Let's have another 'debate' about flagpins, pastors and 60s radicals!

[nebula]

Just what the country needs!

yeah right. Enough already!!

No more idiotic 'debates.'

[anonymous171]

1. That's the only reason she wants one.

[flowomo]

2. would you want one if you could be the moderator?

I ask just to know if you object to "debates" as such or just stupid ones? If you could moderate the debate, and ask the questions you want asked, would that be ok?

[EFerrari]

5. I'd want one if I could ref on a basketball court. n/t

[flowomo]

8. hmmmm.... inscrutable observation.

extend that thought a bit.

[nebula]

9. Does Hillary have something new and urgent to tell us?

what could she possibly tell us at a debate that we haven't heard already after 22 of them?

another debate is an exercise in futility. we need to be DEBATING MCCAIN at this point in time, not wasting it on pointless nonsense on each other.

[flowomo]

11. I don't know. That could be your first question.

Plus all the other substantive questions that never got asked in the last debate.

[nebula]

13. I don't think Hillary would agree to a debate

if I were moderating it. She doesn't want another debate unless Sean Hannity gets to ask the questions, like he did last time.

[flowomo]

15. oh, now, that's just conjecture on your part....

and suggests that you might have a teeny bit of willingness to support another debate if the moderator was someone you could wholeheartedly approve of -- say, Keith Olbermann maybe?

[nebula]

16. What's wrong with KO?

Hillary had Sean Hannity last time, so this time it should be KO.

You do believe in fairness, don't you?

Hillary had Sean Hannity last time, whom was seen on the air telling Stephanopoulus what to ask at the debate while Stephanopoulus sat there and took notes. He then asked those very same questions at the debate. so don't tell me about no conjecture.

[flowomo]

19. nothing wrong with KO... that's my point....

you'd be OK with a debate if KO moderated it.... so your objection is not to a debate as such but to who gets to pick and ask the questions. Now does the L-D format mean no moderator? Maybe, but I think Hillary would accept a moderated L-D and Barrack should welcome it. And you'd probably agree if KO was the moderator. It wouldn't be him but it could be someone you trusted.

[nebula]

21. Another debate is pointless

regardless of who is moderating it.

And after an Indiana debate, will Shillary demand yet another one?

When will it end?

[flowomo]

23. I'll let you have the last word, nebula...

enjoyed the exchange. Have a good night.

[cliffordu]

3. She wants more of that pastorbating...Maybe a circle jerk this time.

[hedgehog]

4. Let's have this debate moderated by Mary Matelin and James Carville!

After all, the last one had Stephanopolis!

[nebula]

12. excellent idea!

hell let's throw in Sean Hannity for good measure since he did such
great job telling them what to ask last time.

[anonymous171]

14. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris

[Cha]

20. Why don't we just have

bil clinton out there runnin' the whole show..you know he wants to.

[KaptBunnyPants]

25. That sounds fair and balanced.

I don't see why anyone would object to it, unless they hate America.

[dana_b]

30. nah... Stewart and Colbert.

at least it would be interesting.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. No more debates

:thumbsdown:

[tularetom]

7. If my campaign was broke and running on fumes

I'd want the free TV face time of a "debate" too.

We already know what she stands for:

-More war in Iraq
-Obliterating Iran
-Racial divisiveness
-More $ for insurance companies

[bhikkhu]

10. Flagpin Patriots Pastorbating for America!

[flyarm]

17. YES LETS!! AND LETS FIND OUT ABOUT AYERS AND OBAMA'S

relationship and some damn truth for once!

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/#more-2314

Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson Name: Larry Johnson
Email: [e-mail]
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (583) on April 26, 2008 at 6:33 PM in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, Bernardine Dohrn, Weather Underground, William Ayers

Barack Obama is not telling the truth about his relationship with Bill Ayers. There is more to this story than is already known, but Obama and his campaign are working hard to obfuscate and cover up the matter. Why? Because Barack Obama has had a close personal and business relationship with Bill Ayers that predates his run for the Illinois State Senate, and it is incumbent on the Senator from Illinois to come clean.

In fact, Barack worked for Bill Ayers for at least eight years and the press, so far, has not investigated this matter.

I predicted on this blog four months ago that Barack’s relationship with an unrepentant terrorist would become a heated issue in the presidential contest. Although Obama insists that he barely knows Ayers, this is not true. Democrats, beware — the problems of Obama’s associations with Ayers will create serious problems in the fall campaign if he is the candidate. Republicans take heart — if Barack is the nominee, your only problem will be deciding whether or focus your campaign attack ads on Obama’s questionable ties to the corrupt Tony Rezko, the racist Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist group Hamas, or the unrepentant bomber, William Ayers.

Can it be true that Obama is hiding the reality of the relationship? I will let you, the reader, decide for yourself.

In the ABC News debate in Philadelphia on April 16, Obama was asked about Ayers for the first time in a prominent public forum. It’s important to read the entire exchange in order to see that George Stephanopoulos’s question was precise in seeking information and that Obama’s answer was dismissive of the query and certain in refuting any close tie.

[cliffordu]

24. Blah de blah de blah blah blah. We got it, on to the next, please.

[stillcool]

28. Funny, the ones that are pimping that...

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties
Clinton, Obama Spar on Ties to Radicals
By JUSTIN ROOD

Feb. 22, 2008—

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)

In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.

Opting to leave any attacks on the issue to the GOP may be wise, as attacks from Clinton could backfire. In his final day in office, President Clinton pardoned another one-time member of the Weather Underground, Susan L. Rosenberg, after she had served 16 years in prison on federal charges.

Rosenberg had been arrested in 1984 while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car.
----------------------------
And in 1999, President Clinton also pardoned 16 violent Puerto Rican nationalists responsible for more than 100 bombings of U.S. political and military installations, after they promised to renounce violence. The attacks reportedly killed six people and wounded dozens more. In justifying the pardons, President Clinton noted none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

[PseudoIntellect]

18. Enough with the big speeches and rallies! Let's have a debate where meaningful issues are discussed!

like 60s radicals, flagpins, a 12-year-old Bosnia trip, and former pastors.

But all sarcasm aside, I think another debate would get about as much done as the previous one.

[BlueIdaho]

22. Hillary proposes a series of debates

Moderated by Bill Clinton and Mark Penn... but only if Obama promises to pay for the air time.

Yeah - that's fair.

[KaptBunnyPants]

26. I'll take a Lincoln Douglas debate if it's like this.

Obama gets an hour*, Hil gets an hour and a half to rebut, and Obama gets the last half hour to answer the rebut. Do it on PBS with no commercial nonsense and no soulless ex-Clinton appointee running the show. Wouldn't the sound bite circle jerk hate a debate like that?

*I'm making Obama go first only because I know how upset Hill gets when she has to go first in a debate.

[rasputin1952]

27. The thought occurred to me that we on DU have enough "debates"

and since little gets done through them, except ticking everyone off, I am inclined to believe "debates" are essentially worthless.

After all of this time, all I see are two people that are posturing, not discussing real issues, except in scatological ways. I have been in many debates over my life, and these are debates, they are nothing more than vehicles for showboating.

Here are some real questions, (which I do not expect to see until after nominees are in place):

1. When do we stop action in Iraq and Afghanistan?

2. Who are you going to talk to get the economy under control?

3. How do you plan on paying off the $7+ trillion debt, and what is the time frame?

4. Will you rescind the worst aspects of the "PAtriot Act"?

5. Will you rescind all of bush's declarations, signing statements and executive orders?

6. Will you press Congress to investigate criminal activities by the bush administration and their cronies?

7. Will you push to repair the infrastructure?

8. Will you press for Universal Health Care?

9. Will you stop torture, period?

10. Will you honestly respect and uphold the Constitution?


These are a start...any one who asks about the other's "patriotism", flag pins, flag burning, Rush Limbaugh's being human or anything else of the banal idiocy we've been subjected to, should tarred, feathered and run out on rail.

[nebula]

29. The media never asks relevant questions

because they know McClinton can't answer them.

[rasputin1952]

33. I do not agree...they do not ask questions because they have

come to view themselves as the beginning and end of great wisdom, regardless of the candidate.

Not that long ago Richardson asked them, during a "debate", why they were wasting they're time on trivialities...Richardson got very little press after that. While candidates have been coy, the media has been complicit.

I'll be honest here, whether people like it or not...both candidates have flaws, that is part of being human, but both candidates have good points as well. Some on DU have gone well out of the normal parameters of discourse and have taken stands that are neither realistic, nor are the stands productive. This in turn makes them no better than the very entities they condemn. Virtually all of the "negatives" the candidates have, have been hashed over 1000 times, and still, people act like they are posting grand revelations in trying to destroy the candidate that is not of their choice.
What they have done is alienate they very people they should be trying to bring together. It is sad to see such division, regardless of the candidate or the supporters.

All this has done is make us look like fools, and given the RW'ers an awful amount of ammunition. Here's the bottom line...when a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee, many will cry out in anguish, regardless of which one comes out on top. The big question is, will those people be man or woman enough to step up and give support to said presumptive nominee? This will truly be the trial by fire.

[KaptBunnyPants]

31. DU is akin to a pub. The only kind of solutions led to by a debate at a pub involve crime.

It would be nice, though, if our presidential candidates faced each other in good debates, with intelligent questions related to policy and adequate time to properly respond. And if they can cut the ridiculous post debate garbage dissecting who won and sound bites ripped out of context. Let the debates stand on their own, the people are better judges than TV hacks anyway.

[rasputin1952]

34. I am waiting for the destruction of McCain...all else pales beside

the foolishness we are encountering these days.

McCain is such an easy target, and if one of our two candidates takes off on combating McCain...they will move dramatically farther ahead of the other...neither of them, nor the media has picked up on this.

[Raine]

32. Yeah that last debate was so informative

we learned so much that we need more like that. :sarcasm: