You tube debate
You tube debate
Any one catch the democratic youtube debate last night? I thought it was pretty cool for a debate, I am curious to see the republican version on september 17th.
How you compare may not be as important as to whom you are compared
Where were the real questions???, you know, the hard ones. I think it's funny that the "unbiased" media hand picked the questions, and to the masses, it looks like the "issues" were covered, but really, cmon, they ate cake the whole time, and looked very well rehearsed. I thought that Barak's answer to the " Are you black enough?" question was good and witty, and Swillary's answer to the Question on her womanhood was quick, but a bit programmed. All in all it was cool, the singing tax question was cute, but like I said, the left bias was definatley present in the questions that they picked. My point will be proven when they get they're shot at the fools from the right and you see the types of questions they have to answer.
I'm fed up with all of them, if were up to me, we would clean house, both sides, and start over, but we know thats not going to happen.......
I'm fed up with all of them, if were up to me, we would clean house, both sides, and start over, but we know thats not going to happen.......
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
I can't say I disagree but I must say I did like watching this debate more than the the completely contrived debates of years past, and I did like how they were called out if they did not answer the question. Most of the time I could not tell weather they new what questions there would be ahead of time or if they just rehearsed enough answers to the questions they expected to get. Sometimes, they looked a bit rattled like Edwards answering the gay marage question. I do want to see the other side though cus I am curious as to what will be asked there as well.
How you compare may not be as important as to whom you are compared
I didn't see much of it, and wasn't particularly informed or impressed. Basically I've got two issues: First, how are the questions selected? The same filters that the commercial media apply to their story selection will be applied to these questions, so it's not that different from 'regular' debates where 'journalists' working for commercial media businesses ask the questions.
The second, and more serious, issue is that someone who uploaded a question to youtube can't ask follow-ups or challenge the candidate's non-answers. The big issue is that most 'professional' reporters don't chanllenge the responses from candidates/politicians. They ask a question, the candidate talks about whatever he/she feels like and they go on. How about these 'professional journalists' cut off the windbags and say things like "You aren't actually answering the question, you'll get one more chance or I'll cut off your mic and move on to the next candidate." or even crazier: These journalists do in fact actually know things - why don't they point out facts that contradict what the windbags are spouting and challenge their crap?
Not to beat up on Mitt Romney too much (he's probably the least bad Rep. candidate, but that's not saying much), but I have two big issues with his debate/campaign approach. (I think he's a smart/good enough guy that we can hold him to some, albeit low, standards). First - Mitt frequently refuses to respond to hypothetical questions. WTF?!? One of the critical things I look for in a leader is the ability to analyze hypothetical situations so he/she can make reasonable decisions and anticipate future problems! Why is no one challenging him when he flakes out of this critical test? Arrrrgh!
The other thing, using Romney as an example, is that Mitt is going around spewing crap that Obama is promoting "sex ed in kindergarten" and criticizing it. The problem is that as governor of Mass., Romney presided over exactly the sort of program that Obama supports. All Obama is suggesting at that age is that schools help kindergarteners understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching, which is exactly in line with Romney's Mass. program. So, if Romney chooses to be a lying scumbag, that's one thing. My issue is that most reporters seem to take the position, "well you say one thing, your opponent says another. I've presented both sides and that's all I'm supposed to do." I'd rather they take a freaking stand when a candidate says something they know isn't true!
The second, and more serious, issue is that someone who uploaded a question to youtube can't ask follow-ups or challenge the candidate's non-answers. The big issue is that most 'professional' reporters don't chanllenge the responses from candidates/politicians. They ask a question, the candidate talks about whatever he/she feels like and they go on. How about these 'professional journalists' cut off the windbags and say things like "You aren't actually answering the question, you'll get one more chance or I'll cut off your mic and move on to the next candidate." or even crazier: These journalists do in fact actually know things - why don't they point out facts that contradict what the windbags are spouting and challenge their crap?
Not to beat up on Mitt Romney too much (he's probably the least bad Rep. candidate, but that's not saying much), but I have two big issues with his debate/campaign approach. (I think he's a smart/good enough guy that we can hold him to some, albeit low, standards). First - Mitt frequently refuses to respond to hypothetical questions. WTF?!? One of the critical things I look for in a leader is the ability to analyze hypothetical situations so he/she can make reasonable decisions and anticipate future problems! Why is no one challenging him when he flakes out of this critical test? Arrrrgh!
The other thing, using Romney as an example, is that Mitt is going around spewing crap that Obama is promoting "sex ed in kindergarten" and criticizing it. The problem is that as governor of Mass., Romney presided over exactly the sort of program that Obama supports. All Obama is suggesting at that age is that schools help kindergarteners understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching, which is exactly in line with Romney's Mass. program. So, if Romney chooses to be a lying scumbag, that's one thing. My issue is that most reporters seem to take the position, "well you say one thing, your opponent says another. I've presented both sides and that's all I'm supposed to do." I'd rather they take a freaking stand when a candidate says something they know isn't true!
Bacon is meat candy.
tomdarch, I completely agree. There is no such thing as a true probing of a candidates stance on anything and I also did not really find their answers very revealing either. The one difference I noticed is that a better job was done keeping them to the question asked instead of a political rant on a vagely related topic. skrew politics, skrew the candidates, but we cant just throw our hands in the air cus then we give up.
How you compare may not be as important as to whom you are compared