Another Dem Debate - More Comic Relief

[red states rule]

Did anyone actually watch the Dem debate last night?

I found it comical and devood of reality. It was more of the usual, higher taxes, appeasement and surrender to terrorists, bigger government, ect


Democrats highlight differences in debate
By Christina Bellantoni
July 24, 2007
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The Democratic presidential candidates used a new debate style last night to illustrate clear distinctions among them on foreign policy, health care and their ability to relate to the common man.


The questions posed at the forum were asked by regular people via YouTube.com and struck a different-than-usual tone immediately when the eight White House hopefuls were criticized for talking about their unity in previous meetings.

In multiple cases, the candidates tried to showcase their differences. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said he would have talks with foreign leaders in Iran and Syria within one year of taking office, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York immediately said she would not meet leaders such as Fidel Castro of Cuba and Kim Jong-il of North Korea.

Mr. Obama got the question first, saying: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."

But Mrs. Clinton, a former first lady, responded that although she has represented the U.S. in more than 80 countries, "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's answer about using diplomacy in response to a question from three aid workers standing in front of a refugee camp in Sudan's Darfur region provoked a spirited response from Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

"I'm so tired of this," he said, adding the United States must send troops "now."

"Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over," he said. "Twenty-five hundred American troops — if we do not get the 21,000 U.N. troops in there — can stop the genocide now."


for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/NATION/107240072/1001

 

[Vintij]

I thought Joe Biden did a terrific job, I liked Edwards as well. Obama said he would make decisions based on his faith, which I dont like. Hillary kept thanking every youtuber, seemed rehearsed to me. Dodd was a little out of line, kucinich was great but kept trying to promote his texting agenda. Richards I did not like because he was unclear on all of his plans.

 

[red states rule]

I thought Joe Biden did a terrific job, I liked Edwards as well. Obama said he would make decisions based on his faith, which I dont like. Hillary kept thanking every youtuber, seemed rehearsed to me. Dodd was a little out of line, kucinich was great but kept trying to promote his texting agenda. Richards I did not like because he was unclear on all of his plans.

The debate showed the Dem party has been taken over by the kook left

 

[Vintij]

The debate showed the Dem party has been taken over by the kook left

Did you see the last question, where they had to be 5 year olds and say something nice to the person next to them. What a waste of a question.

 

[red states rule]

Did you see the last question, where they had to be 5 year olds and say something nice to the person next to them. What a waste of a question.

The questions were submitted by the Daily Kos crowd

What else could you expect?

 

[Gem]

I was disturbed by several things. 1st, I really don't like the (in my opinion) unhealthy comingling of entertainment and politics that we seem to be running into. The "Obama-girl," "Hillary's girlfriend" videos, and the like seem to me to be turning who our next President will be into a reality tv show. (Next year on FOX, watch AMERICAN PRESIDENT! And then call in and vote...each week, a new candidate will be eliminated based upon their ability to sing and dance while bullshitting the American people about whats really happening in the world and what they intend to do about it once elected!).

We are living in an age where a candidate can be elected because he plays the saxophone on a late night tv show and can lose all hope of electability because he screamed too strangely on national tv....at this rate, why don't we all just admit where we seem to want to go and just elect Morgan Freeman as President. He looks the part and can deliver lines a hell of a lot better than Bush can.

2nd, due to the format, the candidates were really under no obligation to ANSWER the questions asked, so instead (and predictably) they heard that the questions was about taxes - so they launched into their prepared tax speech, the war - their prepared war speech, gay marriage - their prepared gay marriage speech, rather than sticking to the YouTubers question. Everyone predicted this...but seeing it in action just made you think - Why the hell am I watching this tripe?

3rd, some of the questions were just so dumb, it made me realize once again how glad I am that the majority of Americans usually don't vote. The majority of the people in this nation have no idea who anyone on that platform was (with the exception MAYBE of Obama and Hillary...but only cause hot girls on YouTube shake their boobs while singing about them) let alone had any real awarness of what their political platforms were. I could have gotten up there...bullshitted the right answers...and come out ahead of Barak or Hillary or Biden...its just sad.

 

[red states rule]

I was disturbed by several things. 1st, I really don't like the (in my opinion) unhealthy comingling of entertainment and politics that we seem to be running into. The "Obama-girl," "Hillary's girlfriend" videos, and the like seem to me to be turning who our next President will be into a reality tv show. (Next year on FOX, watch AMERICAN PRESIDENT! And then call in and vote...each week, a new candidate will be eliminated based upon their ability to sing and dance while bullshitting the American people about whats really happening in the world and what they intend to do about it once elected!).

