Cyrena, I would respectfully disagree with your continued support for the corporatist charleton, Barack Obama.  Setting aside the fact that his wife was on the board of directors of Wal Mart up until he declared his candidacy, setting aside the corporate dollars that have flowed to his campaign coffers, the plain and simple fact is that Sen. Obama voted for “every” war funding bill until this last one.  At a time when Dennis Kucinich noted that the previous bill, which Bush vetoed was a sham that would permit a continuation of the war beyond the end of the Bush presidency, Obama went on TV and lied, claiming that they did not have the votes to cut off funds.  The truth—Congress could have cut off funds merely by blocking any legislation that contained it—either by 41 votes in the Senate (all that it takes to maintain a filibuster) or by a simple majority in the House.  (While Edwards is no longer in the Senate, he stated he would have voted in support of the funding bill as well.)

During the Senate negotiations over the first (vetoed) bill, an effort was made to attach an amendment that would prevent the President from using the funds to invade Iran, but that was voted down.  How could Obama support that bill without it?

Both the previous bill which Obama supported and the latest bill that he and Hillary quietly voted against as a matter of political expedience contained amongst the so-called “earmarks” a provision mandating that Iraq pass a hydrocarbon law that would essentially turn over Iraq’s oil to the likes of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and BP.  That is not only what this war is about, it is what the so-called Democratic “leadership” as well as the Bush regime are all about.

I am sorry, Cerena, but it appears you have been sold on a packaged image.  Obama speaks of hope, but does not offer a repeal of NAFTA and the WTO, devices through which a wealthy elite have outsourced America’s manufacturing base in search of cheap foreign labor as the remnants of American labor has been left to be Wal-Martized.  He speaks of fairness, then offers a sham “universal healthcare” package that is but a variation on the healthcare insurer subsidy schemes of Clinton and Edwards.

Forget the debates.  Forget the commercials and the packaging.  Go to the web sites.  Examine the specifics.  You will find that there is only one candidate who, on issue-after-issue, sides with the vast majority of the electorate (the middle and working classes).  His name is Dennis Kucinich.

Just a response in the general line of things, but regarding these candidates, (and particularly Obama because he is the newest to the scence) is the thought that outside of these obviously manipulated debates, (that don’t even ask good questions) they do present a more comprehensive picture of what their ideology really is. And, unless we have some background on that, these debates don’t tell us what we need to know.

An example of how these snipets confuse people, is the suggestion that Obama has somehow claimed to support the invasion of Iran. I haven’t heard him say that, and I’ve been listening closely, because I want to know what he thinks about that. I know it wouldn’t hurt Hillary’s feelings anymore than invading Iraq did, but Obama has not gone on record as saying that he would support such an invasion, since he did just vote against continuing to fund the Iraq catastrophe, why would anyone assume that he has decided such a thing would be acceptable?

When he said that he voted against the war in Iraq, because he didn’t believe in dumb wars, he was making a few points I think, and he probably should have articulated it better, since he is an attorney, and it would have been just as easy to say that he was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq because it was ILLEGAL, and a violation of International Law and our own Constitution. Maybe he should have explained that in the context with action in Afghanistan, which made some sense. We got attacked. Intelligence put the perpetrators in Afghanistan, and so it was right and just to go after them in that location. Iraq on the other hand, was a DUMB move/war, since they didn’t have anything to do with the attack, or the terrorists that DID perpetrate the attack. So…that made it a very dumb, not to mention ILLEGAL action, that has continued to be illegal to this day.

It does NOT automatically follow, that he’s up for attacking Iran. That plan was in the works long before Obama ever hit the scene, and so to put it all in perspective, we have to hear more.

In respect to Obama, I think he’s just as sincere, (or from the heart) as Kucinich is, and I think we have to be just as careful of rejecting charasmatic “looking” people as we are of rejecting people that don’t have the other expected “media” look. In other words, we can’t immediately dismiss somebody just because they are intelligent, articulate, charasmatic, or allegedly “smooth”.

Barack is still evolving “politically” and he’s young. So, if there is an opportunity to hear from him (or any of these candidates) outside the framework of CNN or FOX, then you all should take it. You might be surprised. I’ve read both of his books, and it does give a better bead on what he’s about, and how he’s evolving. There are also copies of additional addresses that he has made recently, in areas where he already has a very large support of the rapidly vanishing black middle class of urban areas, because he HAS addressed and recognized what he calls the “quiet riot” growing among that very large but mostly silent population. That consitituency hears a lot from him, that the rest of us may have missed, and the mainsteam media does NOT conver. But anyone who has listened to him, (at least from that constituency) has become more and more impressed.

You can read them on the truthout.org site.

One is an address at a Minister’s Convention, so there are some references to God, but nothing offensive, even to an agnostic, or atheist, or hard core secularist such as myself. And, he provides a lot of information that is of common interest to all of us.

And no, I’m not on his campaign team or any of that, but it does trouble me for anyone to form any sort of an opinion based on the snippets of this debate. The questions didn’t have any real substance, so I wouldn’t expect to hear much of anything from them, that could give a clearer picture on where they stand on the issues.

Skruff, he’s got to focus on the election.  Maybe that’s his problem.  Look at Mike Dukakis.  Kittie was not what you’d call “hot” or a “looker” and she had all kinds of issues.  Mike threw his emotions and his energy into being elected pres. and, were it not for Willie Horton and saying he’d only get pissed off with his wife’s murderer, he might have made it.  I still doubt that Kucinich really wants to be president.  I think he’s just having a good time, travelling here and there—with his wife—and eating out.

Some of the future Debates (debate Defined?)  will be sponsored by objective organizations like Fox News, so I believe it will only get better.  The main candidates will be on spotlighted pedestals and Paul, Kucinich and Gravel will be behind the curtain with the lights off.  Fox may suprise us, so far the big three candidates are not attending?  It will be interesting to see how Fox intends to manipulate the debate show.  They could hire Wolf Blitzer and and change his name to Fox Blitzer.

Appreciate that some of you can still watch reality T. V.  and actually sit through the blathering tripe and commercials.  They still show commercials, don’t they? 

Placing irrelevance on candidates is the contrived opposite of free advertising and not allowing third party candidates even more controlling.

It is sad, but the downplaying or ignoring of the bottom candidates is even prevalent in “The Nation” a disappointment to me.  Sometimes the perceived essence of a publication can be a manipulated faint.

It happened again in tonight’s Republican debate.  Guiliani, McCain & Romney got the center.  Ron Paul, perhaps the only Republican with borderline progressive views, though he is actually libertarian which is not the same thing, was placed in the exact spot where Kucinich had stood—at the far left.  Coincidence?

cyrena,

A real debate would discuss in depth real issues of the day, not selected sound-bites from a second rate celebrity like Wolf Blitzer. Having CNN and Blitzer selecting our president for us,  is commercial turpitude.  Control is the name of the game,  this is how we ended up with Bush and Cronies in the White House.  The Republican debates will do the same to Paul, sweeping him under the rug.

Since I cannot stomach commercial Television, I do not watch it.  Checked out the web videos and saw what I expected. It seems I missed “The Wolf Blitzer Stump the Candidate Show”  what can one expect, but a choreographed puppet show of sound-bites. 

Cyrena, I agree with you about, Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich they both offer us a refreshing change.

It is unfortunate, big money will see to it that our choices are limited between the best of the worst again.  I Picture us the people in a sailboat with no wind to guide us.  Big money is opening the flood gate forcing our little boat over the falls. 

It is quite simple, once the big three candidates start dumping money into the coffers of mass media. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel will meet us at the bottom of those falls.

We have only one hope,  the public debates.

Gravel and Kucinich are the only ones making any sense whatsoever. People think they’re “crazy” because they are stating facts: the problem is Americans are just woefully ignorant about their own governments actions.

Anyone who votes for the front runners gets what they deserve. Screw all of you.

My sense is that many TD commenters side with/favor Kucinich.  But really, this man has got to change his manner if he has any hopes of capturing the attention and imagination of voters.  No one watching that “debate” could have concluded that Kucinich even wants to be president.  If he is frustrated by the treatment he is continually given at these charades, then he needs to go public with his displeasure and expose them for what they are.  It will do him no good to sit there and meekly raise his hand.  In fact, it will harm him.  It would be far better to speak out in protest during the proceedings, even risking that he’d be black-balled.  How could Blitzer respond if Kucinich asked him, during the debate, “Why is it Wolf, that you have allowed Hillary, Edwards and Obama to speak nine times each and me, three?  How can the voters get a fair and balanced view of all of us if you and CNN don’t allow equal time?” Even the other candidates couldn’t argue with that.  What a joke!  If you’re going to be a candidate, be one.  Scrap, fight.  It’s hard work.  It takes tremendous energy and endurance.  If you’re not up to that, if you’re not a fighter, especially on crucial issues that divide the voters, you’ll never get your message out there. Publicly throw down the gauntlet to each one of them.  Tell them they’re full of it and you’ll show them why.  Make a video game out of it.  Wrestling-mania.  Nascar.  For god’s sake, come into the 21st century.  This is dog-eat-dog!  Enough of this scripted CNN BS!

As an Expat, I don’t have access to the whole debate.  These snippets are not fair.  What I did see here was underwhelming.  Kucinich was the only one who impressed (with only a few spoken words), at least for me.  Gravel was okay…I thought Edwards was too angry (he’ll need more than that) and Clinton actually came across well, by normal standards…I don’t want “normal”, whatever the hell that is.  Obama…well…he is…smooth, intelligent…but not from the heart like Kucinich.  Obama has his eye on the prize.  Kucinich is for real as is Gravel and Paul, but, big but, the media has already buried them.

I think the “fix” is already in.  Freedom of the press means nothing if nobody is listening.  If we don’t go to the streets; ala Viet Nam, the status quo goes on and on…

Bottom line…we’re not going to get our lollipop.

Unless…you tell me, what’s to be done…really!

I have no idea…really.

Good comments, and thanks to all of you for pointing these things out. I have to admit that it makes me sad, since I really had hoped that Barack could remain a bit more of a maverick.

But, you guys are right. I don’t understand why we didn’t get to hear from Kucinich on his health plan, although I will make it a point to check it out, since I’m sure it’s probably on his web site.

And Gravel has an excellent interview posted here on the site. I was really impressed with him after hearing that interview, and I’d honestly never heard of the guy before. (I mean, I know I SHOULD have heard of him, but I honestly hadn’t.) Then again, maybe not, based on his interview, he’s one of those really wise dudes that nobody can figure out, since he apparently is exactly who he presents himself to be. How refreshing is that?

If not, then he’s a really goood liar, but my “gut” thinks otherwise, and I trust my “gut” over georges any day of the week. And, while I do get his point on the English thing…I mean, we DO speak English here, and we should have a reasonable expectation to have ourselves understood, if we are conducting civic business in America. (Unfortunately, I Only speak English well, and can totter along in French if I have to, so it’s really annoying if I’m trying to spend my hard earned money somewhere in America, and NOBODY within the establishment speaks English.) That’s very frustrating, and it happens a lot.

Still, Hillary made the legal point on this, and in the long run, if we’ve been without an “Official Language” for our entire history as a nation, (and we’ve never had an “official language”) then I don’t see as how it’s that big of a deal. English isn’t the Native Language of this Continent anyway, and it’s a nation of immigrants from dozens of languages. I think we should ALL know how to speak it, INCLUDING the president, because it’s very embarrassing, to hear him slaughter the language the way he does. I imagine for some people, it’s downright PAINFUL to hear him.

Meantime, there really are better questions to ask.

This so-called “debate” provided a classic example of image manipulation by the conglomerated corporate media in order to enhance the status of the candidates who are favored by the corporatocracy.

It started with the placement of the candidates.  The three, so-called “leading candidates” were bunched together at the center.  The two candidates least favored by the corporate media (Kucinich and Gravel) were relegated to the outermost positions on the stage.  The subliminal messages were several—that the favored candidates (Obama, Clinton & Edwards) should be the center of our attention as the “center” of the Democratic Party, while Kucinich and Gravel are “fringe” candidates who should not be taken seriously.

This placement made it easier for Wolf Blitzer to pretend he didn’t see Kucinich when his hand was raised at crucial points involving not only Iraq but the fundamental distinction between a single payer healthcare system that eliminates the role of for-profit healthcare insurers and the varying healthcare insurer subsidy schemes being advanced by the favored three.  Blitzer was quick to cut off Kucinich on this issue, and the result was, that the American electorate did not receive vital information as to the fundamental distinctions between Conyers/Kucinich and the sham “universal” healthcare proposals of the big three.

Placement of the candidates also permitted a greater number of camera shots that included all three of the favored candidates as any one of them were speaking, while shots of other candidates were solo, isolated. 

Kucinich and Gravel, more than any other candidates, were not given an adequate opportunity to engage their fellow candidates, while a free and lively exchange was permitted amongst the favored three.  Obama spoke for more than 17 minutes.  Outside of the favored three, no other candidate spoke for more than nine minutes.

Outside of Arianna Huffington, none of the pundits discussed the significance of what Mr. Kucinich had to say.

This was obviously a promotional ad for CNN and Wolf Blitzer.  I get angry with myself, the candidates, the media, our political system and campaigning when I watch these things.  You got the Big Three (the one’s responsible for our being where we’re at) in the middle who capitalized, with Wolfie’s guidance, on the time and the candidates on the periphery got nothing.  I kept wondering why Kucinich didn’t stand up and scream, “For God sake, Wolfie, do you not see me here!  There are three other candidates on this stage!!”  He came off looling like a wimp, in my opinion, and not at all “preidential.”  Reagan would not have let that happen.  There’s got to be a better, fairer way for candidates to really slug it out so that we could see what they’re really made of.  Forget network media.  That’s a waste of our time.

My evaluation of the candidates:

It was much more lively and interesting than the first debate, although as Biden said afterwards, there was still not enough time to really go into issues.

The most principled of the candidates is of course Kucinich. He is right on the issues. He was right on the bin Laden question, even though everybody thinks Obama smacked him down. Yes, bin Laden declared war on the U.S. and is a legitimate military target. But look at the reality. As Hillary pointed out, such rockets were fired during the Clinton administration. They did not get bin Laden, but they did get an aspirin factory and various people that had nothing to do with it. So the hypothetical is a fantasy. What we really need to do is strengthen international law, have a real international court of which we are a member and a real international police force with the capacity to enforce its decisions. That will make us all vastly safer. If you think Obama’s “take him out” shows he’s the best man on national security, you should probably take up watching “24” and forget politics. 

Unfortunately, Dennis was not given a chance to defend his position by saying this, and this made it look like Obama won this point.

On the “Global War on Terror” being a bumper sticker or slogan to justify everything the Bush administration does, I totally agree with Obama and Edwards. I thought Hillary’s disagreement on this was her worst statement of the night. That alone puts her last place for the night, as far as I am concerned.

The most interesting was certainly Biden. His position on the Iraq war is that it was neither necessary nor justified, but that the use of military force may be both necessary and justified, and that it is as much of a mistake, morally and practically, to fail to use it in the latter case as to use it in the former.

Only one who says that miltary force is never necessary or justified could disagree. The world ought to put a stop to what is happening in Darfur. Biden says the government of Sudan has forfeited its sovereignty by allowing this genocide to happen. I totally agree with this. But I am afraid the U.S. has no credibility to do this. There must be an international body to make such a decision. The U.S. could use its influence to strengthen international law by joining the world court. Right now the U.S. is a rogue nation. If I hear Biden start to strongly emphasize international law, I would find him attractive. At least he is really trying to have an honest debate.

As discussion and debate flared in New Hampshire much focus as usual was spent on the War in Iraq while many voters were left still asking questions about other issues. The issue that needs to be brought up by one or more of the candidates is the issue of global poverty. The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) provided a foundation for the solution to global poverty, however few Presidential candidates feel compelled to address the issue. Groups like the Borgen Project are working to bring poverty reduction through political accountability. The 191 UN member nations agreed to the goals and it is time that the United States fulfilled its agreement.

Why would I want to watch a bunch of lying, manipulating politicians promote themselves? Only Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are worth listening to in these debates. The lines all the rest are spewing are what we hear every day from every media source anyway. We are deluding ourselves if we expect Obama or Hillary or any of the other top tier jerks to actually say anything remotely worth listening to. Carefully contrived prevarications are not worth our attention at this critical time in history. In fact most are sick of both Democratic and Republican horse manure. It was the attention we gave to these well orchestrated liars that allowed the Bush administration to run our country into the ground in the first place.

What I want to know about this asinine debate is what Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich had to say. I want to know how much time they were given in comparison to the others. I want to see the results of independent (if there are such things) polls, concerning what the American public thought about the debates and how they rated each participant. The rest is chaff.