[-V-]

Despite some dorky videos, I was impressed with this new format. More lively and realistic.

Gravel was terrific in his accusations that all the top candidates are in the pocket of big business and voters need to follow the money trail,

Kucinich was most honest and on target, as usual in my opinion, accusing the others of playing politics with Iraq rather than really wanting to risk pull out before the next election.

John Edwards wins points with me when he goes into his populist rants. He also comes across as most considerate, perhaps the most compassionate, in his responses.

Unfortunately, I have to concur with commentaries that Hillary comes across as the most professional and confident.

Biden comes across as an interesting character but not a Presidential candidate.

Dodd was a dudd.

Governor Richardson looks like he's already achieved his highest station in politics.

and Barack looks whiter with every appearance. He'd make a good diplomat. VP or Secretary of State would be more realistic for him.

Of course, these dog and pony shows are of little significance in determining (exposing) the real candidates but at least their responses under this format are less rehearsed.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

The most progressive, radical overhaul for the good in America among the Democratic candidates for President would occur under the leadership of a President Mike Gravel inclusive of restoration of constitutional rights, election and lobby reform, energy policy, economic policy, education, voting rights, civil rights inclusive of "gay" rights, and international policy and diplomacy.

[JamesP]

I only caught some of the debate, but my impressions were:

Obama: should go into politics when he grows up. For now, he seems like a nice, well-groomed, intelligent and cautious young fellow with potential, but not quite ready yet to run my company or my country.

Edwards: could be taken more seriously if he wasn't quite so pretty and didn't evoke images of the Partridge Family. I do like a Presidential candidate who talks about taking on poverty and big corporate power. It increases the generally low liklihood that they will do anything about either.

Hillary: Cold, calculating, cautious and corporate. Nothing new, bold or exciting in this politician - other than gender. She could be a winner.

Gravel: Says many of the right things. Fresh, honest, unvarnished and bold, but his delivery is that of a cranky, elderly man about to fly off the handle and throw everyone out of the room. Pity he doesn;t have the look and style needed to run for President.

Biden: Experienced, mature, middle-of-the-road type. The only one with a real plan for Iraq. Lacks "freshness" and as part of the political establishment is unlikely to "shake things up". A bit McCain-esque... appears ill-tempered.

Kucinich: Near genius and an honest man with a heart and soul. Way too good a man to be elected to the office of President of the United States. Too bad, he doesn;t have "that necessary touch of darkness" and a different shell.

Who else was up there?

[Jane of Arc]

I watch these debates with a detached curiosity. I ask myself how many Americans believe they're real. I ask myself how many Americans are aware that Mike Gravel (an honest, good, important man) is allowed to be there to ensure the debacle appears democratic, authentic and real. Same with Kucinich. They play an important role ... an extremely important role ... in mass brain washing. It's important the 'democratic' procees feels real. It's crucial the American people believe that ... yes, their system is flawed, but we still live in a democracy where we collectively chose our leaders.

We don't.

The mass opinion of The People concerns the Powers That Be. They don't want social unrest. They don't want people in the streets. It's bad for business. It's bad for the Fortune 500 companies. It's bad for the corporate/ military complex and their pursuit of international domination. We are presented with candidates representing some differences, but all the "serious" candidates (and we are told who they are very early on by the media) are beholden to the Powers That Be in order to get elected to the most powerful public position on earth.

Do you really think this power is in the hands of The People?

The electoral process has NOT been repaired by our bold, brave Democratic Congress. They've actually made the situation worse. Can't imagine why?

[JamesP]

Jane: Amongst the many things that I admire about you is your capacity to confront inconvient and often dark truths.

So many of us prefer to cling to comforting fantasies:

- they hate us for our freedom
- we're fighting for democracy in Iraq
- America is "free" & "democratic"
- gas has gone from $1.60 to $3.00 per gallon during the Bush administration for reasons totally unrelated to the Bush administration's ties to big oil
- our soldiers didn't "die in vain" in Viet-Nam & they're not dying in vain now in Iraq
- all good people go to heaven

What do you think would happen if the Dennis Kucinich campaign really took off fueled by a common sense & good-hearted, popular rebellion against the sordid status quo?

Would his plane go down due to mechanical failure or pilot error?
Would he contract some fast-acting & debillitating disease during the campaign?

Could he ever be President?

I'm sure that you noticed CNN's Anderson "silver-spoon" Cooper's jab at Kucinich at the end of the debate, painting Kucinich as so far left that they could find no one to the left of him... This just in case anyone watching might be taking Kucinich seriously or properly recognizing most of his positions as "main-stream".

[-V-]

Jane, if Gravel and Kucinich are DNC plants to make the debates "feel real" they got more than they bargained for because they didn't pull punches when they got opportunities and some of their on air accusations cut to the heart of the problem.

On an opposite note, it looks like CNN and YouTube did do their own control thing by not asking what may have been the most popular question proposed by YouTubers regarding the IMPEACHMENT of this President!

[Jane of Arc]

JamesP ~

You see the bigger picture in a time when few people do. Bravo to you sir!

I'm a complete optimist, but I'm not dumb. Our fragile democratic republic is crumbling. And I'm not going to pretend we have a functioning system when we don't. The corporate/military complex controlled by extremely powerful international globalists run this county. They profit from perpetual war. They profit from arm sales. They profit from drugs. They profit at the expense of our health. Their banks profit from exploiting weaker nations. They profit from cheap labor, destroying unions and unfair trade laws. They profit through strirpping the earth's resources. They own the media. They own the voting machines.


~V~

I didn't say that Kucinich and Gravel are DNC plants. They are honest men running for office. Just as Republican Ron Paul is. They chose to run on their own and, as JamesP adroitly pointed out, they are continually marginalized by the media. They are not part of the group that have been "approved" and backed by the corporate globalists. Hillary is. Edwards attended the last Bilderberg Conference. He is. Obama is a Rhodes Scholar as Clinton was and has been groomed for public office. He's in the club. All of their agendas, despite their campaign rhetoric, aren't that different from Republicans.


And the bottom line is this ... and remember this and don't drink the TV koolaid ... the elections have not been 'democratized' by the Democratic Congress majority. They are still secret, the private property of companies, not open to citizens or the press and the majority of American voting machines have absolutely no way to be recounted or the votes verified. It's a fixed system. It's not even close to a democracy. The whole event is maintained to keep the public believing they are in control. It's essential for stability. They don't want chaos. They don't want people in the streets. They want us placated. In the end ... we are millions. They are a few.

If only people would wake up, turn off their television, get smart and realize how much raw power The People have in sheer numbers.

[MAGI]

An Oldie but a Goodie:
Opinion
My opinion Molly Ivins : Demos need to grow spine
My opinion Molly Ivins
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.21.2006


I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation.
Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long time unlearning, so now I have to relearn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people think the war in Iraq is a mistake and we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) favor raising the minimum wage. The majority (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) want to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) think we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) think big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. Whom are you afraid of?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
Oh come on, people — get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war — from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to own the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. That is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds because they were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The minute someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

Oh Mollie, How I MISS YOU!

Did anyone note the best question of all...... about the 6.2% Social Security tax .................on wages only to $97.500?

uhhhhhhh, here it is on Part two
;) QUESTION: We all know that Social Security is running out of money, but people who earn over $97,500 stop paying into Social Security. What is up with that?

COOPER: Senator Dodd, what about that? The Congressional Research Service says that if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, the Social Security trust fund would remain solvent for the next 75 years.

DODD: I don't disagree with that. I think frankly this is an issue that comes to a head, as we all know, by the year 2040. Obviously, I think it would be important to start to address the issue. Certainly, we have no ideas, and I would be totally opposed to the privatization of Social Security. That is a very bad idea and I am glad we rejected it.

skip

more...............on the subject see Part two.



transcript......hope it's complete.................... :
Part one:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

Part Two:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript.part2/index.html

[MAGI]

Looking forward to the GOP You Tube debate?.................


Will the G.O.P. Say No to YouTube? By ANA MARIE COX/WASHINGTON
Fri Jul 27, 5:30 PM ET



The sequel to the self-styled "ground-breaking" YouTube debate on CNN may be history before it even begins.


The Rudy Giuliani campaign has cited scheduling conflicts in saying it will skip the Republican version of this week's Democratic debate, while Mitt Romney has mocked the seriousness of the questions and also seems likely to withdraw. John McCain, one of two candidates who had agreed to participate (Ron Paul is the other), has also expressed doubts about the Democratic debate's level of decorum and aides say he may reconsider his commitment. Undeclared candidate Fred Thompson may still not officially be in the race by the event's Sept. 17 airdate.