We are living in an age where a candidate can be elected because he plays the saxophone on a late night tv show and can lose all hope of electability because he screamed too strangely on national tv....at this rate, why don't we all just admit where we seem to want to go and just elect Morgan Freeman as President. He looks the part and can deliver lines a hell of a lot better than Bush can.

2nd, due to the format, the candidates were really under no obligation to ANSWER the questions asked, so instead (and predictably) they heard that the questions was about taxes - so they launched into their prepared tax speech, the war - their prepared war speech, gay marriage - their prepared gay marriage speech, rather than sticking to the YouTubers question. Everyone predicted this...but seeing it in action just made you think - Why the hell am I watching this tripe?

3rd, some of the questions were just so dumb, it made me realize once again how glad I am that the majority of Americans usually don't vote. The majority of the people in this nation have no idea who anyone on that platform was (with the exception MAYBE of Obama and Hillary...but only cause hot girls on YouTube shake their boobs while singing about them) let alone had any real awarness of what their political platforms were. I could have gotten up there...bullshitted the right answers...and come out ahead of Barak or Hillary or Biden...its just sad.

It is style over substance

 

[Paulie]

The questions were submitted by the Daily Kos crowd

What else could you expect?

Are you serious???

how do you hit "Submit Reply" sometimes without even worrying about how fucking stupid you'll look?

So i guess the Republican debate questions will be exclusively submitted by Michelle Malkin's crowd?

 

[red states rule]

Are you serious???

how do you hit "Submit Reply" sometimes without even worrying about how fucking stupid you'll look?

So i guess the Republican debate questions will be exclusively submitted by Michelle Malkin's crowd?

The questions were from the kook left of the party

A talking snowman asking about global warming

LOL

At least with the Republicans you saw reasonable questions being asked that actually were worth asking

 

[Paulie]

At least with the Republicans you saw reasonable questions being asked that actually were worth asking

The republicans don't have their youtube debate until September, RSR.

Isn't that what this thread is about? The Youtube debate?

 

[red states rule]

The republicans don't have their youtube debate until September, RSR.

Isn't that what this thread is about? The Youtube debate?

Dems do not have a debate - they have a meeting

The dumbest questions I have ever heard are asked by libs

 

[red states rule]

CNN’s Legal Analyst on Hillary: ‘This Debate Was Gladys Knight and the Pips’
By Matthew Balan | July 24, 2007 - 18:00 ET
Unlike their "American Morning" counterparts who liked most of the candidates, CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin and CNN contributor Roland Martin had clear favorites on who was the best Democrat at the CNN/YouTube.com debate. In the post-debate special on Monday night, host Wolf Blitzer asked Toobin about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's response to a YouTube video questioner who asked whether the candidates would meet with the leaders of rogue counties like Iran, Syria, and North Korea in their first year in office. Toobin gushed, "I thought on this issue, and throughout the debate, this debate was Gladys Knight and the Pips. Hillary Clinton is the dominant figure in the party. She's the dominant figure in the debate. And everybody else was responding to her." About twenty minutes later, Martin took issue with Toobin's comments, and argued that Obama did as well as Hillary in his answer.

The full transcript of the exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Jeff Toobin:

WOLF BLITZER: Jeff Toobin, what did you think, on this sensitive issue of having a dialogue, a direct dialogue, at the highest levels -- the difference that was expressed by -- between Senators Clinton and Obama?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I thought on this issue, and throughout the debate, this debate was Gladys Knight and the Pips. Hillary Clinton is the dominant figure in the party. She's the dominant figure in the debate. And everybody else was responding to her. On that question, you know, Obama, I thought, looked inexperienced and naive. And Hillary Clinton looked like someone who might be president. It was a very big win for her on that question. And I think this debate, again, showed her to be a very good debater.

BLITZER: She said she would be ready to meet. But she wanted to make sure that there was a lot of advance work done, to make sure that such a high level meeting would not simply be a propaganda -- a propaganda statement for these other dictators.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...analyst-hillary-debate-was-gladys-knight-pips

 

[Paulie]

Dems do not have a debate - they have a meeting

The dumbest questions I have ever heard are asked by libs

Let's save this stupid ass argument for after the republicans get their youtube questions.

