US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment - Page 38 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2008, 12:04 AM   #556
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i fear that this debate may have done the two worst things,

damaged Obama permanently

and driven Clinton's negatives even higher

a good night for McCain.
Here's hoping


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and Congress will move ever more to the left in the fall regardless with what happens.
I think it's very hard to see Congress not gaining more Dems.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:09 AM   #557
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and Congress will move ever more to the left in the fall regardless with what happens.
the worst thing would be a very close election that McCain barely wins

that could make people vote some republican senators in

if McCain does get in
I want 60 Dem Senators to shut down any bad Judicial appointments.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:18 AM   #558
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and driven Clinton's negatives even higher
Ok

I have watched an hour so far

and Clinton is doing a very good job
she is smooth
she does not get rattled
and gives reasonable answers to all the questions

it seems that all the many Obama supporters are so upset with her
that they will not be objective


Obama answers have more pauses and hesitations, sometimes.

and then other times he is pretty smooth, too.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:21 AM   #559
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:37 PM
thinking about this

it does remind me of some of the early debates
where all the questions seemed to be targeted at Hillary

If Obama's questions are tough
is that because he is the front runner?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:24 AM   #560
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:37 PM
and yes, Hillary does remind me of

Tracy Flick

she has all the answers and is over eager!!!
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 05:56 AM   #561
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:37 PM
The transcript if anyone feels the need to quote important parts of the debate:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/...ate.php?page=1


So, everyone with a more than casual interest in politics seems to be disgusted with the debate, but I would be curious how it fared with the less (politically) educated people who sat through the debate.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 06:40 AM   #562
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:37 PM
I thought this was an interesting article for both sides and yeah, I find myself guilty.

NY Times

Divided They Fall

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 17, 2008

If you’re a Democrat, your candidate won in Wednesday night’s presidential debate — that was obvious, and most neutral observers would recognize that. But the other candidate issued appalling distortions, and the news commentary afterward was shamefully biased.

So you’re madder than ever at the other candidate. You may even be more likely to vote for John McCain if your candidate loses.

That prediction is based on psychological research that helps to explain the recriminations between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and the reasons why Senator McCain should be smiling as the Democratic campaign drags on.

To understand your feelings about Wednesday night’s debate, consider the Dartmouth-Princeton football game in 1951. That bitterly fought contest was the subject of a landmark study about how our biases shape our understanding of reality.

Psychologists showed a film clip of the football game to groups of students at each college and asked them to act as unbiased referees and note every instance of cheating. The results were striking. Each group, watching the same clip, was convinced that the other side had cheated worse — and this was not deliberate bias or just for show.

“Their eyes were taking in the same game, but their brains seemed to be processing the events in two distinct ways,” Farhad Manjoo writes in his terrific new book, “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” It’s the best political book so far this year.

Mr. Manjoo cites a more recent study by Stanford University psychologists of students who either favored or opposed capital punishment. The students were shown the same two studies: one suggested that executions have a deterrent effect that reduces subsequent murders, and the other doubted that.

Whatever their stance, the students found the study that supported their position to be well-conducted and persuasive and the other one to be profoundly flawed.

“That led to a funny result,” Mr. Manjoo writes. “People in the study became polarized.”

A fair reading of the two studies might have led the students to question whether any strong conclusions could be drawn about deterrence, and thus to tone down their views on the death penalty. But the opposite happened. Students on each side accepted the evidence that conformed to their original views while rejecting the contrary evidence — and so afterward students on both sides were more passionate and confident than ever of their views.

That’s what we seem to be seeing in the Democratic primaries. Even though the policy differences between the two candidates are minimal, each camp is becoming increasingly aggravated at the other. A Washington Post poll published Wednesday found that more than one-third of Democrats say that they may not support their party’s nominee if it is not their own choice.

Another challenge is the biased way in which we gather information. We seek out information that reinforces our prejudices. One study presented listeners with static-filled recordings of speeches that they believed they were judging on persuasive power. Listeners could push a button to tweak the signal, reducing the static to make it easier to understand. When smokers heard a speech connecting tobacco with cancer, they didn’t try to improve the clarity to hear it more easily. But they pushed the button to get a clearer version of a speech saying that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Nonsmokers were the exact opposite.

This resistance to information that doesn’t mesh with our preconceived beliefs afflicts both liberals and conservatives, but a raft of studies shows that it is a particular problem with conservatives. For example, when voters receive mailings offering them free pamphlets on various political topics, liberals show some interest in getting conservative views. In contrast, conservatives seek only those pamphlets that echo their own views.

Likewise, liberal blogs overwhelmingly link to other liberal blogs or news sources. But with conservative blogs, the tendency is much more pronounced; it is almost a sealed universe.

The situation isn’t hopeless. Similar psychological processes govern our perceptions of race, yet we’ve made great progress in revising our views and reducing prejudices. The same is true of attitudes towards gays.

The only solutions I see are personal ones, to work out daily to build our mental muscles. Just as we force ourselves to nibble on greens and decline cheesecake, we should seek an information diet that includes a salad bar of information sources — with a special focus on unpalatable rubbish from fools. The worse it tastes, the better it may be for us.

If that’s why you’re reading this, congratulations! And thanks!
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 06:59 AM   #563
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 09:37 PM
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c.../index.html?hp


No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks

Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 07:34 AM   #564
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


if McCain does get in
I want 60 Dem Senators to shut down any bad Judicial appointments.
You would need at least a margin of 3-4 on top of the 60.

