posted
Has anyone else watched these yet? I think they've only done the democratic candidates so far, but they seem to be planning a Republican one. I guess explanation is in order, I don't usually watch TV, sitting in front of the tube I feel utterly useless so I don't keep track of show times and such and I always miss one time things like the debates.
I read about the YouTube debates in the New York Times and it peaked my curiosity, I went looking for them and lo and behold YouTube itself had them nicely and neatly published -- in whole -- on their main page. They were published in a one video for each question and its answers format. I sat through them one by one and greatly enjoyed them actually. They weren't the usual stifled, predictable and practically useless prezzie debate at all. Since the questions were posed by YouTube users through videos posted they were blunt, to the point and pretty usual. And they hit on a lot of issues I actually wanted to hear about.
The candidates did well in answering I thought, and against my best predications I came to like some of them that I hadn't thus far, and dislike others that I'd vaguely liked. For me the winners from the dbate were Clinton and Obama in a big way and Edwards in a much smaller one. The big losers were Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and Gravel (I got real tired of Gravel's constant griping and sniping). I came out kinda neutral on Richardson.
What did everyone else think?
If you haven't seen em yet, either on YouTube or when they actually aired, you can watch them here.
A few moments that really stuck in my mind:
Edward's answer to the gay marriage question. He bumbled it a lot, talking about how he personally couldn't support it due to his religious beliefs. But when he finally came out and answered it I really liked what he said, to paraphrase: while I can't personally support it, I can't support laws that deny people their rights based on those beliefs. I can't force my beliefs on other people.
The question that asked them if they'd work in the White House for minimum wage. I loved Edward's and Hilary's answers: "Yeah." "Sure." (respectively) and liked Obama's even more: "Most people on this stage can work in the White House for minimum wage, cause we have money." Which got some pretty funny responses from the rest of them.
I thought the very last question, which asked them to say something positive and something negative about the candidate to the left of them really showed the character of the candidates. Very few actually said anything negative. But in the positive a lot of them came off as trite, or giving the sorta general: I like the candidate to my left and all the candidates. And then not really giving a reason for it. The one answer that really stuck out in a positive way was Obama's, he sounded sincere to me when he said he liked Richardson for his devotion to public service. And his joke about the red socks/yankees vs the White Socks wasn't too crass. Some of the candidates tried to make jokes but just came off as jerks (Richardson, Biden).
Those were the moments that stuck out for me.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen it. I heard it reviewed as great, great questions with the same crappy canned answers, but I'll get back to you when I watch it, soon.
I like the idea, but I'd hope there'd be a moderator with the power to force real answers out of them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't seen it. I heard it reviewed as great, great questions with the same crappy canned answers, but I'll get back to you when I watch it, soon.
The worst part of these early debates is that the candidates with the best actual shot at winning the primary (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) typically give the most canned responses out of the group. Those without any real shot, can speak their minds as much as they please.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I'd expect a moderator to be there to hammer answers out of them, and I've actually seen that a bit in some recent debates, much to my delight. I think it made the candidates look a little silly when they kept dodging the questions, but generally it ends at a stalemate as candidates still refuse to give an off the cuff straightforward answers.
But other than that, I don't see how to avoid that kind of response. Frontrunners have nothing to gain and everything to lose in a debate, so they give canned, safe answers designed to keep them where they are. The back of the pack people have to be memorable, and have to make themselves known, so they have a lot more leeway to try and reach out to the common man.
I'd like to see more interaction from regular people in the future, and a little less of CNN filtering the questions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After watching the first few questions (don't have time to watch the whole thing)...
Kucinich: Still has no chance in hell of coming close to the nomination. Thinks we should give reparations? Or did he say yes just so he could get some speaking time? Bah.
Chris Dodd: Came out strong I thought.
Barack Obama: I'm even more impressed that he set fundraising records all without taking special interest or PAC money, so he says. Electing someone that isn't beholden to anyone but the American people at large is important to me, and maybe I even believe that it's important to him, and after the last decade or so of being jaded with politicians, I think that's important. On reparations: Smart man. Cash payments are ridiculous, we should be focusing on a quality education that will allow people to be on equal footing, destroy inequalities. I like that he blows past reparations and goes to the core issue, what the REAL problem is.
Hillary Clinton: I don't care what people say, I like her, and she comes off as smart, strong, and honest. Maybe she's just an incredibly good public speaker, but I buy everything she says, and I believe her.
John Edwards: Nice rhetoric on taking power away from big special interests, but how is he going to do it? It would have to involve campaign finance reform at a fundamental level, and only Biden suggested it. More nice rhetoric on "taking these people on." And given his numerous speeches on
Joe Biden: Loved what he said on public financing, he's still my favorite dark horse candidate.
Gravel: Lost his magic. I liked it when he was on the outside shouting at the wind. But now he's shouting just to shout and I don't find it at all constructive.
PS. The Republican running mate question was awesome.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed a few questions in the middle, but caught most of them in the post-debate analysis.
I didn't pay too much to the second tier candidates but I did get annoyed with the inability of several of them to answer the question they were asked.
Regarding Clinton, she does speak well and seems to have softened her image but I didn't find any of her answers particularly inspring.
I have several friends who support Edwards and are trying to bring me over to their camp. I can see the appeal but I didn't agree with some of his answers and his campaign didn't focus on the issues I cared most about.
Obama was my favorite. I've been interested in him for awhile but was alittle unsure since he was so reluctant at the beginning to run. But in the debate, I found him to be intelligent, quick-minded, and very focused on the issues important to me. I loved his answer about the US shouldn't view witholding diplomacy as a punishment. And I liked his response to the question about reparations. As my significant other is a teacher in the 9th Ward, I highly agree that its through education that we can correct the last vestiges of racial inequality.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As my significant other is a teacher in the 9th Ward, I highly agree that its through education that we can correct the last vestiges of racial inequality.
I'm not sure what this consists in. Phrases like "correct the last vestiges of racial inequality" coming out of the wrong mouth sounds like "implanting the cultural sensibilities of white Americans into black Americans." If that's the case, the inequality may cease, but at the price of ignoring the cultural cancer within white America's approach to plural democracy.
quote: I'm not sure what this consists in. Phrases like "correct the last vestiges of racial inequality" coming out of the wrong mouth sounds like "implanting the cultural sensibilities of white Americans into black Americans." If that's the case, the inequality may cease, but at the price of ignoring the cultural cancer within the white American approach to plural democracy.
Any mouth other than a politically sanctioned one, that is? The wording is not Shakespearean, but come-on. Let's not attack shadows.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I'm not quite sure what your problem is. But given other posts you've made on racial issues, I'm okay with not understanding whatever your point is.
Personally, I'm disgusted to hear that people have signed away post-Katrina federal aid because their level of literacy made it impossible for them to understand the paperwork. I don't think its "white sensibilities" that makes me think that its safer for the kids to be in school than on the streets.
But this isn't the time or place.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been down on Hillary for a long time, but I was extremely impressed with her performance in this debate. She was sharp, witty, and was able to distill surprisingly complex thoughts into simple, concise answers. Her campaign has been trying to frame her as the "inevitability" candidate, and she got that image across very effectively, answering questions as if she were speaking on behalf of Democrats as a whole. "Democrats are ready to lead!" was a great moment.
Other than Hillary, I thought Obama did an excellent job, although he slipped on the diplomatic relations with hostile governments question. I would be shocked if he didn't actually agree with Hillary and Edwards, that testing the waters before committing the President to a face-to-face talk is prudent, but the way he phrased his answer gave his opponents an easy opening on which to pounce.
Gravel and Kucinich need to go away. Gravel's grousing about his perceived lack of face time got old fast, and Kucinich's repeated attempts to use the debate as a glorified American Idol call-in drive were supremely irritating.
Edwards did fine, but I wasn't particularly impressed. His answer to the question about Obama's race and Hillary's gender ("If you wouldn't vote for Barack because he's black, or Hillary because she's a woman, I don't want your vote") was fantastic, though- and a very clever way of defusing that situation.
Biden's response to the gun control question was a shot in his own foot, no pun intended. I find the guy who asked the question just as creepy as Biden clearly did, but it's generally a bad idea to mock potential voters outright, even if they're nuts.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That video actually made me ponder something. The gun that guy held up looked like an M4 or a CAR (I can't tell the difference) or similar. Basically an assault rifle. I thought people weren't allowed to own those...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: That video actually made me ponder something. The gun that guy held up looked like an M4 or a CAR (I can't tell the difference) or similar. Basically an assault rifle. I thought people weren't allowed to own those...
I believe the ban on assault weapons expired and it has yet to be reinstate. I could be wrong in this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, where's a link to the CNN-YouTube debate? I passed watching them at the time they were occurring because I figured I could search up the debate on YouTube later. Found out later that their search engine throws up an absurd number of videos. Even of the hits that are relevant, most are redundant postings of Q&As already posted a dozen times or more.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Irami, should we just leave Black America to solve Black America's problems?
No, it's just that I live in a world of self-satisfied white people, and I'm not going to pretend that I like the view.
Over the last fifty years, large volumes of German scholarship continue to concern the moral intricacies of the "German problem," that is, "How could such a sophisticated society blithely endorse the Holocaust"? What is interesting about this line of scholarship is that it's not only Jews doing the writing and the thinking on the issue. Ethnic Germans are duly concerned. The results have been mixed, but I appreciate the effort.
American whites are too busy buying things, and making money to pay for the things they buy, to care about the American Problem, that is, what is wrong the Constitution--the document and the people constituting this nation-- to allow for the degradation of black Americans, from slavery through mandatory minimums and selective law enforcement. There is black scholarship on the issue, but it's not a black issue, it's an American issue, just as the German Question is not a Jewish issue, it's a German issue, and until this issue gets addressed as such-- aloud by American whites-- I'm suspicious of any person who claims success based on getting black people to act and think like suburban whites.
This isn't about racial profiling, raising test scores, or even mandatory minimums. The issue goes to the heart of our sense of civic and family responsibility as Americans and our cultural priorities, and most importantly, how do you treat "the other" in a plural democracy.
posted
The link in my first post goes to YouTubes posted version of it. It's in the format of one question/answer per video. Kinda convenient to watch in that format actually.
quote:There is black scholarship on the issue, but it's not a black issue...
You know, Irami, the whiny prejudice you regularly dribble out makes me sometimes wonder whether this particular issue is a black issue -- not what's wrong with white people, but what's wrong with those black people who can't stop trying to find things wrong with white people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So there's no YouTube link? Either my machine hates CNN videos or CNN hates my machine. Same with NBC/MSNBC and SonyEntertainment. I've a feeling my server's anti-malware is treating their copyright protections as attempts at hostile intrusion. That or they're trying to plant spywear that my server won't pass. Every other video webhost I've tried works just fine.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is more convenient. I tried watching it on youtube yesterday, but question 10 on had no sound for me. It works now, so I don't know what happened. I'm sure it wasn't my laptop because it was just those specific videos that didn't have sound.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That reminds me of a guy I used to work with. Often when he paged someone it would go something like this:
Mike, you have a call on one-oh-one. That is, there is a call on one-oh-one, for Mike, for which there is a call...on one-oh-one...for Mike. Mike, on the line of one-oh-one there is a call for you, Mike, on one-oh-one, where there is a call for you Mike. Please pick up on one-oh-one, Mike, for there is a call one-oh-one for Mike...on line one-oh-one. For Mike. On one-oh-one. Thank you.
Edit: This post is in response to the above removed unnecessary yet appreciated snark.
posted
Sorry, Alcon, I read the first post immediately upon your posting of the thread, and musta missed the underlined "here". (Did you edit that in?) Then checked rollainm's link, and queried again before refreshing to see that you had posted after rollainm.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I liked the "snark". Thanks for taking the trouble of answering me twice. (And thanks to rollainm for finding the alternative site)
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sorry for snarking at you.
