Should the dems debate anymore?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Of course the one debate I miss is the one I should have seen!</p>

<p>I guess Obama was not happy with the questions and said he will not debate anymore.</p>

<p>I can understand his point that it is becoming not about national issues, but it seems more like he didn’t like the questions about Ayers, lapel pin, etc (remember I am only reiterating what the news is reporting)</p>

<p>If they do not have anymore debates until the presidential ones, the ? will arise to him, after the last debate you refused to do anymore, many people think it was because of the questions, your answer is what?</p>

<p>In My Opinion, I would still do one more because he can address it now instead of addressing in the fall as a nom! Am I the only one to believe this?
Let’s also remember personal issues always become a part of the elections, right or wrong…McCain and his adopted daughter, Bush drinking and his college yrs, Kerry being divorced and a catholic, Gore’s son and his speeding tickets, Clinton and his affairs…etc</p>

2

<p>Clinton and Obama are so alike on policy issues that it does at times seem like there is little to debate, so they descend into personal nit-picking, and the moderators don’t help much. But I expect Obama would be criticized if he refused more debates with Clinton.</p>

3

<p>Just had this conversation last night…Not one mention made about the economy…IMO, the debate was a waste of time…</p>

4

<p>I watched the debate and was so bored for the first hour. Stephanopolus and Gibson were terrible. It is useless to go over and over the bs again and again. </p>

<p>Going “forward” and “change” doesn’t mean much anymore. Yes, there needs to be change. My question is really more “To what EXACTLY?” I want to know who all 3 candidates would take with them to the White House. I don’t want to see all the recycled people from the last 16 years.</p>

5

<p>Excellent observations B&P. It is normal however for a person’s defensive nature to kick in when they are challenged and doesn’t have a way of legitimately responding. If you bring up personal questions and they can’t respond satisfactorily, then the natural response is to say things like; “We need to get beyond this and back on the issues”; or “I already answered that and won’t talk about it anymore”; or “That’s a personal matter and has no bearing here being discussed”. These are all normal and common responses by a candidate and their supporters.</p>

<p>The problem is; there are MANY voters/citizens who believe that there is no such thing as a “Personal Matter” when it comes to public servants. There are those that believe that many of this questions and topics deal with personal issues that reflect a candidate’s personality, character, integrity, etc… Many believe that this is just as important of traits when choosing a public servant as is experience, the economy, foreign affairs, etc… And saying you won’t talk about something any more or do more debates will always negatively affect the candidate with some voters.</p>

<p>Obama needs to learn that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE he has done, associated with, said, condoned, participated in, etc… in the senate, in college, in his personal life, etc… ARE ALL PART OF THE ISSUES. As a public servant, everything you say or do in your life is part of determining your character and whether or not the voters respect that character.</p>

<p>Sorry Obama, but for you to be the one that tries and determines what I SHOULD and SHOULDN’T hear and know about you is a total turn off. Yes, I will admit that in the last 3 months, Obama’s appeal to me has gone more and more into the toilet. I use to support him over Clinton. I no longer do that. I use to hold either democrat somewhat equally with McCain and looked forward to the general election debates. Most importantly, I felt comfortable enough that if any of the 3 were elected, I would feel comfortable with the direction of the country. Yes, each are totally opposite in certain issues with each other, but I found enough with each candidate that I did like. Now; unless Obama does some major turnaround, he is no longer an option for me. And the more he talks, the more he turns me off. Now, do I still hold Clinton and McCain in equal comfortable standings? To a point. I am not 100% positive which direction I would go if it was Clinton VS McCain. But I do know that as of today, if it was Obama VS McCain, McCain wins hands down. Obama’s declaration of “CHANGE” in the beginning of his campaign was very compelling and inspirational. Since then, I am not convinced he can accomplish such change, nor if he even knows HOW he would accomplish such change. He’s way too vague for me. In his answers, in his positions, in his voting record, etc… Sorry, but if wins the democratic nomination, McCain gets my vote.</p>

