huffingtonpost.com — This debate over debates had me curious. Was ABC's debate really in a lowly class of its own? Or were Obama backers (inside the press and out) just being overly-sensitive? So I went through each of the four one-on-one contests between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, starting with CNN's debate way back on January 31...
Apr 20, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountApr 21, 2008
"how is going to handle debating a Republican who will attack his policies?"lol, like that's going to happen.
Closed AccountApr 21, 2008
Hmm.... I wonder why it's limited to 4 cherry picked DNC debates. I wonder what the stats would've been had they included more. Especially GOP ones.
kevxrossApr 21, 2008
I think he's being incredibly witty. See, it spells out "bomb" in his name! So clever of him to paint Obama as trigger happy, as opposed to his chosen candidate, which regardless of gender has either voted for the Iraq war or has sung "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" or both.
bruflethApr 21, 2008
It'd be hilarious if I wasn't worried that people saw nothing wrong with it.
pherdnutApr 22, 2008
You know, Hillary supporters and the GOP piss me off but I've never done the whole "waaa waaa" thing or called them whiners or sore losers. I usually just smash their points into splinters and then they shut up.But there's not really much to say to you because you're not actually saying anything at all. It's like popping into a thread and saying "you suck" and then popping out. Is this valuable contribution you bring to the great democratic debate the reason you pay for the internet? If so, I think you're wasting your money and your time.
pherdnutApr 22, 2008
The only people who don't have a problem with it are the Clinton supporters who will fall in line with the party or not vote regardless of what they say in polls about McCain (the guy is pro-life) or people who would never vote for a democrat in the first place.
pherdnutApr 22, 2008
Agreed on good net behavior. How many times do you see "source it or it's not true or from some site with zero credibility." I think the reason the political landscape is changing however is that everybody is starting to catch up with responsible web use after we all got burned by Bush. It's not good enough to just check the Drudge Report anymore.
pherdnutApr 22, 2008
We'll never see a negative when the best you can come up with is BS like the stupid lapel-pin issue or some '60s radical who happens to live in Hyde park. What are you guys, nuts or 9 years old? It's pathetic.
pherdnutApr 22, 2008
Enough is enough already. I think it's time people started doing a little reading on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton and how it !@#$ed us all over by making wide-scale media conglomeration possible.You see, it used to be illegal for one company to own a radio station, a TV station, and a bunch of newspapers in the same market because back when that law was passed we had the foresight to realize it allowed the media conglomerates to make it appear as though separate outlets were confirming each other when it's really all coming from the same company.That's the crap we're dealing with now only it's not quite blatantly politic just yet but more the profit motive that's making a mockery of our political process. These guys can bounce these stupid manufactured controversies back and forth between all of their different media outlets and make it seem like there is some legitimate when there is in fact garbage.And in case you Hillary supporters haven't noticed yet, the ball keeps swinging back and forth every time one candidate starts to get ahead of another. Hillary has probably stayed in the campaign as long as she has because people in the media like Stephanopolous keep telling here the cavalry is on its way.Look it up yourselves so you can't claim bias on my part. This debate was an extension of the same media complicity that made Rove's absurd attacks possible in '04 but our tolerance for BS has gone down and it's not going to happen twice.And start being more honest with yourselves when you see total BS attacks regardless of who the candidate is. Obama didn't bite when they gave him the chance go after Hillary on the sniper fire thing at the debate for a reason.These are the politics he wants to change.I can't believe it's actually Hillary supporters that are taking this flag lapel pin BS seriously. You'd think after we lost to this crap in the last couple of elections that we'd have a little more sense than that.Educate yourselves. Tell your reps and senators that you want media reform that puts that legislation back in place. Just don't look to the corporate-owned media to adequately cover or give support to the issue.
amnesia10Apr 22, 2008
Luckily in the UK this can't happen. We have laws for the TV networks to show impartiality towards all parties. In the US i think it was Reagan who got rid of the US equivalent and since then political reporting on US TV has slipped into the gutter.
mrcobaltblueApr 22, 2008
"His Fair Tax plan is the same scam republicans have been running for ages: Raise taxes on the poor and middle class, and give the ultra rich a huge tax cut."You mean 0 income taxes for everyone? Yeah that's sooo unfair to the poor."Ron Paul supporters are so ignorant its scary." Same can be said for Obama supporters, pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended)."You care about civil liberties? Vote for a democratic president and congress. You want low taxes for non-millionaires? Same thing"You want even bigger debt and collapse of the dollar? Vote a democrat.