Christine O'Donnell vs Chris Coons

Watching the Christine O'Donnell debate was excrutiating if you, like me, wanted to see the monster unmasked.

In fact, it was a little like watching O'Bama try to deal with the slings and arrows thrown his way during the Presidential debates--you wanted to see him throw a few of his own, but he simply seemed incapable of anger and you wanted some anger.

But Obama really didn't have to say anything because the economy was tanking and all he had to do was no harm.

In the O'Donnell debate, she was the voice of rage and all she had to do was to say she was angry and what her hapless opponent had to do was to show why he was angry back at her, but again, like Obama, he struck me as meek and weak and never really got the point that you have to be a little angry right now at all the people who are angry.

I've been taught not to respond to anger from my patients with anger. The soft answer turneth away wrath. The patients are frightened, angry and have a right to be; as the physician, you are in a position of power and should be parental and not get angry.

That, of course, is wrong. If a patient is abusive and angry, I get angry and put them in their place. And that often makes me feel better, makes them feel better and makes their family members, who are sitting in the exam room, the audience, understand who is and ought to be in command.

Christine O'Donnell responding to the question about whether or not the contributors to campaigns ought to be identified or allowed to conceal their contributions in anonymity said her contributors have been harrassed and ought to be protected.  Chris Coons never said, "No, they ought to have the courage of their convictions. If they are for you, they ought to take the heat for being for you."  But he hardly responded at all.

Then came the question about don't ask don't tell. Christine O'Donnell is prepared for this, as both candidates should be: She says if the military says it's okay, okay, but the military not the courts or legislature should be calling this shot. So then Wolf says, but the Chief of the Joint Chiefs says it's okay. She's been prepared for this, as any candidate should be: Well, she'd like to hear it's okay from the head of the Navy, the head of the Army. Then she adds, the military already has rules governing behavior: No adultery,  no sex between commanders and subordinates. 

There is the perfect opening to jab through: Are you saying that a declaratio of homosexual preference is the same as committing adultery? Is adultery not a moral failure? Is homosexuality a moral failure?

But Chris Coons sits there like some dumb kid who can't think of a thing to say.

Very frustrating.

Is Chris Coons the best the state of Delaware can produce to deal with a slick demagogue?

If the Democrats get voted out, it's because they weren't smart enough to stay in.