6

<p>Well I doubt Obama will take Hillary, and that Hillary will take Obama!</p>

<p>I also would love to have this question asked to Hillary and Obama…</p>

<p>You say you will remove the troops immediately, what if the Senate does not support your decision and creates a binding bill to slow down your plans, what would you do?</p>

<p>If you remove the troops and IRAQ goes into civil unrest as many pundits predict, what will you do then? Will you bring the troops immediately back or demand neighboring countries to solve the problem? If they say yes, well what will that due to the world economy when gas prices are already so high? Dubai seems to care more about building up their country (literally with the worlds tallest building) than what happens to the world.</p>

<p>I am in no means against bringing the troops home, but both candidates say they will bring them home, but do not address the what ifs?</p>

<p>I think the moderators never go deep enough into the situations.</p>

7

<p>b&p - actually, you didn’t miss anything. It’s not just that Obama didn’t like the questions and is now complaining. I watched it, and believe me, there’s a reason that ABC has been lambasted by thousands and thousands of e-mails and phone calls, not to mention editorials across the country. </p>

<p>These debates are supposedly the national press standing in the place of the people in America who can’t stand in front of the candidates to ask the questions we most want to ask. Facing the choice of who to vote for as leader of the strongest country in the world, would you really spend 52 minutes asking about lapel pins, or about the “association” with a man who has a bad past, but for the past 30 years has devoted himself to academia and community service, but who served on a board with Obama, and donated $200 to him? The Rev Wright thing also. The Wright material is a valid thing to consider when you vote - but did the ABC questions really elicit anything new? So what’s the point of asking for the 100th time.</p>

<p>It wasn’t that Obama shouldn’t be asked questions about everything - it was the lack of proportionality. More than 50% of the debate, all at the front, and primaril directed to Obama, and all about things that either are not issues or have been addressed for months already. </p>

<p>What a waste.</p>

8

<p>Christcorp,</p>

<p>I agree with you, it is about everyone and Obama needs to realize that it looks like he is a spoiled child and running away with his toys when he doesn’t like how someone else is playing.
Obama’s media spin doctor has already said that they will only allow certain reporters to interview him. He also showed his anger with the media when the Wright story broke, by leaving the press conference as soon as he was asked about it. For a man who believes that we should have a transparent govt., he seems to shut out the media if they are not with him.
Look at the national editors convention this past week in DC, the attendees (reporters) gave McCain Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles (his favorite as he remarked) and a standing ovation, had a town hall meeting took all of the q & a’s until there were no more. Obama didn’t receive anything, food or an ovation, sat at a dais and had a formal function, wine, flowers and all. Spent 20 minutes answering questions.
I also forgot to add Laura Bush in my list…remember they called her a murderer for her car accident that killed a friend when she was 18-20 yrs old</p>

<p>Hayden,
I also agree with you. I guess that is why I like town hall debates more. These questions are real questions.
I also feel that the moderators give softball questions to all of them…I am sure it is to insure that a candidate who might get elected won’t ban them from any interviews as a president.
However, I do state if it was the avg American I think we are tired of hearing within the 1st 60 days I will devise a plan on bringing the troops home. Well, that’s great, that means absolutely nothing to me…afterall, you can devise a plan to slowly bring them home over the next 10 yrs, but you did keep your promise, your plan was created and you are bringing home the troops!</p>

9

<p>After 21 debates, what more is there to ask? I think it’s ridiculous. The democratic party is only being hurt by doing this. I think it should stop until the democratic candidate is known.</p>

10

<p>There are a ton of questions I wanted answered!</p>

<p>I have already listed mine about the troops, which have not been addressed!</p>

<p>What about the national health insurance…show me the numbers, because according to the GAO, every single taxpayer will see a 44% increase in their federal withholdings whether or not they have insurance.<br>
According to what I understand about Hillary’s plan I will be forced to buy into the program, even though I have insurance. I want to understand why I would have to do that?
Also according to the GAO, by closingthe corporate tax loopholes that Obama is speaking about will actually cause a deficit. Exxon received 44 Billion in tax loopholes, but actually paid 132 TRILLION in taxes, over the same time period. Without these loopholes to invest in alternative energy, Exxon would most likely decrease their R & D division which in the end would lay off jobs and create more of energy crisis. So if Obama is for closing them, he needs to explain how he believes Exxon would be motivated to keep R & D for alternative energy? Exxon does not answer to the govt, they answer to their shareholders and the bottom line is profit, not expenses. If it is not cost effective, because of the write offs why would they continue…after all they are an OIL COMPANY not an ENERGY COMPANY</p>

