Comments on: Debate Thread, Part Deux http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:49:36 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: ChrisO http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393437 ChrisO Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:04:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393437 <p>I realize no one is going to agree with this because of the preponderance of Obama supporters on this thread (I can’t believe anyone thought he did well tonight) but I happen to think that the San Francisco comments were fair game for a question. Obama’s supporters seem to think that once they’ve explained what he really meant, his original comments become inoperative, and are no longer up for discussion. Sorry, but politicians don’t get to decree that people can only talk about what they “meant,” not what they actually said. I won’t rehash all of the back and forth on the comments, but they fundamentally go to what a Presidential candidate thinks are the issues that are important to voters, and what motivates them to vote. How is that not a relevant discussion? Just because he manages to come up with a half-assed explanation doesn’t mean it’s off the table as a topic of discussion.</p> <p>As for Rev. Wright, this is the first debate since the controversy. Obama was asked the questions many people were asking, but that the press ignored in their efforts to outdo each other in praising his “historic” speech. I’m sure every candidate would like it if they could only deal with controversy by making prepared speeches in controlled settings. I don’t happen to think Obama has been entirely honest with the Wright thing, and I’m glad he was asked about it.</p> <p>It’s not fun watching your candidate get the Hillary treatment from the media, is it? Welcome to the club.</p> I realize no one is going to agree with this because of the preponderance of Obama supporters on this thread (I can’t believe anyone thought he did well tonight) but I happen to think that the San Francisco comments were fair game for a question. Obama’s supporters seem to think that once they’ve explained what he really meant, his original comments become inoperative, and are no longer up for discussion. Sorry, but politicians don’t get to decree that people can only talk about what they “meant,” not what they actually said. I won’t rehash all of the back and forth on the comments, but they fundamentally go to what a Presidential candidate thinks are the issues that are important to voters, and what motivates them to vote. How is that not a relevant discussion? Just because he manages to come up with a half-assed explanation doesn’t mean it’s off the table as a topic of discussion.

As for Rev. Wright, this is the first debate since the controversy. Obama was asked the questions many people were asking, but that the press ignored in their efforts to outdo each other in praising his “historic” speech. I’m sure every candidate would like it if they could only deal with controversy by making prepared speeches in controlled settings. I don’t happen to think Obama has been entirely honest with the Wright thing, and I’m glad he was asked about it.

It’s not fun watching your candidate get the Hillary treatment from the media, is it? Welcome to the club.

]]> By: voicevote http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393252 voicevote Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:12:09 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393252 <p>The candidates should have come out and announced that they have a joint suggestion: that they have a real debate w/o the designated questioners. Then bring out their own debate moderator and have a real damn debate. When will the candidates start treating the audience / voters like sentient beings and stop the charade?</p> <p>The campaign is too long, too expensive and it is boring. Endless analysis of trivial things. </p> <p>The candidates should do something about this state of affairs. The networks never will.</p> The candidates should have come out and announced that they have a joint suggestion: that they have a real debate w/o the designated questioners. Then bring out their own debate moderator and have a real damn debate. When will the candidates start treating the audience / voters like sentient beings and stop the charade?

The campaign is too long, too expensive and it is boring. Endless analysis of trivial things.

The candidates should do something about this state of affairs. The networks never will.

]]> By: wobblybits http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393120 wobblybits Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:48:14 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393120 <p>They both need not ever moderate a debate or a newscast ever again.</p> They both need not ever moderate a debate or a newscast ever again.

]]> By: WideAwakeObserver http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393046 WideAwakeObserver Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:36:07 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393046 <p>To repeat: The country is at war, the country is in a deep recession, and all Gibson & Co. want to talk about are these hot-button GOP talking points: A minute ago it was guns. Now we’re on to affirmative action. You can’t tell me this isn’t deliberate And, in the larger perspective, it’s bullshit.</p> To repeat: The country is at war, the country is in a deep recession, and all Gibson & Co. want to talk about are these hot-button GOP talking points: A minute ago it was guns. Now we’re on to affirmative action. You can’t tell me this isn’t deliberate And, in the larger perspective, it’s bullshit.

]]> By: Juno http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393024 Juno Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:31:41 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393024 <p>Oh wait. You mean MyDD also had the story but it HAS in fact disappeared?</p> <p>Good to know I’m wasn’t seeing things, at least!</p> Oh wait. You mean MyDD also had the story but it HAS in fact disappeared?

Good to know I’m wasn’t seeing things, at least!

]]> By: Juno http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393017 Juno Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:30:10 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1393017 <p>Yeah, I - or Yahoo - screwed up. Perplexed.</p> Yeah, I – or Yahoo – screwed up. Perplexed.

]]> By: WideAwakeObserver http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392977 WideAwakeObserver Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:25:49 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392977 <p>It’s ABC News that should be hearing our complaints. Write them, e-mail them, call and complain. Better still, just don’t tune in to World News Tonight. I didn’t think it was possible to out-do Timmy and Chris, but Gibson & Co. have exceeded all my lowest expectations. This man is an idiot.</p> It’s ABC News that should be hearing our complaints. Write them, e-mail them, call and complain. Better still, just don’t tune in to World News Tonight. I didn’t think it was possible to out-do Timmy and Chris, but Gibson & Co. have exceeded all my lowest expectations. This man is an idiot.

]]> By: cmhmd http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392950 cmhmd Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:23:01 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392950 <p>What grinds me is that neither had the guts to tell Steffy, “George, do you have a crystal ball? Do you kow what the economy will be like in January of 2008 or 09 or after that? What kind of moron, George, would answer a dumb-assed question like that?”</p> <p>OK, maybe take out the dumb-ass part.</p> <p>Cheers</p> What grinds me is that neither had the guts to tell Steffy, “George, do you have a crystal ball? Do you kow what the economy will be like in January of 2008 or 09 or after that? What kind of moron, George, would answer a dumb-assed question like that?”

OK, maybe take out the dumb-ass part.

Cheers

]]> By: ACitizen http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392949 ACitizen Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:23:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392949 <p>wrong verb…..</p> wrong verb…..

]]> By: ThingsComeUndone http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392947 ThingsComeUndone Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:22:40 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/debate-thread-part-deux/#comment-1392947 <p>I have retired early and I have less money than Obama claims a middleclass person makes in a year.</p> I have retired early and I have less money than Obama claims a middleclass person makes in a year.

]]>