Monday, June 4, 2007
Debatees
I realize the implications of what I am about to state are conspiratorial to say the least. But, CNN, the sponsor of the Democratic Party's debate claims that the stage positioning of the potential nominees were placed absolutely at random. Still, two of the most compelling debaters, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were front and center, side by side no less. Coincidental?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Wow, very interesting observation. Never even thought about them being strategically placed. I doubt that is a coincidence. Not only like you said about them being the most compelling debaters, they are also minorities that aren't often seen as candidates...a woman and an ethnic minority.
If it is coincidental it worked out pretty well For Obama and Clinton. I just hope the Democratic party don't tie the voter's hands by putting in a candidate that the country is not ready for. This would force the vote to go to the Republicans. I have always been an "on-the-line" person when it comes to pilitics. I like to listen to what the individuals have to say before I cast my vote. I am registered Democrat but have voted for Republicans at various times (Arnold for Governor for example). I think this country has some serious issues and it goes way beyond terrorism and Iraq. The environment our kids are raised in, the violence and crime that our current justice system does not prevent, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, price gouging, commercial fraud and embezzlement of tax payor's money (ENRON, oil companies), sexist media controlled by men and using women as marketing tools... I would of thought that having a first lady who was a teacher prior to the president taking office would have addressed some of these issues in a big way. Surely she knows first hand that there are problems starting during childhood. I am very disappointed by the current president's decisions and actions. I firmly believe that our gas issue is because the current president and vice president have ties to the oil companies, hence they are making a profit off of this price gouging that we Californians are encountering. I get tired of hearing both parties (Democrat and Republican) blaming everything on the other party. Some of the radio shows my friends listen to are extreme one way or the other and bag on the other party rather than offer solutions to these issues. I see this as a form of ignorance - not everything either party does it right or wrong. I would like to see a candidate state what the problems are in the United States and then state some possible solutions - I am tired of hearing how bad of a job Bush has done, tell me how you would make the country a better place to live!
Would the issues were debated so thoroughly as the height of the podium on which a presidential candidate stands to debate.
Sharky, what kind of candidate do you think Americans might be ready for?
Would that candidate address the issues that concern you?
How should the issues be addressed?
Are our elections somehow off-track?
I think all candidates are equal in terms of politics. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected she would be the first woman president - that may be too much for some people stuck on the traditional presidential mode presented thus far in history. Obama would be the first African American president and again goes against the image presented thus far in history. I do not watch many debates anymore - when the candidates start sniping other candidates or the current president I turn them off. I do not like the art of mudslinging although it has been effective in political campaigns throughout history. Some of the issues that concern me are discussed, even more is spelled out on websites or interviews posted in magazines or shown on television. I peruse these to get an idea of where the candidate says their loyalty lays. Unfortunately, you know as well as I that many things are said to get elected and not everything is addressed or the new president proposes solutions to issues that are shot down.
I think the elections are playing on the non-traditional candidates. I think either Obama or Clinton would make a good president. They each bring something different to the white house.
Instead of a candidate stating what issues are important to them I would like to see proposed solutions. Al Gore was very good at this as evident in his video "An Inconvenient Truth."
All candidates equal? That sounds complicated. Are they equal in that none of them has said anything clear about issues?
These are probably democrats debating en route to the primaries, right? So we have Ms C & Obama. Obama voted against invading Iraq from the start. That's a difference. I haven't heard anything clear about health care, economic or social issues or election reform. Have you?
What about election reform, folks? Those with an interest might check out Greg Palast, the author of the bestseller Armed Madhouse.
Is there any way we can cut those lobbyists out of the process? What would happen if the government were to provide limited funds for campaigning and ban private donations?
Would that help or hurt?
I certainly haven't heard anything clear about health care. And it seems to me that election reform doesn't benefit the Democratic Party as it represents half of the "two party" system that seems to want to have nothing to do with a truly relevant or compelling third party candindate.
Post a Comment