I can't say that I'm all that impressed with the debates that have taken place on YouTube so far. I personally have suspected that the questions are rigged by CNN as well as YouTube. The following are somethings that are starting to come out now in regards to the recent Republican debate that took place. No wonder more than half of people polled do not trust the press and media on their coverage so far of the campaigns taking place right now. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003678478 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/71129002/1001 http://media.newsbusters.org/storie...p-cnn-didnt-know-gay-questioner-hillary-campa
Anderson Cooper talks about the plants at the Republican debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28CCf4cEDpI
If they were smart enough, good enough, strong enough, fast enough, agile enough, it wouldn't matter if you set them up, they could get out of it with their powers. But they're not. They're slow, and weak, and fat, and you know it, that's why you're filled with fear. Fear in your trembling fat.
I think those are two issues that most candidates or future presidents will not be touching no matter who it is that is elected.
Apparently it isn't completely pointless. If that there the case, Hillary wouldn't be planting people to ask questions and CNN wouldn't be wasting the airtime to show it. I agree that overall the debates are pointless. I do not think we really learn anything new about the candidates in them. But, it doesn't really answer the question as to why CNN would bother airing it.
Explains why Paul got so little airtime; he could have done it, but CNN doesn't want to showcase a credible threat to Hillary.
At this point, I think the most credible threat to Hillary is Hillary herself. Her dip in recent polls is all her and has little to nothing to do with her opponents.
Probably because they aren't as stupid as the Republicans to walk into such a blatantly biased debate structure. We all know that not one of the current Democratic candidates will show up for a single debate hosted by Fox. Apparently it is okay for Hillary to pull this type of garbage but not the Republicans?
Well, see, that's why GOP candidates actually take the time to prepare for these things. They KNOW they're going to get curveballs. Look at Hillary, though. One question off-script, and BOOM!, her campaign starts going to hell.
Honestly, I don't think YouTube had much to do with it. CNN did all the question screening and selection, because they obviously know what the public really wants to hear: the same canned answers to the same questions over and over again without really putting any candidate really under the magnifying glass. I have little doubt that there were intelligent, thought-provoking (well, for Paul and Thompson maybe... I don't know that the rest of them could actually be made to think) questions posted. I also have no doubt that CNN deliberately got rid of them.
One which was filled with softball questions which played right into the very issues Dems think they are better on...the Enviornment, health care, etc. EVERY set of paired debates features Dems being offered "here, make yourself look good" questions and Repubs being offered "have you stopped beating your wife" set ups. Show me a paired debate where candidates from both parties have to answer the EXACT SAME questions and then you will have some insight.
I agree that none of the candidates on either side are all that great. But, that doesn't change the reality of what has been done by CNN in their selective choices for questions directed at Republicans versus Democrats.
I hate how much, in all the debates (Rep or Dem) no real substantive answers are given, and the pandering is sickening. Just from the last debate, I almost hurled when one candidate said loudly "Well, it's like my pastor one said to me..." Jesus fuck can you be more obvious that you are just throwing that in just to score points!? I'll bet you ever rehearsed that hoping you could toss it in! Or the way they dodge questions with jokes or digs at the other candidates...like that whole lame "Well, we should send Hillary to Mars..." bit. And it's not just the Reps, I've seen Hillary and Obama and Edwards do shit like that all the time, and it sickens me. Is this what passes for real dialog now!? Serious debate!? And people eat this shit up. Why can't the average voter see through this bullshit!? Fuck that shit. It's like what the guy in my AV said: "Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." Or maybe like that politician in Mindwalk said: "American voters want their leaders to be dumber than they are. They figure they'll do less harm that way."
I thought that was actually a decent question, but at the same time it's just going to reinforce the stereotype that all Conservatives are "gun obsessed".
Well, since this was a "debate" between the GOP candidates seeking to take the GOP nomination, I don't think that's going to be an issue for the intended audience of the debate.
Yes. Unfortunately. However, I cannot find it in my heart to blame the candidates, or the parties, or the media for any of that. (I know, I am some kind of subversive counter-revolutionary for straying from those obvious scapegoats...) The candidates and the parties use the stategies that work. The media show what sells. In both cases, one cannot blame the providers for providing what the subscribers want. The bottom line is that too many people don't want serious debate. They wouldn't understand it anyway. Their minds are made up already and all they want are the quicky one-liners that appear to uphold their candidates and/or make the other candidates look bad. I have yet to see a candidate who will say outright and up front: "I am not going to say anything bad about my opponents or their proposals. I am going to tell you about my proposals, from one end of the campaign to the other. If the only selling point I have is that the others are even worse, then I am not worthy of your trust. So here's what I think are the best options for the issues." Why not? Because that's not what people want to hear. Maybe 10% of the people would be excited about that approach. (And most of them would be people who would already be for or against the candidate in question because of agreeing or disagreeing with him on the issue. He would gain almost nothing.) So you settle for smearing your opponents, wrapping yourself in the American flag, and giving as little information as possible, presented in a way that sounds as nice as possible. Because that's what the people want to hear. They have proven it time after time, in every election since the sixties.
Fred Thompson's said that hes' going to stay away from the negatives and present actual proposals. He's done just that so far, his proposal for tax reform is specific and the first one out.
