Debates are stupid, at least in the current format. Here's what I'd. You picka topic at random. Each candidate goes 20 minutes on that topic (if the candidate wanders off topic, then a loud buzzer sounds, so he or she can't be heard) Then each candiate gets 10 minutes for rebuttal. Everyone goes home.

I want to see if these people can think on their feet, not whether they can memorize a bunch of bullet points. I might not even have the topics be on policy or issues. I'd think it'd be pretty neat to hear how McCain would handle a topic like OBP v. BA without preparation. That would would tell us a lot about a candidate.

Romney's Ten Reasons for dropping out of the Presidential race. Actually funny.

10. There weren't as many Osmonds as I thought.
9. I got tired of corkscrew landings under sniper fire.
8. As a lifelong hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of the varmint season.
7. There wasn't room for two Christian leaders.
6. I was upset that no one had bothered to search my passport files.
5. I needed an excuse to get fat, grow a beard and win the Nobel prize.
4. I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
3. I wanted to finally take off that dark suit and tie, and kick back in a light-colored suit and tie.
2. Once my wife Ann realized I couldn't win, my fundraising dried up.
1. There was a miscalculation in our theory: "As Utah goes, so goes the nation."

I only got to see the last 45 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on the non-issue part that I'm hearing about. From what I did hear I think they both lost and gained points in my mind, and when the dust settled I still like Obama more. Clinton seems like she talks faster, never coming up for air or needing much time to form thoughts. That may mean that she thinks super fast, or that she has it all memorized beforehand. Obama still seems to me as a good listener and thinker and that comes across when he debates.

I liked how Obama compared a mobilization for finding alternative fuels technology to the Apollo program. I was dissapointed that neither of them mentioned addressing the gasoline issue by the root of the problem- suburbia. Planning, transit-oriented development, sustainable development, and reinvestment in existing towns and cities should be the buzzwords. A president can push more funding into public transit, bike trails, and city improvement projects. Cutting the gas tax will cut a source of funding for some of these things.

I liked their views on gun laws, and that its an issue that should be handled differently depending on location. They stopped short on the old west rules: check your guns before entering town. And there's got to be a funnier answer for this question than what they came up with: "Ex-presidents can be very valuable- how would you utilize George W. Bush?"

TheDude24 wrote: I was dissapointed that neither of them mentioned addressing the gasoline issue by the root of the problem- suburbia. Planning, transit-oriented development, sustainable development, and reinvestment in existing towns and cities should be the buzzwords. A president can push more funding into public transit, bike trails, and city improvement projects.

There's not a whole lot a President can do--these are primarily state and local issues. Even if federal dollars are available for mass transit, you'd still have to get states and localities to pony up most of the money, and politically, it's a hard sell.

I did not get to watch the debate last night but her about Clinton's comments on Israel/Iran and Obama's electability in November. The pundits really seemed to think she might have buried herself with those comments.

Mo Rocca = bombed

TheDude24 wrote:I only got to see the last 45 minutes of the debate so I can't comment on the non-issue part that I'm hearing about. From what I did hear I think they both lost and gained points in my mind, and when the dust settled I still like Obama more.

I still like Obama more, too, but for me Hillary came across much more calm and competent and even human last night.

Of course, that could be because the moderators were hammering Obama over gaffes and embarrassing friendships.

I couldn't believe it when question after question was Gotcha! politics. It wasn't until about an hour in that they asked a question on a policy matter (Iraq).

With the disaster in Iraq, this exchange is pretty freakin' scary if Clinton is somehow elected:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

I honestly can't believe that nobody is making a bigger deal about this, IMHO, significant policy position for Hillary. That quote has to scare the hell out of anybody who thinks Iraq was/is a mistake. An "umbrella of deterrence" HAS TO commit thousands of American soldiers to the region, no? Is that what anybody wants? The countries in the region don't even want us there.

We've got bases in Kuwait and Qatar already. Plus tons of ships in the area. Not to mention Afghanistan.

jerseyhoya wrote:We've got bases in Kuwait and Qatar already. Plus tons of ships in the area. Not to mention Afghanistan.

Indeed but the implication of her answer, to me anyway, is that the US would get McCain's 100 year war under Clinton. Suffice to say, stuff like this is a little more important to me than, say, whether or not Obama wears an American flag lapel pin.

Debate Point 1: To me the Social Security payroll cap is one of the most unfair taxes there is. Maybe the average Joe doesn't realize that people who make over 970000 don't pay federal payroll taxes. Maybe the average Joe doesn't know what a payroll tax is. I think its funny that Hillary doesn't want to raise the payroll tax from its current $97,000 cap because of all the firefighters, police officers, and educators it would effect. HUH? Who's out of touch now? How many fire fighters make over $97k. If I'm not mistaken, when pressured on how she would make SS solvent she just hurriedly said before the break, "I'll work it out". Yeah. Sure you will. Obama telling us we won't get something for nothing hit it right on the head.

Debate Point 2: Hillary flat out admitted lying about her Bosnia remarks and asked for people to overlook them. Sorry but after 8 years of President Liar and Vice President Liar I can't take any more lying.

Debate Point 3: I have a real hard time having George Stephanopoulos host a debate with his past history as a leading Clinton supporter. I know he's a "broadcaster/journalist" and all, but it made his questions/accusations towards Obama seem like a tag team.

Daily News endorses Obama

The Daily News declared that the decision for voters between Hillary Clinton and Obama is a choice between the past and the future.

"Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won -- even bitter - experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?" the endorsement editorial said. "Neither choice is obvious. Perhaps that's why the race has gone on for so long. But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change -- and the way he plans to pursue it -- is what we need right now. Badly."

Amen

Newspapers are endorsing candidates now?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Newspapers are endorsing candidates now?

The election is Tuesday.

I meant 'now' like I thought being impartial was a newspapers business. I've been an internet sources guy for a while but didn't realize Newspapers took sides, at least admittedly. Have they always?

dajafi wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Obama really needs to just take a shot at the moderators already for asking non-issue questions for a whole hour.

It is $#@! unreal. Seems like the moderators and Clinton are in some kind of contest to see who can be more vicious, small-minded and irrelevant to what people are actually interested in.

Since the last debate, there have been major developments in the financial markets, Iraq, inflation and housing. You'd think they might ask something. Anything.

MSNBC:

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

Media generates stupid questions at debate.
Obama put on defensive trying to put debate back on topic (Economy, War, etc)
Media paints Obama as loser of debate for not answering their stupid questions.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I meant 'now' like I thought being impartial was a newspapers business. I've been an internet sources guy for a while but didn't realize Newspapers took sides, at least admittedly. Have they always?

Yes. Editorial pages almost always endorse candidates. In theory, they're separate from the news division.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I meant 'now' like I thought being impartial was a newspapers business. I've been an internet sources guy for a while but didn't realize Newspapers took sides, at least admittedly. Have they always?

Yes. In fact, newspapers frequently used to be organs of one party or another. Hence, The Arkansas Democrat (now merged with the Arkansas Gazette and called The Arkansas Democrat Gazette).

Well, that's lame.

The top of The Hotline:

You weren't surprised that it took almost an hour for the debate to get into policy were you? After 20+ meetings and countless "forums" there's nothing substantive left to debate. Instead, we're left w/ scuffles over handwriting analysis and 60's radicals. Even so, will Obama's uneven appearance stop his PA momentum in its tracks?
--A debate on policy, of course, is where HRC shines. Unless it's about driver's licenses, of course. But, we've also seen that mastery of policy details isn't enough to capture Dems attention (see: Biden, J. and Dodd, C.)
--Obama was pressed hard (unfairly so, say 'netroots). Still, he had a great opportunity to put to rest concerns about whether he can handle pressure under fire. And, well, he didn't. He was flat, tired and seemingly distracted. For Dem voters open to supporting Obama but worried about whether he's a "safe" choice for 11/08, his performance gave them little reassurance.
--So, we're back where we started, with neither candidate able to find that magic "tipping point" that will close the book on the never-ending primary. Even so, had Obama hit a home run, but still lost PA 4/22, what would that have told us?