This week, millions of Americans tuned in to politics only to make an astonishing discovery: Donald Trump is still exactly who he always was! He opens his mouth, and lies and crazy talk pour forth. Same as it ever was... what a surprise!

Now, normal people can be excused for being surprised that Trump is still Trump. Most people have lives to lead and plenty of other things to do, so they simply don't pay much attention to politics. But tens of millions of them made the time this week to tune in to the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. And it was like going to a family Thanksgiving dinner and once again having to put up with your crazy uncle -- because you had somehow forgotten just how bad he truly was. And still is.

The news media, however, have no such excuse. Up until now, they've been largely engaged in what has become known as "sane-washing," which essentially means: "listening to Trump's gibberish and then reporting on it as if he is wisely proposing new policy ideas." That sort of went out the window this Tuesday, as America beheld Trump's insanity, unwashed for all to see.

This was all summed up brilliantly (and hilariously) by the Washington Post's resident satirist, Alexandra Petri last week. Mind you, this was before the debate was held:

I found it! The machine! The wonderful machine that they have at all news production headquarters. Its input is Donald Trump's remarks; its output is headlines. Everything makes sense now.

It functions somewhat like a juicer. You insert Trump's remarks at one end, turn a crank (you have to turn it pretty hard; the machine does a lot of heavy lifting and twisting) and then -- Presto! -- out comes the headline or chyron produced by those remarks. I had long been wondering where we were getting these headlines and chyrons. You glance up idly at a muted television and see "DONALD TRUMP DELIVERS REMARKS ON ECONOMY," and you think, "Ah, presidential at last!" And as long as you do not make the mistake of unmuting your television, the machine's work is complete. If you are silly enough to unmute your television, you find yourself thinking, "I don't know what those are, but I would not describe them as remarks about the economy."

A similar process occurs in print. If it were not for the machine, we would have headlines every day like "Would-Be President Rambles Unintelligibly For Eighty Minutes After Promising He Would Speak About The Economy; At Intervals We Glimpsed Something In The Torrent Of Words That If Pulled Out And Dried Off Might Become A Policy Idea, So We Sent Several Guys In After It, But None Of Them Returned Alive, Except For One Guy Who Just Said 'The Horror, The Horror' After We Retrieved Him And He's Now Staring Off Silently Into The Void. Is Donald Trump Entirely Well? Harris Also Delivered Remarks But Not As Many As We Wanted." Maybe we should have those headlines, but, thanks to the machine, we don't.

Maybe... just maybe... now we will start seeing headlines a lot closer to reality. But then again, maybe not. The double standard sees pretty baked in to the mainstream media, so perhaps they'll revert to writing headlines such as: "Trump Praises Haitian Immigrants For Their Cuisine." It certainly wouldn't surprise us, but then we can be pretty cynical about such things.

If you still doubt this double standard exists, just consider for a moment what the media would have said if Joe Biden had given just one of Trump's insane debate answers. Think of how Biden was treated after his own disastrous debate performance, and then look at coverage of Trump's. Are there mental health experts being interviewed to state their opinion as to how far Trump's brain has deteriorated? Are there editorials being written begging the Republican Party to pull the nomination from someone so obviously unfit to serve? If there are, we haven't seen them.

Kudos to HuffPost, at least, for pointing out an entirely different double standard, by running the post-debate headline: "Debate Suggests Men May Be Too Emotional To Be President." Turnabout is definitely fair play, don't you think?

The mainstream media does seem to be at least dipping a toe in the waters of reality-based reporting, but they're too timid to truly take on Trump so instead they are currently training their focus on Laura Loomer, who has recently been flying around with Trump in his plane. Loomer is a conspiracy-theorist and unabashed racist who is so far around the bend that she was denounced this week by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Think about that for a moment -- the irony of having Greene denounce you as a dangerous nutball. Trump was actually asked about Loomer at a press conference today, but refused to disavow anything she's said recently (this is after she went with him to a 9/11 memorial ceremony at Ground Zero, even though she spreads conspiracy theories about it all being an inside job). Perhaps if the media can get Trump to dump Loomer they'll focus their energies more on the conspiracies that Trump spreads, but perhaps that is too much to ask for.

But back to that debate. It was so bad for Trump -- such a spectacular meltdown of a trainwreck of a Dumpster fire -- that even people on Fox News had to admit Trump badly lost. There was no getting around it. Choose your metaphor: Kamala Harris ate Trump's lunch... or mopped the floor with Trump... or baited him just like a fish... or kicked his ass.... There are tons to choose from!