In order to account for the DINOs and the no-balls Dems.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-17-2008, 08:06 AM   #565
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:37 PM
That debate was a farce. I kept waiting for a real question, I was channel surfing trying to watch other things but somehow I don't think I missed any real questions. I liked the color of Senator Clinton's jacket.

They could have had the various female Fox anchors asking the questions and it would have been the same debate George and Charlie (es) would have just had to wear skirts, cause women have to wear skirts to be real women (*official Fox News manual, page 2)
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 08:42 AM   #566
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Ok. Good for others to get on this story.
You think Sean Hannity should be feeding George Snuffleuphagus questions?

He doesn't work for ABC. Doesn't George have a mind of his own?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:43 AM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:37 PM
From Washington Post media critic Tom Shales:

Quote:
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01



When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
Last I checked, the ABC News site had over 12,000 comments, still 99% negative toward ABC/Clinton.

The Huffington Post put up this video of George and Charlie getting heckled by the audience:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...d_n_97124.html

The voters reaction...the few who could stomach the whole thing...should be interesting.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 10:06 AM   #568
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:37 PM
McCain Seen as Key to Troop-Benefit Bills
As a Veteran, Candidate and Senator, He Faces Pressure From All Sides

By Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 17, 2008; A06

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is basing his bid for the White House on his credentials as a decorated veteran and leader on defense policy, has become the target of veterans groups pushing hard for more aid and relief for troops returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At issue is a growing slate of legislation to boost veterans' education assistance and to rest troops between combat assignments. Two of the bills were written by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), both fellow Vietnam veterans, and are expected to see votes in Congress soon. Those bills would substantially boost college assistance for returning war veterans to cover fully tuition at a state university, while mandating that troops spend a month out of the combat zone for every month in it.

A third measure, introduced yesterday by eight Democratic senators and two Republicans, would provide more education aid to National Guard members and reservists, especially those who have served on multiple tours in Iraq.

It is generally agreed that McCain is key to the bills' prospects for passage.

"John McCain's got a lot of things to focus on right now, but this isn't one of them," Webb said. "He needs to get on board."

For McCain, the growing pressure is not the kind of attention he has been seeking. His status as a Vietnam War hero has helped broaden his appeal with independents and some Democrats. His campaign takes as a given his support among veterans.

But on Monday, the group VoteVets.org, backed by the political action committee of retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark and the liberal documentary film production company Brave New Films, delivered petitions with nearly 30,000 signatures to McCain's Senate office, imploring him to back Webb's updated GI bill.

In an Internet ad, viewed more than 104,000 times, Iraq veteran Joshua Drake intones, "If I could talk to John McCain, I would try to appeal to him as a fellow vet." Robert Lopez, a former tank commander, adds: "He should put himself in our shoes."

McCain told reporters on his campaign plane Monday that he is open to boosting educational benefits for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and is working with colleagues on language changes to the Webb-Hagel bills.

"We are working on proposals of our own. I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women in the military," McCain said. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."

All three measures could come up for votes this month or early next month, when the House and Senate consider a $108 billion emergency war spending bill. Some Democrats do not want to put Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the position of voting for the GI bill and "dwell time" amendments, only to have them vote against the war funding bill. Democrats worry that such votes would put them in a position similar to that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, when he said he supported a war funding bill before he voted against it.

But Democrats may break up the war bills into an Iraq funding measure that will pass largely with Republican votes, and an Afghanistan funding bill on which they will try to attach popular policy measures.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act would substantially boost the higher-education benefit first approved for returning World War II fighters. It carries a cost of $2.5 billion to $4 billion over 10 years.

But it is not the price tag that gives Defense Department officials pause. It is the fear that a generous education benefit would persuade soldiers and Marines ending their tours to pursue an education rather than reenlist in the overstretched military.

For McCain and his allies, the Webb-Hagel "dwell time" amendment -- which mandates a month off for every month in combat -- has proven to be an easier political target.

"The worst thing you can do is let a bunch of politicians worrying about their reelections mandate troop rotations," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of McCain.

But the GI bill has been far more difficult. The measure already has 55 co-sponsors in the Senate, including former Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.).

"I know my friend John McCain is taking a serious look at this legislation, and he'll do what he thinks is right," Hagel said yesterday. "Our country has found enough money to send our troops to war. There surely is enough money to make education opportunities available to those who have earned it and sacrificed for this country."

While Hagel took the soft sell, veterans groups have been considerably rougher. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has begun advertising in Capitol Hill publications. The Veterans of Foreign Wars sent its lobbyists to demand action.

"He's the odd man out," Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets and an Iraq war veteran, said of McCain. "You have 55 co-sponsors on this bill, and he's not one of them. He has to lead or follow."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 10:34 AM   #569
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
From Washington Post media critic Tom Shales:



Last I checked, the ABC News site had over 12,000 comments, still 99% negative toward ABC/Clinton.


Did you read all 12,000 comments?

I read the first couple and last couple of pages and am not quite seeing your percentages.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 10:36 AM   #570
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:37 PM
Of course not, but I had been scanning them off and on since last night. Maybe some has changed this morning, but overall it's been mostly negative toward ABC.
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com