Democrats snub Fox News, but debate at a event held by DailyKos.

[red states rule]

How can Dems sell this to anyone who thinks they are a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.

This snub may be the watershed moment for the entire DNC and their 2008 hopes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How can Dems sell this to anyone who thinks they are a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.

This snub may be the watershed moment for the entire DNC and their 2008 hopes.

Missing a link?

 

[maineman]

I have always thought that RSR was, in fact, the missing link.

 

[ReillyT]

This snub may be the watershed moment for the entire DNC and their 2008 hopes.

This may be a bit of an overstatement. I don't see how deciding not to hold a primary debate on Fox is likely to be a deciding factor in 2008. Do you really think that which networks primary debates are held on is a basis on which people are going to vote?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh the wonders of modern science.....

"This message is hidden because maineman is on your ignore list."

 

[red states rule]

Missing a link?

Not at all

It it sommon knowldege Dems were scared to debate on Fox News - they might have to answer serious questions

The Daily Kos Crowd is running the party now, and the Dems are very chummy with them

I believe Daily Kos was one on the sponsors of the You Tube debate

 

[red states rule]

This may be a bit of an overstatement. I don't see how deciding not to hold a primary debate on Fox is likely to be a deciding factor in 2008. Do you really think that which networks primary debates are held on is a basis on which people are going to vote?

Dems are showing they are scared of Fox News as well as the terrorists in Iraq

 

[ReillyT]

Dems are showing they are scared of Fox News as well as the terrorists in Iraq

If you say so.

I still don't get how deciding not to hold a primary debate on Fox is going to be an election-deciding moment.

 

[red states rule]

If you say so.

I still don't get how deciding not to hold a primary debate on Fox is going to be an election-deciding moment.

It shows how Dems run away from the hard questions

On CNN we had to endure the "raise your hand" crap and softball questions. It was like a HS debate

Fox News showed how a Presidental debate should be held when they held the Republican debates

 

[ReillyT]

It shows how Dems run away from the hard questions

On CNN we had to endure the "raise your hand" crap and softball questions. It was like a HS debate

Fox News showed how a Presidental debate should be held when they held the Republican debates

If you say so.

I still don't get how deciding not to hold a primary debate on Fox is going to be an election-deciding moment.

 

[red states rule]

This was no debate by any stretch of the imagination. More like a Larry King interview.

 

[maineman]

How can Dems sell this to anyone who thinks they are a better alternative than what the GOP has to offer.

This snub may be the watershed moment for the entire DNC and their 2008 hopes.

keep trying to make this a big deal. the FACT remains: during the primary season, democrats are going to debate on media outlets that cater to democrats. They really don't care too much what Faux viewers think of them, at this point.

When we get it narrowed down to one, and you guys get it narrowed down to one, we'll send our guy (or gal) to Faux to debate your guy. As it stands right now, why would democrats set themselves up for the tawdry character assassination that they are certain to receive at the hands of the RNC inspired Faux news "commentators", especially when their target market - committed primary voting democrats - doesn't watch Faux to begin with?

Oh, and again...if you check out the latest at Rasmussen. Democrats are trusted more than republicans to lead America in nine of ten key areas - and they are tied in one. It is pretty irrefutable that lots of people think that democrats have better ideas!

 

[maineman]

I wonder what the republicans on here will have to say about the Youtube debate that their candidates will participate in in September?

 

[red states rule]

I wonder what the republicans on here will have to say about the Youtube debate that their candidates will participate in in September?

It can't be as bad as the Dems

The melting snowman, Tennessee rednecks and the novelty of the CNN-YouTube Democratic debate attracted 2.6 million television viewers, a slight drop from the numbers who tuned in for a more traditional exchange last month.

While the debate Monday stretched the boundaries of traditional political broadcasts, a previous CNN debate of the Democratic candidates on June 3 attracted 2.8 million viewers. A MSNBC televised debate on April 26 attracted 2.3 million.

CNN reported getting 45.5 million page views on its Web site and said its television audience among 18-34 year-olds totaled 407,000, highest ever for cable news programing.

Steve Grove, head of news and politics for YouTube, said Monday's debate "differs markedly from the typical town hall format _ it makes the town hall the world" in which anyone anywhere can participate.

"I think this debate represents a truly evolutionary moment in politics," Grove said, noting that the video format gave questioners time to think through how best to present their question without the stage fright that sometimes afflicts town hall questioners.

Some advocates said the YouTube-CNN debate in which ordinary people got to ask questions by submitting personal videos deserves an 'A' for effort and a 'C' for innovation _ it tried hard to push the envelope, but only partially succeeded and could have done much more.

