by kevin22262, Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EDT
Cross posted atEENR
There is so much talk going on all over the "tubes" lately about what Wes Clark said and meant.
To get a little perspective about how Wes Clark feels about Obama and what he has been saying about McCain, try reading his own words from his personal blog at WesPAC.
Bush's Third Term
Unite Behind Barack Obama
After reading his words and understanding where he is coming from, then listen to what he has to say. Check out all of the video and audio from the last few days by going here:
Dan Abrams on MSNBC, Good Morning America on ABC and on the Ed Schultz show.
Do any of you still think that Barack Obama, his campaign and Wes Clark are not working together?
by oden, Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:53:11 AM EDT
There is at least one honest reporter willing to talk about how the media didn't do it's job in the Iraq pre-war coverage.
Even though the media has long been painted as liberal, I think they have actually been much tougher on the Democrats. How many times have Hillary and Obama been attacked by the media for a gaffe. While McCain makes one gaffe after another and gets away with it. And I would argue that most of the one's McCain makes are serious ones. In fact, I think we should be spending less time attacking one another, Clinton-Obama supporter, and focus more of our attention on McCain.
by steve468, Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:36:49 AM EDT
Barack Obama was looking weary as he endured a barrage of questioning by Tim Russert on his releationship with Rev. Wright. At the same time Clinton looked and acted confident and professional as she towered over host George Stephanopoulos and silenced her critics.
While being interviewed by Mr. Russert,Obama tried to quell the controversy over his connections to Rev Wright by simply ignoring it opting to change the subject.
For her part, Hillary Clinton did not even flinch when a woman in the audience, an Obama supporter who said she made less than $25,000 a year, argued she, too, thought Mrs. Clinton was "pandering" for short-term political gain. Instead Hillary rose to her feet and answered the women directly, cutting Stepanopoulos completely out of the camera shot.
When he tried to flummox her by asking whether the campaign would ever release the names of donors who had given money to her husband's foundation, Mrs. Clinton shut him down with a one word answer: "No."
In Short Mr. Obama revealed that he was not impervious to pressure, while Mrs. Clinton once again proved that it takes more than a village to make her sweat.
Clinton Steals the ShowThere's more...
by Sam Levenback, Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EDT
I read Jonathan's post
on the "Lincoln-Douglas Debate" proposal with a lot of interest. It's a topic that fits into a bigger question on the role of debates. If we put aside the merits and drawbacks of the Lincoln-Douglas format, what's abundantly clear is that nobody has been completely satisfied with this cycle's debates. Republicans were annoyed with the questions selected for the CNN YouTube debate, while Democrats have been consistently unimpressed with the efforts of network moderators. We all remember the famous Dodd Clock
, which laid out the lack of speaking time for the unfashionable candidates. Clearly, the debates we're having have a lot of shortcomings.
All of this unhappiness could be resolved if the moderators would just picked better questions. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. While I'm sure the networks would love to stop catching criticism, the most loyal debate viewers are political junkies who follow the political horse race plot lines. Their ratings are their vindication. For all the criticism of last week's ABC debate, it was the most watched of the election cycle. We need a big rethink on debates.
Some people think the CNN YouTube debates were progress, but their were also some valid concerns that they were only superficially different from the standard MSM fare. If anything, I'd argue that those debates were simply grafting user-driven technology onto a dying medium. The debate format as we know it - two candidates at podiums delivering pre-hashed soundbites while operatives simultaneously spin the press - is nothing worth clinging to. If we're going to go through the effort of putting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the same stage, then we've surely got to make the product more worthwhile then when we're getting right now.
by kevin22262, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:02:15 AM EDT
From GMA and the stupid ABC.
Here are Hillary Clinton's REAL words and the stupid question.
KO asked the same sort of fictitious question and she answered him almost exactly the same.
Unless you are living in a bubble, this is part of reality. A "big stick" is always a part of diplomacy and "talks".
Now I did not watch the last debate, I think that was a good thing, but I have heard that both Hillary and Barack both answered this stupid question in very similar ways. One person I know, who watched the debate and who is very much a pacifist, did not like the answer that EITHER of them gave on this question.