Olbermann to host AFL-CIO democratic presidential debate on Aug 7

[daveymark]

Text

It'll be interesting to see if he asks hard questions...


too bad gravel isn't on the list.

 

[daveymark]

Will we see a republican debate hosted by Hannity?

 

[daveymark]

This will be aired on MSNBC tomorrow. Pollsters expect Ron Paul to win

 

[daveymark]

starts at 6pm CST tonight. anyone going to watch? I'm hoping Olbermann will ask some hard questions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: daveymark
starts at 6pm CST tonight. anyone going to watch? I'm hoping Olbermann will ask some hard questions.

How does that saying go? Hope in one hand, #$%t in the other and see which one fills up faster.

:laugh: Olby is a joke.

 

[Thump553]

It seems like they have one of these so-called debates every other day. Does anyone but the hardest core political junkies pay the least bit of attention to them? We are still fifteen months away from the election (almost a year and a half till the last day of GWB's occupation of the White House).

There are so many candidates, so little time for each answer, and such fear on the part of nearly every candidate that they will say something stupid that each debate is little more than empty air.

I'd much rather see the candidates agree to an (unedited) round of one on one half hour interviews, or interivews with a small select panel rotating among each network and newschannel. Each would have to sit through a Bill O'Reilly and an Obermann. Then maybe we would have an idea how these candidates would perform in the hot seat.

PS-CNN would not be allowed to use Larry King-he does nothing but pitch softballs to everyone.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: daveymark
starts at 6pm CST tonight. anyone going to watch? I'm hoping Olbermann will ask some hard questions.

How does that saying go? Hope in one hand, #$%t in the other and see which one fills up faster.

:laugh: Olby is a joke.

Says the Bush supporter.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thump553
It seems like they have one of these so-called debates every other day. Does anyone but the hardest core political junkies pay the least bit of attention to them? We are still fifteen months away from the election (almost a year and a half till the last day of GWB's occupation of the White House).

There are so many candidates, so little time for each answer, and such fear on the part of nearly every candidate that they will say something stupid that each debate is little more than empty air.

I'd much rather see the candidates agree to an (unedited) round of one on one half hour interviews, or interivews with a small select panel rotating among each network and newschannel. Each would have to sit through a Bill O'Reilly and an Obermann. Then maybe we would have an idea how these candidates would perform in the hot seat.

PS-CNN would not be allowed to use Larry King-he does nothing but pitch softballs to everyone.

Yeah, agree.

I think each party has something like 24 debates scheduled. But so far the time has been too short and the questions sucked. IMO, they aren't even debates, just an opportunity for everyone to stand up and get in a 30 second sound bite.

And I've thought I'd to something like the one-on-one you mention with a panel. I was thinking maybe 5 or 6 issues (Iraq, terrorism, immigration, health care, economy, energy policy etc).

First, I'd have the candidates submit written policy answers to the topics chosen. The panel would all read the reposnses and form questions to be put to the candidate. I'm sure that would result in a damn good grilling and some very substantive policy discussions. Of course, it'll never happen.

If I watch any of this debate, it'll be prolly be like usual and thus for only a few minutes. So far, after noticing the questions are softballs or outright stupid I just flip to another channel.
I'm starting to think we won't get a decent debate until the nominees are chosen and go head-to-head.

Fern

 

[daveymark]

this debate isn't too bad, the candidates are finally getting fiesty with each other

 

[daveymark]

biden just lost the election with that little stunt

(wife of one of the dead coal miners from last year asked what he would do to prevent further situations, biden responded with nonsense about iraq from last round of questions)

 

[1EZduzit]

Who needs gravel when we have dirt?

 

[umbrella39]

I missed it. Who won? Going to try and catch it on the net later tonight..

 

[daveymark]

Hillary came out ahead, although she was booed initially...she redeemed herself by coming up with some quotables (e.g. "I'm your girl" against the right wing machine) Obama and Edwards after that. Kucinich had some bright spots, he was the only one who actually answered some of the questions straight on. Biden and Dodd and did more to help clinton than themselves, it almost seemed like the three of them were teaming up on obama. Biden was a jerk by ignoring that dead miner's wife. Richardson came up last, almost forgettable.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Who lost this debate? Edwards.

 

[laketrout]

Edwards probably had the most to lose since he's been trying to be the most union friendly forever, but I also think Obama did a really poor job with the Barry Bonds question. Would he honor Bonds at the White House? Obama said Bonds hadn't done it yet and would have an answer when he did.... Which turns out was like 2 hours from then. I mean seriously, he's had 755 homeruns to think of an answer and he's got to dodge? Whatever. Also, I don't get why Olbermann only asked Barak that question - he definitely should have followed up and at least given some of the other candidates a chance to answer the question, eh Olbermann was a bad choice as a moderator in general. He's so biased he could never fairly moderate a Republican debate, so why should they let him do this one either.

 

[daveymark]

I thought he did fairly well as a moderator, his junk personal opinons/views notwithstanding

 

[Fern]

Yeah, he did better than I expected.

I noticed right away how many verbal slips the candidates made. Like typos (leaving *not* when they to say it). Everybody knew what they were saying and cheered. But shesh, if just a an accurate transcript you'd get the wrong idea.

The other thing I noticed was everybody attacking Obama. I figured they were trying to knock him out of the #2 position and get it for themselves. But it really ended up helping HRC.

Richardson was forgetable.

Dodd is a buffoon.

Kucinich was very starightforward and had some good answers.

Edwards, I think did nothing to advance his standing. In the post debate show, Chris Matthews was discounting him. Said Edwards is great in a small forum, but disapears on the big stage.

Biden, the guy reminds me of old famous movie star named Stewart Granger. But he's got no chance, IMO.

I think it's gonna stay HRC in 1st, followed by Obama.

HRC wins the nomination.

Fern

 

[b0mbrman]

Who won the debate? No one really stood out. Kucinich seemed to get the biggest applause, but with as little chance as he has at winning, he can afford to make huge promises.

Among the three front-runners:
Given how hard Edwards has been going after the unions, he had the most to lose and I think he lost it.

Clinton seemed to be coasting and it seems if that crowd were to vote on health care, they'd go for her. I couldn't help but smile with her when Dodd voluntarily did her dirty work re: Obama.

Obama probably gained the most, finding what I thought was a great way to frame his stance on Pakistan. He turned it into another mention of his pre-invasion stance on Iraq v. the AUMF the then-senators voted for, and he managed to toss in a "The American people have a right to know!" for good measure.

I suppose the biggest news of all is that no one scored enough touchdowns at Soldier Field (I suck with football references ) for the AFL-CIO to endorse a candidate.

Therefore, the real winners turn out to be the individual unions

 

[Fern]

Something I left out my post above and don't want it to be overlooked (as it might if I just edited)

Did anybody else get the impression that the stage had 8 Santa Clauses disguised as polititions?


Jeebus, the promises to everybody and anybody for everything were flying so fast I couldn't keep up.

The debates are turning into a giant *Promise Fest*.

Fern

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Fern
Something I left out my post above and don't want it to be overlooked (as it might if I just edited)

Did anybody else get the impression that the stage had 8 Santa Clauses disguised as polititions?


Jeebus, the promises to everybody and anybody for everything were flying so fast I couldn't keep up.

The debates are turning into a giant *Promise Fest*.

Fern

Yeah. I saw it, though I noticed more were saying that unions are good and deserve good things rather than necessarily promising them good things.

As I mentioned though, I thought Kucinich was the worst of them in regards to real promises.

 

[Gaard]

"First let me say..." x 100