These debates really suck

The format blows. it seems to show the candidates at their worst, and last night's debate was presrnted more like the Emmy Awards than a political event.

Why couldn't they all sit in a big circle and have a freewheeling discussion instead of these 30-second answers? A good moderator could keep things moving, and keep them focused and keep them from monopolizing the debate with too-long answers.

That Qwen visits Condi and says that Condi is an excellent cook? Just wondereing if that hd anything to do with her snottiness toward the Democratic candidates last night?

too. No doubt, her attitide wasn't helped by all of those (including myself) who demanded her resignation after it was learned she had a "special relationship" with Condi. Right around this period, Jim was on vacation, and Ifill had administration goons on every night, and allowed them to spew their propaganda, unchallenged. She angered me sooooo bad, because she just sat there, while they lied, and lied, and lied. If I were a Dem candidate, I would refuse to participate in any debate that partisan *itch had anything to do with.

And yeah, the debates do suck. Why are the Dems allowing the media to set them up to look like shit??

Think about it. Would you DARE blow off a debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus? Fox does this on purpose; how else can they get all nine candidates to walk into their parlor?

At least the candidates answered even the snarkiest of questions like pros.

Each candidate must give a detailed plan in one minute. If they don't they are accused of being vague or dodging the question or waffling. It's a format that can make the most articulate and seasoned candidate appear unprepared or worse yest, incompetent.

So what we get left with are sound bites. The candidate who can manipulate sound bites the best looks the best. This is why Sharpton wins every time. He is a master at this and if it weren't for him these damn things would be deadly dull.

Whoever has the best commercial wins.

MzPip
:dem:

Bush could answer everything in a minute. Get with the program!

;-)

I think Bush could sum it up in about 15 seconds.

"We gotta get them evil doers. Cut taxes. Free business from them evil regulators and trial lawyers. Worship Jesus."

"They hate us for our freedoms".

that works just fine for a whole lot of people. "Bring 'em on!" was a tactless ignorant remark, but it worked for him and his supporters.

That was about 3 seconds.

MzPip
:dem:

Right now it's just soundbyte practice, which will be useful in the general campaign, but not very informative.

I see Dean supporters complaining that the debates don't show him in the best light. Well, the reality is that not every appearance can be a campaign rally- which is a one way, scripted presentation.
How can this build confidence that Dean can make his case in the general election? It looks to me like he'll be on the defensive ALL the time.

but his supporters seem to be taking every opportunity to attack Dean, even when it has nothing to do with Dean specifically.

to Dean. So I want to know how, if true, that bodes well for the general election.

that is a bunch of shit.

I think you Kerry supporters are getting real desperate and seek to intentionally inflate Kerry's standing while battering Dean.

Sorry, I didn't like Kerry before he accelerated his underhanded campaign and I care for him even less now.

With the old rules, format matters. With the old rules, people should expect to see all sides of a candidate, and make judgments based on that. In the New Age of elections, the Howard Dean Age, what's important is what Howard Dean says is important. Or what Howard Dean's supporters say is important -- they have the power, don't you know. If The Howard, with the permission of his Empowered, decrees that the election is about anger and his on-display forearms, then that's what it's about. Defense? Offense? The South? Geography in general? Meaningless babble. This is the dawning of the Age Of Howard -- get with the program, or get left behind.

I wonder about these level of attacks since the debate. Could it be that Kerry\Clark supporters are in denial and lashing out because they know on some undeniable level that Dean is, more than ever, the indisputable frontrunner---and they resent it?

but what does that have to do with his chances of success in the general election? That's part of the question. The other part is that Dean doesn't come off well in certain formats. What's he supposed to do about that?

what does this thread have to do with Dean specifically? All the participants would benefit from a different forum approach--unless you feel that the present format displays Kerry at his finest hour. In that case, lol, it wouldn't serve him to have to flesh out his points and be called on it when he talks endlessly around the question.

I think you Kerry supporters are getting real desperate and seek to intentionally inflate Kerry's standing while battering Dean.

That's your own post, and as you can see, you brought Dean into it. I suppose that you mentioning Dean doesn't count though, since you are one of the Empowered, and as such, have the ability to make up your own rules.

And no, my dislike of Dean has nothing to do with the candidate I support. I dislike him because he is a liar and a charlatan, as I dislike just about all liars and charlatans. You are confusing me with yourself, and the hourly anti-Clark rants you used to make when Clark first announced. I try to avoid such hypocrisy: I think Dean sucks because Dean sucks, not because I like Clark.

Didn't trust Clark and still don't think he is the best candidate for the Democrats, although I do believe he has some assets.

I don't dislike Clark's style and occasionally strong confrontational statements, especially in comparison to Kerry, but I am not in awe of his military status, which seems to be the only thing worth running on to you. And I do not devote posts trashing Clarks appearance....Now kerry, that some scary looking dude. Sorry.

your pabulum?

You bring Dean into it, and then ask why someone mentions Dean, and now this meandering nonsense?

Don't they have a marijuana avatar here? I've noticed that a couple of people who have problems staying on topic have chosen that as their avatar, and it generally serves as a warning for me to expect a certain level of discourse.

But in the future, do me a favor and don't address me. I wasn't the one who brought Dean into it and if you can't determine that much, you are wasting my time.

So take your lame excuses to bash and shove them. Over and out.

It used to be fun for you to bully people, especially the 'ignorant newbie Clarkies,' whom you 'hate'. When the tables are turned, you take your wittle ball and wun home to cwy. Poor baby. Perhaps the next time you want to pull your little game of message board elitism, you'll remember this. But I doubt it.

Been giving any consideration to that avatar?

You are the perfect example with your posters of Goldwater. Is it any wonder that some Dems would worry? Not you, you just attack "pudge"

YEEEEIKES!

Don't drink, don't smoke. Not your type I'm afraid.

One of your more clueless efforts. Put two and two together, and you'll see that this 'Goldwater' poster is actually an attack on your doughboy candidate.

Yeeeikes! Some people don't need the chemical help. If you really think this 'poster' is pro-Goldwater, then I have some swampland for sale.

I thought you were done with this thread? I thought you didn't want mean old Billy to respond to your precious posts any more?

Please keep your knee-jerk assumptions about motivations for strarting a thread in which NO specific candidate is mentioned to yourself. I think every candidate is hurt by the format (except maybe Sharpton, and even he is a lot more impressive when he actually has a chance to say more than one liners).

I thought Dean did fine, but I still think the format sucks. I WANT Clark to be able to lay out his positions. And I WANT DK to be able to take more than 30 seconds to explain a department of peace.

You're bitterness is worse than useless, it is destructive, and you will be the first person ever on my ignore list.

Why, for example, would FOX News decide in its infinitely "fair and balanced" wisdom to host not one but two Democratic debates. And only those debates hosted by the Black Caucus?

Most people who actually sit and watch them must be fairly alert politically, so they would presumably get info in addition to the debates in order to make a decision. Most everybody else doesn't watch the debates, but gets the blow by blow filtered through their favorite news hack the next day.

So you've got a lame distilled format to begin with, further distilled by some editor trying to make good copy.

So I propose:
Submit questions in advance to the candidates. They videotape 3 minute or 5 minute answers to the questions. At the debate, the tape is played, and the so-called journalists get to do follow-up questions. Then at the end, each candidate gets to ask one other candidate a question and they get a 3 or 5 minute answer. Names drawn out of a hat.

If only I were in charge, everything would be peachy. :-)

I wish they would focus each debate on one or two issues. 30-60 second soundbites are not going to cut it. Maybe it's good warm up for when whoever debates the chimp, the soundbite master....