There's still hundreds of millions of potentially stupid Americans out there waiting to post a youtube question for the republicans.

 

[red states rule]

Let's save this stupid ass argument for after the republicans get their youtube questions.

There's still hundreds of millions of potentially stupid Americans out there waiting to post a youtube question for the republicans.

I can't see a Republican actually responding to a snowman asking about global warming

 

[Paulie]

I can't see a Republican actually responding to a snowman asking about global warming

I can't see ANYONE responding to that, but if the media is so liberal as you like to put it (ESPECIALLY CNN), then it's awfully mean of them to allow those liberal candidates to look so stupid answering ridiculously formatted questions.

Using logic like THAT, one would think that the republican's would be foolish to even participate.

I guess it's a sad day when the liberal candidates themselves are shown as idiots by their supposed friendly media outlet, huh?

Like i said. Let's wait until after the republican youtube debate.

 

[red states rule]

I can't see ANYONE responding to that, but if the media is so liberal as you like to put it (ESPECIALLY CNN), then it's awfully mean of them to allow those liberal candidates to look so stupid answering ridiculously formatted questions.

Using logic like THAT, one would think that the republican's would be foolish to even participate.

I guess it's a sad day when the liberal candidates themselves are shown as idiots by their supposed friendly media outlet, huh?

Like i said. Let's wait until after the republican youtube debate.

hey, your guys did last night

tells you alot about your candidates

 

[Paulie]

hey, your guys did last night

tells you alot about your candidates

Please stop RSR. I'm not a liberal. They aren't "my" candidates.

My candidate, as i've put it to you too many times already, is the most conservative person in the entire government.

I don't want national health care, i don't want taxes raised, I don't want borders opened up to foreigners so corporations can profit from their cheap labor, I don't even want the federal government to regulate MOST of what they regulate now. There's no reason for it.

I'd take Kucinich as a last resort, but merely because he speaks the truth, as you put it. I want my potential candidate to tell me the truth, not tell me what their preferred lobbiers want me to hear.

 

[red states rule]

Chicago Tribune Blogger to Hillary, Dems: Don't Cut and Run... From the Term Liberal
By Ken Shepherd | July 24, 2007 - 19:18 ET
The Chicago Tribune's Frank James thinks the Democrats really need to stop this insistence on retreat... from the word liberal. In short, James wrote at the paper's "The Swamp" blog today, if Democrats don't hunker down and fight Republicans on the dreaded L-word, the GOP will keep moving on and make "progressive" an epithet as well.

Here's James' argument, portions in bold are my emphasis:

The backlash to taxes, the welfare-state and civil-rights created blowback against liberalism to the point where the term liberal has become an epithet, almost the political equivalent of the “n” word. Republicans have long wielded it like kryptonite against Democrats because it works.

Thus Democrats’ refusal to embrace it and to seek a different term. They’ve landed on progressive. The way Clinton described it, it sounded a whole lot like the classic definition of liberal.

Democrats clearly believe that progressive is a far better term for marketing themselves to the American people. It has the word “progress” in it and Americans certainly like progress.

But conservatives have repeatedly proven they’re very good at taking language and recasting it to their own uses. One need look no further than “death tax” and “cut and run.”

So Democrats may now want to plan now for the day when Republicans have successfully transformed “progressive,” with Democratic complicty of course, into as dirty a word as liberal, leaving Democrats no choice but to island hop to another term.

Of course, Democrats could always take another tack. They could stand and fight for terms that once embodied the very idea of human liberty and the ideas behind the American experiment.


Funny. To me that sounds like a political analog to the "if we don't fight them over there, we'll end up fighting them here" argument that liberals in the media deride as simplistic about the war on terror.

Yet when it's political warfare for the electoral viability of the liberal Democratic Party, however, it's a whole other story.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-sh...logger-hillary-dems-dont-cut-run-term-liberal

 

[mattskramer]

The questions were submitted by the Daily Kos crowd

What else could you expect?

How do you know that the people who took the time to post questions were from the “kook left”? Was it because you did not like the question? Did the people even say whether or not they were Democrats? Were Republicans allowed to post questions? I think that you are being presumptuous. Your bias is clouding your reasoning.

 

[red states rule]

How do you know that the people who took the time to post questions were from the “kook left”? Was it because you did not like the question? Did the people even say whether or not they were Democrats? Were Republicans allowed to post questions? I think that you are being presumptuous. Your bias is clouding your reasoning.

Based on the stupid questions - they had to come from libs