Letters to the Editor
-
Malusinka
That taxes weren't raised when the country went to war says one hell of a lot about how stupid Republicans really are all on its own.
Besides, it wasn't the war that led to the deficit, it was piss-poor management, a major component of Republican politics.
-
Do we really want a President
Who doesn't get pissed off when bombarded by idiotic questions in the middle of the greatest crisis this country has faced since World War II?
And Frick and Frack couldn't even muster any really meaty questions in the "your associates" arena. How about "Mrs. Clinton, how do you explain your relationship with Jean Bertrand Aristide and the fact that a not insignificant chunk of the $100 million you made while you were supposed to be serving the people of New York as a US Senator is a direct result of that relationship and proceeds from the Hatian telecom scandal?"
Iraq was equally lightly treated. At least Obama was honest - the military will be tasked with carrying out the mission and given the support they need to accomplish it - while Clinton's answer was ridiculous. A "defense umbrella" encompassing a bunch of countries that have no desire for us to establish a military presence within their borders? So we are going to end the occupation of Iraq and instead occupy the entire Middle East? And she doesn't get called out on this?
Snipergate is over, but apparently Bittergate continues. Ascribing negative emotions to voters is taboo, making shit up is OK.
In the end, the reasons why the media focuses on non-issues instead of policy became very clear. Whenever Clinton opens her mouth and speaks about policy she proves that she is either reciting fiction or a complete and total idiot. It's disturbing that the moderators chose not to let her commit political suicide on the stage by pushing harder in that direction, equally disturbing that one of those moderators is a former employee of her husband - a man who would, in fact, be nobody at all if it weren't for Bill making him the youngest press secretary in history. But he's a neutral party.
Suggestion, in the event that we continue to have debates (or even bother with elections) in the future. Debate on a single topic, with questions compiled by political science students from the university that will serve as the location of the debate and asked by professors instead of talking heads. Make it more like a job interview than a sound bite fest.
-
National Constitution Center
I knew this debate was going to thoroughly suck from the moment Charlie called started calling the venue the "National Constitutional Center." Ugh. From there it went downhill...lots of stupid-ass questions from stupid-ass people. [ If the issue of greatest import to you is how a candidate treats/revers the flag, then you deserve to be labeled a gun-loving, Bible-toting hick. ] Finally, I rolled my eyes and lost interest when Stephanopoulousoisousouos ( whose name I can't stop spelling once I start ), pressed the candidates to fall all over themselves in support of Israel. Would it be possible to have one debate where half the questions on foreign policy don't focus on Israel and its' security?
-
Prognostication
Barack Obama as the POTUS? I hope not because I find him to be vague, vapid and vascillatory. He reminds me of a slick and sleezy used-car salesman trying to unload a wreck of a car on an unsuspecting buyer.
When pressed to answer for his "bitter" statements last night, he tried to change the subject by saying, in effect: "we need to change the focus to other and more pressing problems." That is known as a dodge, Senator; you didn't answer the question. The Rev. Wright fiasco is still there, too; it has NOT gone away. Fine; have it your way.
I'm a realist. I recognize that the Obamabots and their non-stop and shrill Hillary-hammering will probably win them the nomination...and lose the general election for the rest of us.
And, that's my prediction. John McCain will defeat Barack Obama. Plus, you can count me as part of that 40%, more or less, who will not be voting for Barack Obama should he become the nominee of the Democratic party. I'll either sit this one out...geting ready for a GREAT Democratic candidate for 2012...or will vote for John McCain.
That potential vote for McCain? That would be a result of that old maxim "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
-
I was embarassed to watch this...
Who in their right mind decides that the first debate on a major broadcast network in ages should consist of the kind of tripe we witnessed? I really don't care which (if either) candidate someone viewing this supports - this two-hour affront to the real issues was insulting to Obama and Clinton. I wanted to take both of them home and give them a beer by the end of this.
And what morons had the former press secretary for a president interviewing that president's wife? This, to me, is just additional proof of the incestuous nature of politics and the press. I'd feel better if a high school AV club and debate club co-hosted it.
-
NYT
Seemed to believe Hillary won this...
I hope she didn't but...
-
I'm a Pennsylvania voter and I am bitter...
that I missed most of the run scoring innings of the Sox-Yankee game on ESPN to watch a display of how petty and gutter crawling American journalism has become. Could the moderators have been lazier? Focusing on gaffes and petty issues instead of the sweeping problems of the day.
I'm surprised they just didn't decide to go completely Jerry Springer and have a few overweight topless dudes with nipple rings and wearing jorts who support each candidate slapping each other around on the stage.
This debate was a fart.
-
Talk about setting the bar too low
"In the end, Obama seemed to win simply by not losing."
"Barry didn't sh*t himself, therefore he won."
-
A Disgrace
This debate was worthless. It wasn't even a debate. I'm appalled. I've emailed ABC News and I encourage all others to do the same. Let them know what you think of the "work" of their two anchors. They owe me an apology.