The Republicans' sudden aversion has political observers wondering whether abandoning an opportunity to participate in the fledging format shows a potentially costly reluctance to engage with voters or is simply an exercise in prudent message management.


CNN's YouTube debate with the Democratic candidates, heralded as an almost life-changing event for American voters, had its rough moments (the puppet snowman, the man with a gun for a baby), and even those on stage complained (Joe Biden referred to it at one point as a "ridiculous exercise"). But once the cameras were turned off, the event received warm reviews from most observers in the mainstream media. The Washington Post's Dan Balz called it "the best of the campaign season," the Chicago Tribune's blog said it was the "summer's best reality show," and the New York Times said that the viewer-submitted questions were able to elicit "points of difference on a broad range of issues, from whether the United States should build more nuclear power plants to whether it would be good policy - or even feasible - to withdraw American troops from Iraq within six months."
The view from the right was less favorable about the impact of this technological shift on politics. White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that the President had not even watched, saying Bush was "not big on YouTube debates." Hugh Hewitt, a popular right-wing blogger and radio talk show host, got more specific about what conservatives might object to in a CNN/YouTube debate - he alleged that CNN cherrypicked the submissions for biased questions that a "responsible" journalist wouldn't ask: "the CNN team used the device of the third-party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it." One staffer for a Republican candidate now leaning toward not participating put it this way: "The problem isn't YouTube, it's CNN."


G.O.P. consultants and campaign staffers say that candidates' hesitancy about the debate stems from concerns similar to Hewitt's, rather than from any nervousness about the unpredictability of the format. What's more, says another G.O.P. operative, "Every day you're debating is a day you're not raising money." Adds the operative: "We've shown our willingness to take questions from real people. Look at the Politico debate" - in which questions submitted by e-mail were read. "And the game isn't over. There could be a online video debate somewhere, someday; it just doesn't look like this one will happen." The Florida debate was already on much shakier ground than the Democratic YouTube debate; the Democratic National Committee had put its seal on that debate, whereas the Republican National Committee has not endorsed this forum. It is co-sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida, which has insisted the show will go on.

snip

Still, some Republicans worry that shying away from YouTube will make their candidates seem technophobic or out of touch. Patrick Ruffini, a G.O.P. online political strategist, wrote on his blog: "It's stuff like this that will set the G.O.P. back an election cycle or more on the Internet." Democratic consultants are rubbing their hands together at being able to portray their general election rivals as being - as one put it to me - "afraid of snowmen" or simply ignorant of techonologies that many Americans use on a daily basis. Indeed, Governor Romney today, in the context of evincing concern over Internet predators, supported that suspicion: "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000," he said, mistaking the debate co-sponsor for the social network MySpace, which has recently done a purge of sex offenders from its rolls.



:D

Ruffini has already started an online petition to encourage G.O.P. candidates to participate in the YouTube debate - savethedebate.com . One campaign staffer, however, contended that Ruffini is viewing the controversy through the "narrow vision" of an online consultant. The format, this staffer said, is only a problem insofar as it allows CNN to present questions that may be too aggressive or controversial for the confines of a standard campaign interaction. One might argue that this is the whole point of a YouTube debate - and that since the Democratic candidates have already dealt with them, why should the G.O.P. candidates be able to avoid snowmen and matrimony-seeking gay couples when their rivals couldn't?


If G.O.P. contenders succeed in making the case that technology is only incidental to their objections, they will have a precedent: The major Democratic candidates have pledged to boycott a debate sponsored by Fox News, citing the network's conservative bias as their reason. Right-wing commentators mocked the Democrats for their decision, but the netroots applauded. And whether Republicans can make the case to a general audience that CNN is biased to the left hardly matters - their base voters likely already believe it.

[-V-]

the key parts of that article:

CNN cherrypicked the submissions for biased questions that a "responsible" journalist wouldn't ask: "the CNN team used the device of the third-party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it."
...
The format, this staffer said, is only a problem insofar as it allows CNN to present questions that may be too aggressive or controversial for the confines of a standard campaign interaction. One might argue that this is the whole point of a YouTube debate

that is the whole point of the debate