"It looked to me to be similar to other debates we've seen _ town-hall formats where ordinary people ask questions," said Ian Bogost, assistant professor of digital media at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

A melting snowman might inject humor, but so did a female questioner during a 1992 MTV town hall-style debate who asked Bill Clinton whether he wore boxers or briefs, Bogost noted.

http://www.southernledger.com/ap/Dem_Debate_Attracts_2.6_Million_Viewers

 

[maineman]

why? 'cause really intelligent guys like YOU will be the ones sending your questions to youtube?

I am sure that the republican candidates will be "cowering" in front of your prodigious intellect!

 

[red states rule]

why? 'cause really intelligent guys like YOU will be the ones sending your questions to youtube?

I am sure that the republican candidates will be "cowering" in front of your prodigious intellect!

Dems are showing they put style over substance

Their fear of taking questions from Fox news reporters is very telling

I guess they would rather have Wolfe asking them to raise their hands if......

 

[maineman]

Dems are showing they put style over substance

Their fear of taking questions from Fox news reporters is very telling

I guess they would rather have Wolfe asking them to raise their hands if......

post #12

 

[red states rule]

post #12

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

the Dems are locked into appeasing the kook left right now - they will not be able to move to the center for the general election

 

[red states rule]

YouDebate: If Only the Candidates Were as Interesting as the Questioners

By ADAM COHEN
Published: July 25, 2007
Charleston, S.C.

The most striking questions in the YouTube Democratic presidential debate were the ones about sick people. Two brothers from Davenport, Iowa, submitted a video of themselves feeding a parent with Alzheimer’s and asking, “What are you going to do to fight this disease now?” A 36-year-old Long Island woman who said she hoped “to be a future breast cancer survivor” removed a wig to reveal a bald head and asked, “What would you as president do to make low-cost or free preventive medicine available for everybody in this country?”

There was a lot of hype going into Monday night’s debate, and the format did not live up to all of it. The video questioners had trouble wresting the candidates from their heavily protected fortresses — but then, eight bunker-buster bombs would have had trouble doing that. What the format did do was make the proceedings more entertaining, and it injected real people into arid public policy debates. In a modest but real way, it worked.

The debate was certainly more lively than the usual candidate face-off. Not even CNN’s selection of the videos, or the fact that the subject was an election 16 months off, managed to squash all of YouTube’s offbeat charm. If the now-familiar line-up of Democratic candidates is going to provide yet another familiar answer to yet another question about global warming, why not have it asked by a talking snowman?

A more raw moment came toward the end, when the candidates were confronted with the sort of authentic American voice that does not often make it onto mainstream television. A Michigan man asked the candidates about gun control, saying he and other Americans wanted to know “if our babies are safe.” His “baby,” he then revealed, was a fierce-looking automatic weapon.

Even though the questions were different, the candidates’ answers all too often were not. Dennis Kucinich responded to the snowman with a stump speech that began, “Well, we have to understand the connection between global warring and global warming,” ignoring what everyone else saw, which was that his interlocutor was a pile of frozen water.

In the best moments, though, the format reached through. Two women named Mary and Jen from Brooklyn crowded into their video in close-up and asked, “If you were elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?” The leading candidates still opposed gay marriage, but facing two actual women who wanted to marry made them squirm a bit more.

A Darfur video, which included a screen full of children in a refuge camp, was the set up for the best line of the night. Senator Joseph Biden said the United States should send troops to Darfur because “those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over.” The sterility of normal debates and presidential campaigns allows the candidates to avoid talking about individual refugee children dying.

The entertainment value alone made the new format worthwhile. American democracy is going through some rough times. Many ordinary citizens are apathetic, while special interests are drowning the system with campaign contributions and attack ads. If the nation’s leaders wanted to turn ordinary people off of voting — and some skeptics think they do — they would present candidate debates in the colorless way they do now.

The medium also, as a media critic once said, inevitable becomes the message. A question about Iraq had an extra edge because it came from the mother of a soldier going there for a second time, who accused Democrats of letting the war drag on because they are afraid Republicans will blame them for losing it. Questions about the minimum wage sound different when asked by people who may actually be earning it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds4.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[maineman]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

the Dems are locked into appeasing the kook left right now - they will not be able to move to the center for the general election

what does that have to do with my comments in post #12?

respond to the rasmussen article that shows that america continues to trust my party on nearly every single key issue facing us.

and for the last 150 years, presidential candidates have moved left and right during primaries to shore up their base and then move to the center during the general election campaign. this cycle will be no different.


who do you think the far left will vote for if not a democrat, regardless of how far back to the center the candidate moves after getting the nomination?

Do you think they will stay home and risk another pro-war republican and another four years of republicans nominating judges?

On the other hand, the religious right may very well stay home if their only choices are pro-choice, pro-gay rights new yorkers!