportunity to make a quick buck by pawning his 40% titanium body.

As a head with a pile of cash, Bender begins enjoying his new lifestyle. During a trip to the Hall of Presidents in the New New York Head Museum, Richard Nixon’s head ruins Bender’s illusions about the glamor of a life without a body. The next day Bender heads off to the pawn shop to retrieve his body, but it has been sold. Later, Nixon’s head announces its candidacy for President of Earth, using Bender’s body to escape a constitutional provision that “nobody can be elected more than twice”.

[Fry and Leela are watching a debate. The candidates are clones, they use the same tone of voice and body movements for each other's short speech]
Jack Johnson: It’s time for someone who has the courage to stand up and say,
[slams his fist on the podium]
Jack Johnson: I’m against those things that everybody hates!
John Jackson: Now, I respect my opponent. I think he’s a good man. But quite frankly…
[slams his fist on the podium]
John Jackson: I agree with everything he just said.

Will they agree to discuss science?

Scientists in the US have sent out a fresh call for the three main US presidential candidates to take part in a public debate on science.

Organizers of ScienceDebate 2008, a petition for a science debate that has so far been signed by some 37,000 people, had invited the candidates to a debate on Friday 18 April in Philadelphia, but were forced to cancel last week because of a poor response. Barack Obama, one of the two Democratic candidates, declined to attend, while both Hillary Clinton, the other Democratic candidate, and John McCain, the stronger Republican candidate, gave no reply.

The candidates have now been sent new invitations for a debate in Oregon for three possible dates in early May.

I am glad to see that ScienceDebate 2008 has not given up hope. I wish I could say I thought they had any chance for successfully getting the candidates to address Science and Technology Policy but in the USA – at this time – this would be a way to dredge up wedge issues that look to be less important than they were in 2000 and 2004.

You can read the second invitation here. but the most important part, to me, was the second to last paragraph, in its entirety.

This is not a science quiz; it is intended as a serious policy debate about several major issues Americans are concerned with that fall along this theme, including climate change, economic competitiveness in the new global knowledge economy, energy security and sustainability, health and medicine, science education, and other related issues. We will give all confirmed candidates a copy of the anticipated questions five days in advance so that you may prepare. These are some of the most important challenges the next president is going to be facing, and we would hope that your candidate has plans for tackling them already. The voters are highly interested to see what they are, and how your candidate differs, or does not differ, from the others.

From the ScienceDebate 2008 site:

Is America Losing its Competitive Edge? A Presidential Debate on Science and America’s Future
“Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.”

This is all true and very important, but we are coming out of 8 years of the Bush Administration’s very selective and downright dishonest approach to science and the scientific community and I don’t think John McCain, or the Democratic candidates want to be on the record as the people who answer questions that are certainly going to be geared towards pointing that out that fact.

Tom Shales, in the Washington Post, gives a thorough and fair critique of what ABC’s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did wrong. Ignoring the aspects that were outside the moderator’s control such as timing and number of commercial breaks, there was still a lot to complain about.

One of Shale’s primary complaints – one in which I am whole hearted agreement – was the waste of almost an hour of the two hour debate rehashing the “controversies” that have already been beaten to death in the news media. Asking Senator Obama to once again address the “bitter” comment and his former pastor’s statements from the pulpit was a complete waste of the candidates time as well as the time devoted to the debate on the part of watchers who really want to hear from the candidates.

That hour was well summed up by Shale:

“It’s not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won’t be the last,” said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks’ trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on “the issues.”

Over at Gather.com, Samuel Gerace Sr. had more to say about the media after the debate than about the candidates.

The “debate” last night was very revealing, no not about the position of the candidates on the real issues which challenge the country today after the disastrous but the trustworthiness of the media’s objectives in the moderating the questions put to the candidates. Charlie and George were a veritable disgrace to the intelligence of any person wishing to see the candidate’s positions on a number of subjects which are hobbling our democracy. (emphasis added) For example a few of those fundamental issues are: ethics in the executive and legislative branches of government, a detailed plan to yes, regulate Wall Street’s insatiable hunger for greed and profit, changing the budgetary allocations so that education, health and economic needs are properly addressed, and finally a balanced budget amendment to collar deficit spending and mortgaging the future of the country to China, Saudi Arabia and Japan.

I know the debates are not drawing American Idol size viewing audiences, but to me that seems to indicate tha tthe networks handling the debates should focus more on the issues and less on the normal media circus surrounding the campaigns. We can get that everyday.

At least John McCain is burying his own campaign in appalling statements like the one he made recently when he essentially stated that he would, as president, hand over his Commander In Chief powers to Gen. Petraeus.

When asked whether he would divert U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to quash the resurgent Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden he responded with “I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that.”

There are several things both wrong and a bit insane about that answer, not the least of which is that Gen. Petraeus himself has begged off making that kind of call in Senate hearings that McCain himself attended earlier this month recognizing that such decisions MUST come from higher up the chain of command.

Slate.com’s Fred Kaplan has a nice analysis of this foreign policy preview from Senator McCain in an article titled I Don’t Know. Go Ask Petraeus. McCain’s appalling answer to a question about national-security policy.