Impressed with Ben Affleck.

I just finished watching Ben Affleck on "Hardball" with Chris Mathews. Am I fan of actors pontificating about politics? Absolutely not. 99 times out of 100, I wish they would shut up and act. I'll watch their movies and television shows if I like their acting,, or I won't if I don't like their acting. Beyond that, I don't feel as though they have any right to use their celebrity status as a vehicle to push their own personal political agenda. For the most part, I'm usually frustrated with the media for giving them the opportunity in the first place. That said, I was pleasantly surprised to learn of Mr. Affleck's astute political analysis on tonight's "Hardball". His insights were thought-provoking and were articulated in a manner that wasn't intended to press an agenda. He was opinionated (appropriate for that forum), but not denigrating in his approach. It's still frustrating that his qualifications to be a guest on the show stem completely from his status as an actor. Nonetheless, I really appreciated the breath of fresh air from Hollywood--we all know that rarely happens, figuratively or literally.

Even though I disagreed [politically] with almost everything he said, I recognized his shocking ability to present a thoughtful premise, and his subsequent defense of that premise. One example of this phenomenon occurred when asked about the Iraq war. Specifically, he was asked why he feels as though the democrat candidate will win in '08. He offered the premise that much like the congressional elections of '06, the '08 Presidential election will likely be decided in large part by one issue--the war in Iraq. Affleck offered the premise that because of a lack of metrics associated with "success" in Iraq, the Republicans will likely lose the confidence of the nation. In fact, all Republican candidates are in favor of US military involvement in Iraq till "victory" is achieved, but none have described what constitutes "victory". I too, am intensely curious as to what measurable objectives must be reached before we can start bringing our troops home. I know that a stable, democratic, secure, free nation that can protect itself against it's enemies and terror from within is the goal. That sounds wonderful, but considering the volatility of the region, how will we ever know that these objectives have ever been achieved. Ben Affleck illustrated this point by posing the question, "If we are able to decrease the number of roadside bomb explosions to four a month, does that constitute security?" "Maybe two roadside bombs a month?" "Or does security consist of zero terrorist attacks for a month, two months, three months?" Who knows? That's exactly his point. All those noble goals listed out in Republican talking points sound good to some, but are they achievable? Without quantifiable, or at least observable metrics to indicate exactly what constitutes achievement of the aforementioned goals, what's the point in even talking about them in the first place? The Bush administration, or at least the Republican presidential candidates, must do a better job of defining success if they hope to gain the favor of the American public .