Harris looked presidential, while Trump looked downright certifiable. Harris masterfully trolled Trump, and he took the bait each and every time. Trump spouted so many lies the moderators had to actually correct a few of them (something that was sorely missing in the first debate). No, post-birth abortion is not legal anywhere in America. No, immigrants aren't eating cats and dogs in Ohio. Harris mostly brushed aside Trump's lies without attempting to fact-check them, which was certainly one way to go about it. She laughed at Trump being extreme, which only further enraged him.

Immediately after the debate, Harris challenged Trump to debate again, which is a pretty clear indication of how confident she felt. Trump waffled for a while, then proclaimed in all caps on his pet social media site that there would be "NO THIRD DEBATE!" Chicken memes began springing up all over social media, in response. "TrumpIsACoward" trended on the former Twitter. But Trump is infamous for changing his mind, so perhaps we will get to see another debate soon? Nobody really knows, but it's pretty obvious only one candidate is now eager for another matchup, and it's pretty obvious why. We should also mention that Harris raked in another $47 million in donations in the first 24 hours after the debate, which is another good indicator of victory.

To cap the evening off, after Harris was finished slicing and dicing Trump (and leaving little pieces of him strewn about the stage), she was then immediately endorsed by Taylor Swift (within a day, her endorsement had been "liked" by over 10 million people). It really is hard to imagine how the night could have gone better for Harris.

JD Vance responded with an "own-goal," saying in an interview: "We admire Taylor Swift's music, but I don't think most Americans, whether they like her music or [are] fans of hers or not, are going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and problems of most Americans." Um... dude... have you met Donald Trump? Seriously....

Following this up, yet another prominent Republican endorsed Harris as well -- former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Of course, the real question is whether anybody's mind will change as a result of the debate. Almost 70 million people watched the debate live on television, but this doesn't count those who streamed it or watched the whole thing later, so it likely reached a lot more than that. But American voters have become so tribal that any movement in the polls isn't likely to be overwhelming, at this point. Still, it will be interesting to see what numbers show up in the next week or so. The first two reputable post-debate polls that have come in both showed Harris with a five-point lead nationally, which seems to be a good sign so far.

Personally, we were left with the image we used for our headline today. The whole thing was like a 90-minute version of an old Ronco ad for a kitchen aid: She slices! She dices! She does not lose her edge! It really is hard to even picture how this week's debate could have gone any better for Kamala Harris -- it was that good.

This may be the briefest explanation for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week in this column's history, because we only really need five words to do it. To use a line from the old game show Hollywood Squares:

"Kamala Harris, for the win."

[Congratulate Vice President Kamala Harris on her official White House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

Once again, there were no disappointing Democrats to speak of this week (we're not going to count Joe Biden briefly wearing a MAGA hat, because we are in such a good mood), so perhaps we've achieved "the shortest awards section ever" in 766 of these columns.

Volume 766 (9/13/24)

Because of the big debate, we're not even going to attempt to write our own talking points this week. Instead, we're going to pull some of the best talking points we heard from the transcript of the debate, since (quite obviously) Kamala Harris didn't need anyone's help coming up with some zingers.

Most presidential debates are remembered afterwards for one or two moments, but the debate this week had so many moments jam-packed into it (both good ones for Harris and pathetic ones for Trump) that we had to struggle to even cut it all down to just the following. So here what we thought were the strongest talking points from Kamala Harris this Tuesday night.

In her very first answer, Harris unveiled her theme for the entire evening:

I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy.

It didn't take her long to begin to get under Trump's skin. After Trump claimed (wrongly) that the American economy while he was in office was "one of the greatest in the history of our country," Harris clapped back with some truths, and warned the viewers what they could expect from Trump tonight:

Let's talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War. And what we have done is clean up Donald Trump's mess. What we have done and what I intend to do is build on what we know are the aspirations and the hopes of the American people. But I'm going to tell you all, in this debate tonight, you're going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling.

Which, of course, turned out to be an accurate prediction.

Harris really hit her stride on the issue of abortion and women's rights. Which was as expected, but it bears pointing out that this is the strongest position any presidential candidate has ever taken on a debate stage. It was historic, in other words, even though entirely expected (since the issue is such a strong point for Harris). Just after Trump repeated his two main lies about abortion (that "everybody" wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and that Democrats were allowing post-birth abortions), Harris hit back on the first one.

