<p>Canned speeches and “policy papers” will tell us all we need to know about the candidates–this is the “trial by fire” you just espoused? LOL.</p>
<p>Yes, the Firefighters Convention-- the one Rudy <em>evilly</em> “snubbed”–will tell us what we need to know. Fair and balanced. LOL.</p>
<p>These candidates are afraid to face Brit Hume, and I’m supposed to vote for any one of them to be Commander in Chief of my country? LOL.</p>
<p>Eleven candidates felt it was worthwhile for them to address the firefighters convention. Six Democrats and five Republicans.</p>
<p>Those who chose not to address the firefighters are probably telling us something instructive about themselves as candidates.</p>
<p>Where are your candidates going to get their “trial by fire” do you think, which is an essential part of the process as a “precursor to the difficulty of the job?” The New York Times? CNN? NBC? Katie? Soledad? Brian? Charlie? Diane? C-Span? Certainly not CC, a venue in which we can’t raise any questions about HRH without being called sexist. 
Frankly, Chris Matthews has asked the toughest questions of dem candidates I’ve seen on tv, and he is regularly creamed on mediamatters.org. Gosh, they don’t seem to like him there. (<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200704280003[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200704280003</a>)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As those who choose not to appear at debates hosted by Fox are probably telling us something instructive about themselves as candidates.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not too impressed with canned speeches either. Even I could slide and slither through that format easily. I’m more interested in seeing and hearing them ALL answer real questions, substantive questions. And I mean actually answer the questions - not sleaze out of it with stupid blather like “I’m not going to answer hypotheticals” or “Iraq is very bad” etc.</p>
<p>Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, they could stop lying, too. Or, if they’re going to lie, at least say something entertainining or perhaps even just somewhat less obviously dishonest or made-up on the spot. </p>
<p>Makes one wonder - pretend for a minute there was no war in Iraq. I wonder what Hillary would come up with to talk about, let alone have a foundation for running for office…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like you are really going to get substantive questions from Wolf Blitzer or Britt Hume!</p>
<p>Here’s one: “Raise your hand if you would you use US military force in Darfur? No explanations allowed, please.”</p>
<p>That’s a question that cannot be answered yes or no without definition of “US military force”, which covers the range from refugee assistance to preemptive nuclear strikes.</p>
<p>I heard a lot of nuanced substantive discussion in the most recent Democratic debate. For example, on health care, Sen. Clinton answered that the key is getting the support of all parties, including the doctors, nurses, hospitals, and insurance providers. That’s a very different answer that Edwards or Obama gave, answers that presume a magic wand for enactment of legislation. However, it does take a level of sophistication to pick up on the nuances of candidate answers.</p>
<p>In that case, lucky for me I guess, it requires only the basic listening skills such as what the average 12 year old might possess to pick up on the lies, smoke screens and general displays of ignorance.</p>
<p>
LOL!!!
You see, LtS, Hillary is not the Problem. You and your sad lack of sophistication are the problem. No human could possibly dislike Hillary if he is sophisticated & capable of picking up on nuance. Perhaps for the duration of the campaign, you could communicate daily with interesteddad so he can form your opinions for you. You seem so feeble minded that you can’t be trusted to navigate the debates without guidance, much less be allowed to vote. You might pull the wrong lever!</p>
<p>Well, sadly, I guess ID is right - after all, I AM registered to vote in (gasp!!!) Florida…I guess, in my feeble minded condition, I’ve been pulling the wrong lever for a very long time, right along with all my friends and neighbors lol.</p>
<p>Somehow, though, this one remote memory (am I imagining this?) keeps trying to creep through the fog that is my unsophisticated brain - didn’t Hillary already go down the road of working on health care once, the last time she was president? I’m too confused to remember, someone help me out, how did her efforts on this issue work out for everyone…</p>
<p>I haven’t read this whole thread, but I’d like to see the candidates on the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. That’s where the real questions get asked.</p>
<p>Yeah, how <em>dare</em> she be anything but a PR prop when her husband was president? Doesn’t she know her place? </p>
<p>So she tried to get involved in health care and got her nose bloodied for her efforts. No one can say that health care isn’t a major issue. And from her recent statements, she learned a lot from the process, which is more than you can say about the current administration, which appears to learn nothing from any experience. </p>
<p>And there’s certainly a double-standard operating here. “She’s robotic…calculating…cold…she doesn’t respect her self because she stayed with Bill.” Feh. I don’t care if anyone loathes Hillary and won’t vote for her, but these kinds of arguments to ratify their decisions are weak and silly.</p>
<p>If she were male, all of it wouldn’t amount to a thimble-full of spit. Looking at our current Doofus-in-chief, the contrast between Hillary and this ignorant, incompetent, shallow, ham-fisted, idiot whose idea of “bi-partisanship” is to smile and do it his way, the comparisons certainly favor Hillary. </p>
<p>Would I want to be trapped on a desert island with her? Probably not. Do I think she possesses the skill set and temperament to be a good president of the United States? Yes. Which is why after contemplating the field I finally sent her my first donation of this campaign cycle just before I left on vacation.</p>
<p>
–longtime associate of the Clintons, with whom Hil consulted in her quest for the White House. (Bernstein’s book)</p>
<p>That sums it up for a lot of people, I think.</p>
