What if we had a debate and nobody came? by HKCavalier

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What if we had a debate and nobody came?

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 04:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1111
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:48 PM

So I just got finished watching the CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential not-quite-a-debate (hereafter referred to as the latest n-qad) which you can watch in its entirety here:

Some thoughts:

Barak has been working on the whole forceful speaking thing and made the best showing of his debating career. This forcefulness coupled with his patented smartest-guy-in-the-room vibe worked very well. I'd say he won this one with points to spare.

The Clintonatrix made the best jokes. Hilary is really good with the zingers. She remains a force to be reckoned with absolutely. Showed some healthy emotion for our troops dying over there which I didn't expect at all. She came close to tears at one point. I was very glad to see that. I'm looking forward to her handlers trying to soften her image, though; I predict lace in her next debate--nothing frilly, but a tiny bit of lace, somewhere.

Chris Dodd got WAY TOO MUCH AIR TIME. The guy's the biggest hack on the stage. Added nothing that I could see to the debate (might have been asleep when he did it, though).

My friend Joe Biden. He's my favorite, not in a I'd-vote-for-him-for-President way (though I might, if by some fluke he got the nomination), but in a I'll-miss-you-most-of-all kind of way. I can't help likin' the guy. He's by far the most off the cuff speaker up there and he's got just as much fire as Mr. Mike Gravel without the moral superiority complex.

Mike Gravel. Yeah, he got the shaft. At least he didn't get the axe the way Dr. Paul did. Score one for the Dems.

Gov. Richardson. He definitely improved his performance this time out. He stayed on topic, which is big for him, instead of skewing every answer to every question to push his pet projects, noble causes though they be. Even showed a sense of humor from time to time.

In fact, pretty much everyone was in high spirits except...John Edwards. I'd say he was the big loser in this debate. He failed to take center stage with any of the questions and his sniping at Obama continues to backfire on him.

And last, but not least (*cough*Dodd*cough*), Kucinich. Kucinich is as constant as the Northern Star...and I said, "Constantly in the darkness? Where's that at? If you want me I'll be in the bar..."

Anybody else care to comment?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:58 PM

KANEMAN

Ron Paul..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:14 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

I didn't watch- I work nights, so I was at my job.
But all the media coverage I've seen makes it sound like YouTube picked the video questions to be funny, wacky, or wierd, but entertaining, instead of serious.
It that true, or just a mistaken impression?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:36 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

LOL... I thought that this was going to be about the NAACP debate that only one GOP candidate showed up to. He looked so lonely up on that stage. Probably afraid of getting lynched. I didn't know if the story was real. I can't believe that their advisors would allow them all to bail from a NAACP debate even though they will never convince any of them to ever vote Republican anyhow. I really can't believe that the only place I would have heard about that was on DIGG.com too, so it was probably bogus.

I would never vote Demoncrat, so I don't watch any of their debates. Sounds like they've pretty much American Idolized the Democratic debates from what I'm hearing. I should give them a watch for pure entertainment value.

If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm doing a write in vote for Mayor McCheese or Daffy Duck.

EDIT: Here's that article I was talking about:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/13/what-if-you-held-a-debate-and
-almost-no-one-came/

I also found this one when I was searching for it:

http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=689

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:52 PM

SOUPCATCHER

The story on the NAACP sponsored debate was real. Only Tom Tancredo, the most openly nativist of the Republican candidates, showed up. And got a standing ovation ( http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/tancredo-gets-s.html ). Good for him for showing up. Thank God he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell at the nomination.

What I'm very curious about is why the other campaigns decided not to show. I've come up with two options, neither of which are flattering for the GOP candidates. The first is that the candidates understand that the GOP is the party of the Southern Strategy and there is a core element of the base that would throw a hissy fit if the candidates show up at an NAACP event. The second is that the candidates don't feel the need to even pretend to court the African-American vote because they plan on continuing the GOP strategy of black voter disenfranchisement.

But there's no way in hell I'm voting for a Republican for President in the 2008 election so I'm just an outside observer here. I couldn't sleep with my conscience if I did.

* edited to add: Ah. I see you found another link.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I think your second guess is probably closer to the truth, but I wouldn't lump African Americans with the NAACP. I know for a fact that Ron Paul didn't show up there, because his entire canidadcy revolves around strongly opposing ideas that would cripple the NAACP and destroy welfare. Somehow, I don't reckon they'd be very receptive to him. Ron Paul has no respect for the NAACP, and neither do I. That's not to say that I don't respect African Americans though, and I take offence to anyone who would claim otherwise.

The NAACP is outdated and unnecessary. They are racists and and they help keep the welfare element alive and well in this country.

I just think it was a bad idea not to show up because of the possibility of negative PR. But even the media didn't bother to cover this really. Pretty much expected and a non-issue. Most people I know never heard about it. Even Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton never got on Cable News and threw a fit over it.

I just thought that picture was funny when I read it. It's even funnier now that I know it's real.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA

The Dems actually had a debate ?

What are they gonna debate ABOUT, how fast they can bend over for pappy AIPAC ?

"If you have taken the Kings shilling, then you are the Kings man, and thus, no friend of mine."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:25 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I didn't watch- I work nights, so I was at my job.
But all the media coverage I've seen makes it sound like YouTube picked the video questions to be funny, wacky, or wierd, but entertaining, instead of serious.
It that true, or just a mistaken impression?

I'd say it was mistaken. Of course any mainstream media covering the event are gonna put the funny/wacky/weird clips up--because Big Brother wants you to think the Internet is just for conspiracy theorists and porn freaks--nothing to see here folks, move along. There were 36 or so questions and most of them were pretty direct and challenging. I think opening up the process and integrating the internet is a pretty forward thinking thing of them to do.

You really can watch the whole thing on YouTube whenever you want, so if you ever get that urge to draw your own conclusions, you know what to do.

(eta: Hey NOBC, I didn't mean to harsh on ya, I'm just tired. Good night, everyone.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:22 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
But all the media coverage I've seen makes it sound like YouTube picked the video questions to be funny, wacky, or wierd, but entertaining, instead of serious.
It that true, or just a mistaken impression?

CNN actually had a small committee pick the questions out of the submissions. (led by CNN Senior Vice President David Bohrman) Google/Youtube tries to stay out of the content business.

They would not comment on what the determining criterion were at first. Later on it was said: "These are questions that we, the journalist, we the mainstream media, would never think to ask in the presidential debate," Bohrman said.

Patented CNN sensationalism aside, it wasn't too bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE