PDA

View Full Version : Hour one of Democratic Debate in a Nutshell



sack316
01-22-2008, 10:18 AM
(please note, this is how the debate from yesterday sounded to me this morning while watching it on CNN. What I hear will surely be different from most others, but as a precious "undecided"-- the way these people come across to me will likely be the way they come across to the key voters that they NEED to be getting across to)


Wolfe: What is your plan (blah blah blah), my actual question doesn’t matter since you will slightly graze my topic to begin, and then go off on a tangent of your own. We’ll start with Mr. Edwards on this one.

Hillary: Me Democrat, me ANGRY! Bush bad man, Hillary smash!

Obama: Ugh, Bush bad man, Billary no good either.

Hillary: Obama bad man, me no like (insert personal jab here).

Obama: Me no bad man, Billary bad lady-man. Me no know who me running against, you or Bill.

Hillary: Me only one here, me run against you. Hillary smash! F** Bush, F** you!

Edwards: Can I play too? I have an actual answer pertaining to….

Obama: No Billary, F** you…….. And F** Bush.

(insert next question here)… we’ll let Mr. Edwards speak here.

Edwards: Well, my daddy….

Hillary: NO! Hillary was good worker, do many good things in her life. Obama bad… Obama begins stating one policy in his career, but then practice another later when convenient to him. Obama political opportunist. F** Bush.

Obama: Me no do that. Billary make my changes seem bad, Obama no like that. Billary bad, Billary corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart while me struggle with people in streets!

CROWD: Oh snap, no he didn’t! Jer-ry Jer-ry Jer-ry!

Hillary: NO! You bad man! My resume is evidence of a strong and experienced career, your resume shows you work with slumlord while “with people on streets”

Edwards: C’mon guys, I really wanna play too! My daddy…. Here in South Carolina…

(note: Edwards must watch wrestling, as he is using the tactic of stating the location he is currently in to get a “pop” I suppose.)

Hillary or Obama: (Interrupts Edwards again and graze more topics as they do more Bush bashing and take shots at each other)

Repeat previous processes over and over.

General Q & A summary (applies to mostly Hillary and Obama, as Edwards didn’t get to say a whole lot in relation to the others).

Question: What is your solution to (blank)?

Answer: I’ll make it better

Question: How?

Answer: I dunno, I’ll spew off a few words then bash my opponent and close with a jab at Bush. The crowd applauses, that’s how this works.



Final assessment: Edwards actually seemed to best stay on topic and answer specific questions when allowed to speak. Obama was probably the most eloquent speaker, and Hillary showed the most brass. But IMO they spent too much time bashing each other and bashing Bush. None of y’all like Bush, I get it… move on and stop using it to get applause. I went into watching the debate as more of one of those precious “undecided” people, but found myself really disappointed within the first half an hour. I couldn’t listen to Obama and Hillary take shots at each other anymore and would really like to have heard Edwards more. I’m not sure if it was because I was liking what he said more, or if happened to be a matter of “he who says least says most”.

Hour one has just ended, and Wolf has now informed us that the in the next part all the “rules” will go out the window and will be much more informal. I didn’t realize there were “rules” to that first hour, or that it was intended to be formal. I don’t know if I’ll be able to make it through the next part to be honest with you. For people that spend too much time looking at criticizing Bush as a rogue cowboy that doesn’t follow the rules, they sure did a bad job of following the format and the rules of a simple debate.

Now I know my friends on the left will surely tell me how I heard this debate wrong, and try to tell me what they were really trying to say. But please remember that the people such as yourselves are who are already supporting them, and will continue to do so to the end. The people they need to be getting their messages across to ARE people such as myself… and in that respect they did a horrible job.

At this point I say they just whip it out and see whos is bigger, and that person gets the nomination.

Sack

Part 2 beginning now, if it gets any better I’ll be happy to amend this thread to reflect that. But from what I’ve read about the debate from yesterday, it probably won’t.

Deeman3
01-22-2008, 10:21 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
01-22-2008, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr>
At this point I say they just whip it out and see whos is bigger, and that person gets the nomination.

Sack

<hr /></blockquote>

I would be afraid Hillary would win that one too!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
Steve

LWW
01-22-2008, 11:27 AM
Scary ain't it.

LWW

sack316
01-22-2008, 11:46 AM
OK, now I'll admit hour two was some better. But if I were Wolf I think I woulda had to get up there and smack somebody. I do have to say it was, if nothing else, and extremely entertaining debate to watch. But then again I also enjoy a good episode of WWE Monday Night Raw... so take that for what it's worth.

I saw a lot of contradicitons, though. IE, "I'd like to better unify the country; I'd like to battle the evil side of this country" for example. Also somethings akin to:
"I don't wanna make this an election about race, but let me say this about race"
"I don't want this to be about gender, but I wanna say this about gender"
"I just wanna be able to say anything at all"

As a person who considers myself not in the dem party, what I fail to understand fully is why the two front runners are the two front runners for the bid? I mean, I see the fact that Hillary and Obama will obviously recieve more press coverage than any candidate from any party... but politics doesn't have the same "there's no such thing as bad press" principles that other avenues have. IF the dems want to retake the white house, then why on earth is Edwards not "the man"? He MAY not be the best candidate within the party, but he may be the best candidate to run for the presidency. It seems he would be the easiest to get elected in the long run. I hope this doesn't come off as offensive to anyone, and I assure you it is not intended to be, but doesn't having a black man or a woman as your candidate present the possibility of fracturing support within the democtatic community? Gayle, please don't jump on me for that /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif, I know your vote and support will be for Hillary all the way, but isn't it possible the Joe Blow slightly-left-leaning-voter come November may simply "not vote for the woman"... and thus hurt the party's chances to win? Same theory applies to Obama. I'm not saying that's the way it is, I honestly don't know... just looking at the possibility. I do realize that there are polls out in which (roughly) 65-70% of Americans say the country is ready for a black or female president. Awesome, that sounds good. But doesn't sound so good when looked at as there are roughly 135 million americans who DON'T feel the country is ready.

Seems to me that Edwards would garner the support from the left because the left wants their own in office, AND he would stand the greatest chance of getting voters from the right that are swaying a bit with the way things are being run on that side... a combination that I honestly don't feel either of the other candidates could attain (lets face it, racism and sexism are ignorant... but they are still alive and well and WOULD play a role in the elction... it isn't right, but unfortunately it's true).

OK, now putting face value aside. Edwards really just came off the best out of all of them anyway. Obama and Hillary bickered at each other TOO much (granted Edwards joined in some, but not nearly to the extent that they did), Obama seemed a little too confident, almost to the point of cockyness in his body language and expression. Hillary seemed too abrasive (which in reality IS probably a good thing in office, but probably not so much in campaining). Edwards seemed the most "real". He came off as accessible and was a little more relateable. Maybe that's just me since I have lived in Alabama since I was born.

At any rate, I consider myself more along the lines of your average voter. I know enough about politics to have a basic understanding of what's going on, but become quite ignorant to the process when compared to the likes of Gayle, for example. Kind of akin to an average art consumer who may not know what they like, but they know what they don't hate. I fall in that nice 28-35 demographic that is lower middle class, has just enough to get by but feels the pinch and the struggle at times. And personally, of the three, Edwards as of right now is the only one I could see myself possibly supporting.

Now I know the fight right now is an attempt to just get the democratic nod--- but seems to me a lot of what is being said and done may be a little TOO shortsighted. The battle between Obama and Hillary will surely get one of them the nomination, but come November most of what is being said NOW will be brought back up, and could potentially isolate and limit the amount of support they get from outside the left side.

JMHO here: the dems MAY get back the white house, but it seems they are gonna make it much more of a struggle than it really should be this time around for them to do so.

Sack

p.s. to be fair, both parties are mucking it up. Dems for some previous reasons mentioned. The right is seemingly towards McCain, a same old ho-hum run of the mill republican candidate, at a time when 4 out of 5 of us SAY we want some kind of change. Whoever eventually decides to be the crazy independent this time... well would probably still come in third... but come a little closer /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

SKennedy
01-22-2008, 12:45 PM
Ron Paul is looking better and better....and that's kind of scary!