<p>Can you actually say that the debates have answered the bottom line? I do not disagree that we have heard the same old tired questions and the same old responses. It is the moderators fault for playing it safe and not delving deeper.</p>

<p>For ABC, I actually give them credit, they asked the questions that the CC has had threads about…many people on the forums have discussed the lapel pin and the pledge, but it was their opinion, now they have heard it from the horses mouth. There was also a thread about Ayers, and posters were talking about it, so obviously Americans felt the need to question why. If there are people wondering about it and there are articles on Drudge and Politico, ABC would have been found at fault for not asking it…it seems to me they would have been seen as too soft to many of their viewers if they didn’t ask it.</p>

11

<p>“If you remove the troops and IRAQ goes into civil unrest as many pundits predict, what will you do then?”</p>

<p>I’m glad that with 168,000 aggressive, hostile occupiers, and spending of upteen billions a month to support it, there is no civil unrest now, and American and Iraqi soldiers can go freely into any neighborhood they want whenever they choose and are welcomed by the locals with flowers and chocolates.</p>

12

<p>Mini, I am believing that is sarcasm.</p>

<p>If not, please forgive my post. As a military spouse, many of the Iraqi citizens are fine with us there. I do resent you stating that military members are “aggressive,hostile occupiers”, you are inferring that they are nothing more than bullies.</p>

<p>My DH has been over to that area 5 times in the last 17 yrs., I also have had several family members in another branch that have been deployed to Iraq. True there are still dangerous areas, but in the areas that are now secure, the Iraqi citizens are not complaining about us…many are profiting from us in financial ways, as they sell to the service members…remove us and their economy will tank…a little known secret, it is encouraged that military members spend money on the economy. Iraqi citizens are now returning in droves, if you want to make a profit check ot their housing market, its booming.</p>

<p>Unless you have a direct family member and or friend on the ground, then don’t believe everything the media is feeding you. Then again I doubt you do, since you classified the troops as aggressive, hostile occupiers</p>

<p>Now if I read into the post too much or wrong my apologies!</p>

13

<p>“I do resent you stating that military members are “aggressive,hostile occupiers”, you are inferring that they are nothing more than bullies.”</p>

<p>I call it as I see it. It isn’t the fault of the troops. They were sent in for the purpose of an aggressive, hostile occupation. More than 65% of Iraqis - Sunni, Shias, and Kurds, men, women, and children, grandmas and grandpas - think it is a good idea to kill Americans. I didn’t say that. Iraqis do. </p>

<p>“Iraqi citizens are now returning in drove.”</p>

<p>False. 30,000 returned prior to last January, and it is now no more than a trickle, even as the ethnic cleansing of entire neighborhoods continues. There are now close to three million internal refugees, 2.2 million abroad. 600,000 to Syria alone between July and October. Medical supplies no longer reach Baghdad hospitals from Jordan, as they are being hijacked by the so-called “Awakening Councils” and sold on the black market.</p>

<p>And, as you saw, when American troops tried to enter Sadr City, and when the troops they were advising tried to enter Basra, they were greeted with open arms.</p>

14

<p>b&p:</p>

<p>The issue of troop removal actually did come up, finally, in the second half.</p>

15

<p>I don’t know where you get your information OP but it is not factual. Obama challenged Clinton to a debate in NC and she has scheduling conflicts and will get back to him on it. He is not afraid of another debate. He wants one. Hopefully next time the moderators will take this opportunity to ask some real questions like the ones posted above.</p>

16

<p>I got mine from the drudge, as I stated, I was looking at media reports, and I take the media with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>Marite, since I didn’t see it, do you remember what they said, or if they answered my questions about not having senate support or how they would handle an uprising? I am just curious…I still have an open mind about changing my vote, if either could answer the deeper questions.</p>

<p>Mini,

…okay so it isn’t the troops fault, but you classify them as

</p>

<p>In essence, you are saying that either, they are stupid for following the administration and being a soldier or they are hired thugs! Which is it? How do you reconcile their actions for following orders?</p>

<p>Primetimemom,
The debate is on hold, here is a snippet from NC

</p>

<p>Prior to the PA debate it was scheduled for April 27th, BTW I have thrown my name in the pot to attend…tickets are lottery</p>

17

<p>In defense (but not very enthusiastic defense) of the moderators, the Wright and “bitterness” issues both arose since the last debate, and Obama can hardly have failed to anticipate that he would be asked to address them. Ditto Clinton and her Bosnia fantasy. She did a better job handling it, because her response essentially didn’t leave room for any response or followup, while Obama’s nuanced answers on his issues did. (Obama has a lot to learn about damage control.) But, yes, disproportionate time was devoted to those and other even more trivial issues.</p>

<p>On the Iraq issue, it could not have been plainer that neither saw the possibility of domestic unrest in Iraq as reason to maintain an American troop presence there. Probably the more interesting question would have been, “What if your intelligence advisors tell you that the likely result of withdrawal will be the effective Iranian takeover of the country within six months?” But they would just respond, "That’s completely hypothetical. I will make it clear to the Iranians . . . "</p>

<p>The Senate alone cannot create a binding law to do anything beyond changing Senate procedural rules. The possibility that Congress would pass, over a Presidential veto, a law restricting withdrawal from Iraq is so fantastic as to not be worth discussing, except in a political science class. (Both candidates would answer: “Of course I will comply with validly enacted laws.”)</p>

18

<p>^^^ great point.</p>

<p>We are all so wrapped in Iraq that we forget that **I’m A Dinner Jacket<a href=“Ahlmindejad”>/B</a> had his parade yesterday showing off his military…reminded me of Russia and May Day</p>

<p>Also this is my point about moderators…let’s not dumb down America. We are all capable of understanding follow through…any President will have to answer to the what ifs, so why not ask them now. I would much rather have the answer to what if, then follow blindly down a road because it was promised to me</p>

19

<p>One of the questions I’d like answered - and we wouldn’t need a debate to address this - is, Who surrounds these candidates, who do they take advice from? There is always in any campaign a certain amount of political posturing in describing the candidates’ position papers, plus there are always circumstances that occur without warning during a presidency that we couldn’t foresee or ask questions about now. Therefore it seems to me in addition to evaluating the presidential candidates, we should look beyond the candidates themselves, and see who else might be in the room if he/she becomes president. We can’t know all of them, but we can identify who’s around them in key spots now, so they often stay on. Look back on Bush, and see how many of the people in senior spots of his campaign turned out to exercise influence on his presidency. I’m not saying it’s not the president who decides; I’m saying that part of the candidate’s judgment can be assessed now by looking at his advisors. Who are they?</p>

20

<p>b&p:</p>

<p>I can’t recall very clearly the major differences re: Iraq. Clinton stuck to her withdrawal starting in 60 days and, in response to the question about generals potentially advising her against such a decision, reminded the audience about civilian control. In other words, the president is CIC, not the generals.
Obama stated his intention to withdraw within 16 months and to heed generals’ advice regarding tactics but not overall policy. </p>

<p>Maybe others can provide more detailed and accurate account.</p>

<p>I was dismayed by the question about flag pins as a means of demonstrating patriotism. But then, I’ve never believed that one who wears his heart on his sleeves feels emotions more deeply than one who does not display them for all to see.</p>

<p>I also disliked the question about Wright’s patriotism. How can Obama answer whether Wright is as patriotic as he? Anyway, Wright is the one who deferred college in order to answer JFK’s call to serve his country and enlisted as a marine. As some bloggers have discovered, Gibson entered college at the same time as Wright and opted to finish. Wright also took time to minister to an ailing LBJ after his return from Vietnam.</p>

<p>Much as I disliked Clinton’s fabrications re: Bosnia, I did not enjoy seeing her squirm, either.</p>