This is nothing more than an overglorified press conference with poor reporters asking the questions. There's hardly any clash between the candidates at all.
The questions are horrible, the time limits on the answers are horrible. How is it that they give more time to people to ask the questions than the candidates get to answer them?
I agree Fran!
The questions were horrible.
I came away from this "debate" admiring Dean much more than I ever have. Kucinich did a good job as well.
Clark lost me when he talked about "family values" what was that all about?
Clark lost me when he talked about "family values" what was that all about?
This is something that Clark devotes a good amount of time explaining in his campaign rallies that you can't really cut down to a minute.
The debate was horrible because there was no clash at all. How many questions did candidates get, six or so each? Really, it was a horrible format, the reporters were horrible, the questions were horrible. Giving candidates such short periods of time to answer the questions was also bad. I know there are a lot of candidates that need to get their policies out there, but you found out very little about anything the candidates were really about. Very poorly run.
For Clark specifically, he mainly had to answer questions about whether he was a Democrat or not. What great questions.
Then they ask him about an accusation a supporter (Michael Moore) made about Bush at a rally *I* was at. What did they expect Clark to say? The Fox people obviously thought that Clark should have stood up for President Bush, as shown in the aftermath of the 'debate'. You have Fred Barnes saying that Clark was the 'big loser' because he wouldn't bash Michael Moore? What a joke. He got 1 policy question because of the two 'You're not a really a Democrat, are you?' questions.
well part of running for president is debates, all kinds.
clark has probably been doing mock debates for weeks now, i agree the questions were lame, all the more reason he shouldn't have hit them out of the park.
You had Brit Hume from Fox News, the news anchor of WMUR (which is conservative), an editor from the Manchester Union Leader (very conservative), and Peter Jennings for ABC since WMUR is an ABC affiliate (Mr. Run-on question).
So for the most part, the moderators were really conservative. I didn't like that while Lieberman, Kerry, and Dean were getting some policy questions, Clark was getting, "Are you really a Democrat?". It was serious amateur hour at that debate.
Had I been running it, I would have had candidates speak for 5 or 6 minutes to the public, then give each other candidate a chance to respond to that candidate for 1-2 minutes. Then Kerry would get a few minutes to respond to all the candidates. I would have based who spoke first on the polls, meaning John Kerry would have spoken first, then would have had a rebuttal by Dean, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, Kucinich, and Sharpton, then give Kerry a few minutes to respond to them. After that, Dean would have given a 5-6 minute speech, followed by rebuttals from Kerry, Clark, etc.
That way, there would have been some conflicts, some ways to differentiate between the candidates. The way it was, that 'debate' was nothing more than an overglorified press conference, only the media was asking horrible questions and expected their answers in a minute or less.
I know! Let's get all the candidates in a room together and call it a debate!
Sharpton lost my respect when he began attacking other candidates. It's widely rumored that Sharpton is running to gain power and co-opt Jesse Jackson's "leadership" in the black community. Although Jesse Jackson has not endorsed any candidates, has said more than good things about Dean. His son, Jesse Jackson jr., is a Dean supporter.
Comments
Originally posted by Fran441
Well, forget calling this a 'debate'.
This is nothing more than an overglorified press conference with poor reporters asking the questions. There's hardly any clash between the candidates at all.
The questions are horrible, the time limits on the answers are horrible. How is it that they give more time to people to ask the questions than the candidates get to answer them?
I agree Fran!
The questions were horrible.
I came away from this "debate" admiring Dean much more than I ever have. Kucinich did a good job as well.
Clark lost me when he talked about "family values" what was that all about?
Fellows
Originally posted by Existence
It's over for Clark.
yeah, the "poor reporters" tripped him up pretty good.
put a fork in him.
Clark lost me when he talked about "family values" what was that all about?
This is something that Clark devotes a good amount of time explaining in his campaign rallies that you can't really cut down to a minute.
The debate was horrible because there was no clash at all. How many questions did candidates get, six or so each? Really, it was a horrible format, the reporters were horrible, the questions were horrible. Giving candidates such short periods of time to answer the questions was also bad. I know there are a lot of candidates that need to get their policies out there, but you found out very little about anything the candidates were really about. Very poorly run.
Then they ask him about an accusation a supporter (Michael Moore) made about Bush at a rally *I* was at. What did they expect Clark to say? The Fox people obviously thought that Clark should have stood up for President Bush, as shown in the aftermath of the 'debate'. You have Fred Barnes saying that Clark was the 'big loser' because he wouldn't bash Michael Moore? What a joke. He got 1 policy question because of the two 'You're not a really a Democrat, are you?' questions.
Michael Moore has already posted a response;
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
clark has probably been doing mock debates for weeks now, i agree the questions were lame, all the more reason he shouldn't have hit them out of the park.
i like clark, but he screwed the pooch tonight.
Originally posted by Fran441
This is something that Clark devotes a good amount of time explaining in his campaign rallies that you can't really cut down to a minute.
"Family Values?"
I can say that I have clearly seen better debates here in our very own AO.
It is a shame that this "debate" tonight was the failure it was.
Fellows
Hmm. Who's standing in right in the center, a head and shoulder above the rest? Aren't the taller candidates historically more electable? Go Kerry.
Originally posted by Eugene
Hmm. Who's standing in right in the center, a head and shoulder above the rest? Aren't the taller candidates historically more electable? Go Kerry.
Tell that to Bill Bradley.
Originally posted by Existence
Tell that to Bill Bradley.
Legacy beats height, I guess. Gore's no slouch either.
they broadcast it, but was it their debate? did they organize it?
so why was peter jennings there and why was there a plug for nightline on it?
i don't think it was a fox debate.
So for the most part, the moderators were really conservative. I didn't like that while Lieberman, Kerry, and Dean were getting some policy questions, Clark was getting, "Are you really a Democrat?". It was serious amateur hour at that debate.
Had I been running it, I would have had candidates speak for 5 or 6 minutes to the public, then give each other candidate a chance to respond to that candidate for 1-2 minutes. Then Kerry would get a few minutes to respond to all the candidates. I would have based who spoke first on the polls, meaning John Kerry would have spoken first, then would have had a rebuttal by Dean, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, Kucinich, and Sharpton, then give Kerry a few minutes to respond to them. After that, Dean would have given a 5-6 minute speech, followed by rebuttals from Kerry, Clark, etc.
That way, there would have been some conflicts, some ways to differentiate between the candidates. The way it was, that 'debate' was nothing more than an overglorified press conference, only the media was asking horrible questions and expected their answers in a minute or less.
I know! Let's get all the candidates in a room together and call it a debate!
Originally posted by Existence
Sharpton lost my respect when he began attacking other candidates. It's widely rumored that Sharpton is running to gain power and co-opt Jesse Jackson's "leadership" in the black community. Although Jesse Jackson has not endorsed any candidates, has said more than good things about Dean. His son, Jesse Jackson jr., is a Dean supporter.
he had it before all this
Originally posted by Eugene
Hmm. Who's standing in right in the center, a head and shoulder above the rest? Aren't the taller candidates historically more electable? Go Kerry.