<p>BTW, for those of you who want a little more serious candidate interview without a requirement for 30 second show of hand yes/no answers, this is an interesting session. It’s the CEO. of Google interviewing Sen. Clinton for 45 minutes in the “Women@Google” lecture series:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYKIsJwi2c[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYKIsJwi2c</a></p>
<p>I find these kinds of events along with the “town hall” formats, to provide the best opportunity to hear candidates riff on a theme.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the subtleties in the debate answers that I mentioned was the way the top three candidates answered the health care question. While Obama and Edwards traded barbs on specific provisions of their health care “plans”, Clinton’s answer was that plans don’t mean anything if you can’t get them enacted and that the real key to the issue must be forging concensus and compromise among all of the constituencies, even if that means approaching the issue on an incremental basis. It’s easy to throw red meat to the base and promise universal health care in a hundred days, but any veteran Washington observer knows that’s empty rhetoric. Clinton’s answer was the only realistic comment and it comes from the tire tracks on her back from her rookie mistake of overreaching the first time.</p>
<p>BTW. Veteran Washington observers already know that Clinton is back-dooring universal health care with her strong support for the SCHIP program. Start with the kids. Move from the poverty line to double the poverty line to four times the poverty line, and so forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a childish view of the world. It’s like kids daring each other and calling each other chicken. I would hate our country to be run by people who are so easily manipulated that they go charging in everytime someone with a case of arrested development calls them yellow.</p>
<p>Fox News is not a legitimate journalistic outfit, period; it’s an infotainment station and all too often a misinfotainment station. The candidates are under no obligation to provide it with free content.</p>
<p>If their principled stand costs them the votes of a few 12 year olds, so be it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously you didn’t see the Fox news Republican debate. It was by far the most professionally run debate with the most germaine questions along with the correct measure of in-depth follow-up. The other networks should learn from how the Fox team did it - especially Chris Mathews.</p>
<p>Sorry, FF, but them doing a good job to showcase the candidates they support doesn’t suddenly erase their track record of serially misinforming their viewers.</p>
<p>Fox News most certainly IS a legitimate news outlet, period. Talk about living in a bubble. Anyone who doesn’t realize this is not in touch–pure and simple (which obviously includes HRC and the rest of the Dem candidates).</p>
<p>HRC has a latest Gallup poll 50% disapproval rating–she can’t win unless this changes. You people are clueless (on multiple levels), which is why I refuse to vote for you. You can’t run winning campaigns and you’re still living in a dream world–“Faux News.” If it weren’t so sad, it’d be laughable.</p>
<p>So you felt it was legitimate for them to run tape of Conyers in a story about Bill Jefferson’s indictment? Then, when confronted, to apologize for “running the wrong tape” but–refuse to inform their viewers that the man they showed, Conyers, hadn’t been indicted of anything?</p>
<p>…only finally telling the truth in a second “apology” when confronted by numerous outlets?</p>
<p>You felt it was legitimate to identify Mark Foley as a Democrat repeatedly when his story was in the news and never issue a retraction?</p>
<p>You think it’s just coincidence that people who get their news only from Fox tend overwhelmingly to believe that WMD were found in Iraq?</p>
<p>It’s sad all right. Sad that anyone supports this kind of thing over real journalism. I guess it’s easy to see why you’re a 28%-er.</p>
<p>It amazes me the people who say they hate Hillary because of how she responded when her husband was unfaithful–yet support serial adulterers like Giuliani.</p>
<p>I can’t even imagine the kind of misogynist calculations that go into that kind of gyration.</p>
<p>Conyat, I don’t “hate” her. She doesn’t mean that much to me. I just don’t see her as presidential material, and it’s also the issue of having them both back in the WH. But also, putting everything aside - forget all about that, I do not see what she has actually accomplished, in her own right, under her own name, that qualifies her to be president, or for that matter, qualifies her for ANYTHING. </p>
<p>I’m not sold on Rudy, either. He did a fair enough job with 9/11, given that it was unprecedented, etc. But I am not sure that he has the CV to be president. In fact, I wonder if perhaps the events of 9/11, and his up-close and personal experience in NYC, and the fact that that would have to be imprinted on his psych forever, wouldn’t be a liability for the more global visionary he needs to be in order to lead the country forward. </p>
<p>I would rather there be a forward-thinking, sensing and feeling president, one that doesn’t have the nightmare that is 9/11 rolling around in their head, one that doesn’t have tire tracks on their back, etc. That is why I am thinking that Obama or Romney might be a better fit. </p>
<p>The issue is that we need a president who is truly a leader, dignified, presidential, no weird baggage, who can engage in positive relationships with the rest of the world, make net gain progress in domestic issues, but at the same time keep the country safe from terrorists and their very real intentions and plans to attack again. I don’t really see that yet totally in any of the current possibilities and Obama or Romney is as close as I see it, but, as others have pointed out those two have their liabilities as well. </p>
<p>Surely with all the talent in this country we can come up with better choices…</p>
<p>As to tolerating Rudy’s maritial issues, at least he did divorce the women. He didn’t stay glued to unhealthy relationships - he moved on. I’ll respect that any day over someone who clings to their mate out of pathetic desperation.</p>