Letters to the Editor
-
You know Obama
because you live in the same state? What do you take us for, exactly?
-
All this pissing and moaning about ABC News, Charlie & George in particular, is ridiculous...
I, for one, really don't feel offended by their line of inquiry. How politicians respond to seemingly superficial questions can reveal a lot about their character, judgment, ability to think on their feet, demeanor, temperment, composure, etc.
There's sure a lot of airtime and ink being devoted to discussing stupid questions. Why are writers here at salon.com flogging this BS?
How 'bout WRITING about the issues?
-
super-uber-meta-debate
Awesome. This letter section is having a debate about a debate about a debate about a debate.
A little recape.
1) Our debate -- the letters section
2) Clinton debating Obama's frustration
3) Obama debating the quality of the debate
4) The actual debate that was held.
Please, oh please, oh please ... I hope someone will disagree with me on this. Then it would be a debate about a debate 5 times deep!
-
Sometimes You Have to Answer Tough Questions, but . . .
Sometimes you have to call bullshit to bullshit questions (and that's the best answer of all).
I've been a Clinton fan since '91 (during Bill's initial debates), and their complete acceptance of this debate really disappoints me. Her agreeing that these are questions worth answering tells me she knows she can't beat Obama on policy matters. Pathetic.
-
Hillary's Complaint
Wasn't substantive, it was procedural. Not the same thing.
-
@ MICKI
"I, for one, really don't feel offended by their line of inquiry. How politicians respond to seemingly superficial questions can reveal a lot about their character, judgment, ability to think on their feet, demeanor, temperment, composure, etc.
There's sure a lot of airtime and ink being devoted to discussing stupid questions. Why are writers here at salon.com flogging this BS?
How 'bout WRITING about the issues?"
Bullshit. These candidate have answered questions regarding these "controversies" for days, if not weeks. The problem is that these "seemingly superficial" questions are dominating all MSM political discourse to the exclusion of substantive issues.
As for your second assertion, Salon has more substantive analysis and content than most (if not all) MSM sources. If you don't think so, then leave.
-
Mike, I'll take de-bait!
I can't believe you are stooping to such deeply imbedded tactics in this forum, you meta-trolling troller of meta-trolling trolls! How dare you?!
-
No there's no debate, it's clear the media did a terrible job, where's Glenn
Do we need to explain this to you again? It's about the fact the press totally mailed it in and abandoned their job Wednesday night.
The Ayers question was the perfect example. Ben Smith over at Politico at least had the guts to admit it was a planted question and the media was mad because when they'd tried to ask it in the past it didn't get answered.
This was all about journalism finally falling below even the basic standard of their jobs, and finally getting called on it by the American people. Now, a select few of them, are still trying to take up for their ilk for no reason whatsoever.
A travesty. Period. Spin it any way you want, it doesn't have to do with which candidate was being attacked. Worst. Debate. Ever. That's why all the criticism for this one.
-
How ironic
According to Benen: [Obama] took the moderators to task for asking trivial questions that are unrelated to actual public policies ...
You mean like when Hillary took MSNBC to task for statements that she was pimping out her daughter? At the time, that natural feminine defense of a mother's relationship with her child was characterized as "playing the victim card" by Obama supporters.
So isn't Obama just "playing the victim card?"
Oooohhhh no! When men stick up for themselves and attack the process it is perfectly acceptable. This campaign was focused on personality trivia long before the media turned the tables on Obama, and his supporters were glad to stand on the sidelines cheering because it hurt Clinton. I get it. Men are allowed to play the victim card; only when they do it they get praised for having the guts to whine.
What hypocrites many of these Obama supporters are. No wonder people call them Bots.
-
I'm from Illinois Too!
Never seen loud rude crude Obama supporters.
Have you considered moving out of your neighborhood?
-
Niiiice
Yes, everybody does change sides to whatever currently suits them.
However, I see Clinton's current stance as much more inconsistent than Obama's (at least based on the videos you showed).
Hillary Clinton's comments actually misrepresent what Obama has said. Obama's do not.
-
@Micki
I want to hear what the Democratic candidates will do to help my family stop living paycheck to paycheck, despite the fact we work about 3 jobs between us; I want to hear what they will do help my wife and I start saving for our son's college education, so we don't have to take on crushing debt down the road; I want to be reassured that both candidates will end Iraq, win the peace in Afghanistan, and will do anything necessary to avoid sending our men and women off to die in whatever other country the neocons get a hard-on for in the future.
I do not want to hear about the loyalty to America (or lack thereof) that Jeremiah Wright has; I don't want to hear about lapel pins; I don't want to see candidates expected to grovel in front of a "random" voter who says the candidate has lost their vote for whatever reason.
So no, how a presidential candidate answers stupid questions designed only to prolong phony controversies don't really interest me at all.
-
@melthough
Melthough,
you're a typical Obinton suppoter that confuses trolling with complaining about debates of argueable substance in a forum of ... wait, what the heck am I talking about.
Mike
PS. "I'll take de-bait". LOL! Awesome.
-
Debate?
I seem some allusions to this in other posts, but does anyone here really consider this a debate? It looked a lot more like an interrogation to me, moreso than the other "debates" I've seen or heard. For both Clinton and Obama.
I would much rather see an actual debate in the classic format. Moderators present a topic (they don't ask directed questions) and the candidates actually discuss the various aspects, pros/cons, etc of it.
As such I have no problem with complaints about it. Re-hashing issues that have already been beat to the ground is not constructive.