[I]n over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which, understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. I have talked with women around our country. You want to talk about this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn't want that. Her husband didn't want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don't want that.

The subject of the border and immigration was then raised by the moderators, and Harris had her answer ready:

I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.

In the same answer, Harris also baited Trump with the one thing she knew he would respond to. She unsheathed her sharpest trolling weapon and wielded it perfectly:

I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about "windmills cause cancer." And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.

Trump, quite predictably, exploded. He fulminated about his rally crowd sizes, her rally crowd sizes, and then moved right on to: "They're eating the dogs.... They're eating the cats." This was universally crowned Trump's worst moment of the entire debate, for good reason.

Harris, invited to respond, brushed Trump's crazy talk off and went to the heart of the problem instead:

Talk about extreme. Um, you know, this is I think one of the reasons why in this election I actually have the endorsement of 200 Republicans who have formally worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, including the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressmember Liz Cheney. And if you want to really know the inside track on who the former president is, if he didn't make it clear already, just ask people who have worked with him. His former chief of staff, a four-star general, has said he has contempt for the Constitution of the United States. His former national security adviser has said he is dangerous and unfit. His former secretary of defense has said the nation, the republic would never survive another Trump term. And when we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues that affect the American people are not being addressed, I think the choice is clear in this election.

The taunting didn't stop there, though. Harris responded to Trump lying about crime rates with another masterful skewering of her opponent:

Well, I think this is so rich. Coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in November at his own criminal sentencing.

Trump blathered for a while, then Harris brought it all back to the stakes in the election for the American people:

Well let's talk about extreme. And understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again. Understand, this is someone who has openly said he would terminate, I'm quoting, terminate the Constitution of the United States. That he would weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. Someone who has openly expressed disdain for members of our military. Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. Because certainly, we know now the Court won't stop him. We know JD Vance is not going to stop him. It's up to the American people to stop him.

A little later, she followed up on this theme, after the moderators got Trump to repeat his Big Lie about the 2020 election somehow being stolen from him. So Harris went for the jugular, pointing out how insane and unfit Trump truly was and still is for the highest office in the land:

Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. So, let's be clear about that. And clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that. But we cannot afford to have a president of the United States who attempts as he did in the past to upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election. And I'm going to tell you that I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States. And world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump. I have talked with military leaders, some of whom worked with you. And they say you're a disgrace. And when you then talk in this way in a presidential debate and deny what over and over again are court cases you have lost -- because you did in fact lose that election -- it leads one to believe that perhaps we do not have in the candidate to my right the temperament or the ability to not be confused about fact. That's deeply troubling. And the American people deserve better.

Trump then retreated to Fantasyland, where he would end the war in Ukraine "when I'm President-Elect," solving the problem before he even entered office (which would be against federal law, by the way, if it did happen that way). And Trump had lots of nasty things to say about President Joe Biden, so Harris jumped in with another reminder that Trump is losing his marbles for all of America to see:

Well, first of all, it's important to remind the former president you're not running against Joe Biden, you're running against me.

She ended her answer with a prediction of what would happen if Trump did get into office, with a nice hook for Pennsylvania voters buried in it:

Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland. And why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship, with what is known to be a dictator, who would eat you for lunch.

When the subject of Afghanistan came up, Harris reminded everyone of how Trump handled the situation:

And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. But let's understand how we got to where we are. Donald Trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here's how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released. And get this -- no, get this. And the president at the time invited the Taliban to Camp David. A place of storied significance for us as Americans, a place where we honor the importance of American diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders. And this former president as president invited them to Camp David because he does not again appreciate the role and responsibility of the President of the United States to be commander in chief with a level of respect.

Towards the end, Harris returned to her agenda for the future, listed several of her policy ideas, and concluded in sweeping fashion:

That's the kind of conversation I believe, David, that people really want tonight as opposed to a conversation that is constantly about belittling and name-calling. Let's turn the page and move forward.

She returned to this overall theme in her closing statement, which began with:

So I think you've heard tonight two very different visions for our country. One that is focused on the future and the other that is focused on the past. And an attempt to take us backward. But we're not going back. And I do believe that the American people know we all have so much more in common than what separates us and we can chart a new way forward.

All in all, Harris did a fantastic job showing the American people the contrast between her positive and forward-looking agenda and Trump's complete and utter incoherence.

We won't know until next week how all of this affects the polls, but again, we have to say it is hard to picture how Kamala Harris could have had a better debate -- or how Donald Trump could have had a worse one, for that matter.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant