Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Anyone see the cnn/youtube dem debate?

I'm hoping its kosher to ask this. If not I apologize for my ignorance. I was wondering how people thought the candidates did in their answers and if people thought the actual form of the debate was any different really from how it usually goes.

I liked that they're catering to my generation for instance, but there were some really silly/repetitive questions/answers. I'm not really leaning much to anything as of yet, but what I've seen hasn't impressed me much. Then again I'm a huge cynic.

Anyway if this for some reason against the boards, I'm sorry.

Don't worry. You're perfectly fine in asking about this here. It's what the OT section is for. And, although the question is political in nature, it's not one likely to spark off a huge flame war on your average board, let alone here.

Taking off my mod hat to actually answer the question...

I thought it was interesting. A nice step forwards. Much better than that stupid "raise your hand if..." trend from the last few debates.

The questions themselves were, phrasing aside, more or less the same as usual. "What's your stance on [popular issue]?" But they were at least as good as what they normally ask. Sometimes more entertaining.

Candidate's answers were the same as ever, I think. As usual, it was rare to get an actual direct answer to the question being asked. They just steer things towards their own talking points. Not much you can do about that.

But hey... nice to include real people. And not to have to rely on professional question-writers, who seem to come up with duller questions every year.

Paul

I didn't see the actual debate...but I DID read FrankJ's parody of the event.

Here's an excerpt:

Yeah, sometimes they got away with it (like on the question of which republican senator to work with--I think Obama copied someone's answer and then went into some rehash of his basic themes). I did like that the host pressed Clinton to flat out say no to troops in Darfur, that was one brief moment of clarity.

For all intents and purposes the debate was Edwards, Clinton and Obama. The others seemed to know it too particularly Gravel who was so bitter about not getting airtime and Kucinich who kept using his time to push for some legislation (?).

It all reminded me of why I steer clear from politics, because honestly the whole generic "anti-special interest groups" b.s. was getting on my last nerve. I just don't believe that anyone is going to just "say no" to special interests groups. It's not that easy when those groups seem to be welded into the system, so it felt oddly patronizing for everyone to rehash that bit. Oh and I adored the private jet thing. Their hesitancy was another moment of clarity. Well done.

What I wanted to see was how these people differed from one another and the less popular candidates provided much more than the "let's all hold hands" junk that particularly Obama and Clinton (Clinton was particularly sugary ick) were spouting. Unfortunately it was brief, by the time some dude asked the candidates to say what they liked and they disliked about each other and they started saying really inane (Clinton's jacket?? The jacket?! Oh for heaven's sake...)stuff I was about to hurl.

Sigh. Oh well.

alcyone