CNN debate follow-up

Gurgin and Schneider on LK- "No clear winner"

Said Clark took hits and Lieberman looked good (?)

Lots of people watched their schlocky excuse for a debate. The candidates were all ill-served by the "format".

Clark was great, we need to cut some of these candidates out. I just don't know who.

and don't know the format.

There was some reference to the possible existence of an underlying rationale, but it was not consistently applied in any part of the debate for any length of time.

The candidate who did best was Al Sharpton, because he gave specific props to the other candidates and didn't take Judy Woodruff's interruptive bullshit.

what either one of these assholes has to say. Schneider commenting none of them can compare to Clinton; didn't connect with the audience. He can go *&^% himself.

openly hostile. Often the camera caught Woodruff with an open look of disgust on her face when watching a candidate speak.

Greenfield, for his part, was asking questions designed to humiliate. One was translatable as: "Don't you agree that the Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream American values?"

No attempt at fairness was made, in allotment of time. 90 minutes, 9 candidates ==> each candidate should have gotten about 10 minutes of face time. Kucinich & Sharpton probably got 2 minutes COMBINED.

They didn't talk about issues much. All I remember from it is the battle royale between them. Not productive overall.

all of the sudden, Clinton is GREAT! No one on the stage is Bill Clinton! Yep, Schneider and Gergen praising Bill Clinton and his economic success, and since a groper and womanizer Republican was just elected as governor of California, Clinton's "personal failure as President" is fading.

:puke:

Surprised? Blah blah blah, they're too partisan, can't beat Bush, blah blah blah

picking the candidate for us.

The Dems missed a great opportunity on the 'why do they hate us' question. Answer: they don't hate US, they hate our increasing militaristic imperialism.

to say that about "militaristic imperialism!" That would have been bashing Bush! Woodruff made that clear: they weren't to criticize Bush for our sorry standing in the world.

Mosley-Braun and Kucinich got to answer that one. None of the front runners were given the chance.

Notice how the "right" answer is marginalized by having the two lowest polling candidates answer it.

CNN would never be so openly hostile to BushCo.

Woodruff: Mr. President. Some of your detractors think the world hates us. What is your response?

Bush: The world loves us because of our freedoms. Some of them hate us because of our freedoms. I want to protect our freedoms and will attack anyone who threatens them. (Squint, smirk, squint.)

Woodruff. Thank you Mr. PResident. I think you have cleared up that question for all of us.

MzPip
:dem:

I think I'd rather they kept the analysts away and gone all Kobe.

"Eisenhauer won Europe, Clark won Kosovo"

Critical of overall "attack" mode. Both agree!

What planet are these guys on? Schneider mused about how disappointed Clinton would be.

What makes Dean succesful? - He had courage re: Iraq, now seems prophetic. Students see his inner steel! Yip!

I surfed off and all day--from MSNBC CNN and Fox. You expect Fox to be down on Clark--He is Bushes's worse nightmare., All day long "we have abojut seen the end of Clark". Clarkies we have to hang in there and fight. I do not mean to be ugly but it was obvious the establishment canddiates were permitted to hog the show. It is no wonder Schneider said Gephardt. He was given so much time relative to others. Lieberman will not get my vote after his obnoxious behavior and his self-righteousness. The media always selecs our candidates. Gephardt and Lieberman ae their choice.

You can throw Kerry in with those two as well.

Have been wary of Clark, but he and Dean do compliment each other. Could've been a winning combo.

Look at the congressional members lining up behind him.

..don't want to listen to two conservatives rant about a Dem debate. It would have been enlightening if they had included someone from the left.

This was just sort of thrown in as an after thought- Before an earth shattering Koby Bryant program!

the repubes must have enough dirt to bury howard... otherwise, why would they keep begging dems to nominate him?

OK, cheap shot. But that's the obvious answer.

with the homophobe vote.

Seriously, they all had something to add,
even with Kerry's and Lieberman's outright divisiveness.
May the best person win.

Judy, Greenfield, and Crowley sucked.
Judy especially sucked and was a b..i...well, you know the drill.

It seems like the moderators were attacks dogs
on Rove's leash hell bent to make our folks look bad.

Can I get a WTF?

:wtf:

I said can I get a WTF?

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Ok then...

that person is the clear nightmare for BushCo.

I agree that the format was a big part of the problem. How dare CNN dictate the format.

Candy Crowley? Give me a break:puke:

Their analysis then...

Clinton based on the debate performance was..."subdued".
Kerrey...who ultimately did miserable in New Hampshire, came out into his own during the debate.
Tsongas held his position has the New Hampshire frontrunner in the CNN debate.
And Harkin and Brown didn't make an impact.

The only intelligent commentary came from Bernard Shaw, who stated everyone of these candidates tonight was beginning to look like a President. He then asked..."Jerry Brown is he really the wild card everyone else makes him out to be?"

But unlike today's anchors he did not inject his opinion, but merely presented his unbiased postdebate analysis as the debate moderator. He finally ended the debate comments with a message on the importance of voting, he asked..."remember if we don't vote, what right do we have to complain?"

He also pointed out that the debate format was worked out and agreed on by all the participating candidates, prior to the debate.

A far cry from what we see on CNN today!

they have no class! they are obvious mediawhores who are propogandists for the corporatist power! It killed David Bloom and many many others.

It was unfair as far as time to any candidate. Some of the questions were set to make anyone look bad who answered some of them. The commentators were not objective and in the face of the candidates. Worst setup for a debate I have seen in the last 45 years. In other words it SUCKED:puke:

It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at CNN, when Fox News can run a more fair and balanced debate. Perhaps you thought that the format, or lack there of, would spice up the proceedings and draw in ratings. What you'll find that while you may have received a one time boost, your subsequent viewership will drop as longtime viewers like myself turn elsewhere for news. I am an avowed Independant, and not a fan of the Democratic Party, but I do try to keep reasonably informed. There are times for entertainment news and times for focusing on serious issues. FOX News understands that difference, you apparantly no longer do. Your debate tonight was a disgrace. You've done a disservice to democracy and fair-minded people everywhere. I will be waiting patiently for your forthcoming apology, but don't expect me to tune in to hear it.


(My somewhat dishonest letter to CNN. I feel so evil. ;-) )

The CNN debate format was terrible -- the pundits and audience had more speaking time than the candidates. The Fox debate format was better.

When it comes to news, however, Fox and "serious issues" do not belong in the same sentence. Fox News coverage is a joke. If you dislike CNN that much, switch to CNBC or the networks, or stick with the Internet.

You missed the 'somewhat dishonest' admission. (Hint: I don't really like Fox News).