‘Nuff said

Talk chart

Contender Chris Dodd put together this chart which shows the amount of time that each candidate got in last night’s debate. The fact that “moderator” Wolf Blitzer got the third highest total should tell you something.

Look – we all know that the MSM has decided that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are the only candidates worth hearing from but does it have to be so obvious? Can’t they at least pretend that the voters haven’t made that decision yet? After all, even the primaries are seven months away!

The positioning of the top three – with Clinton in the middle – at the podiums was a dead giveaway that this “debate” was not going to give much time to the other candidates. To me, that does a disservice to the viewers, the ones who will ultimately be making the decision.

If the purpose of these debates is to give information to the voters which will allow us to make informed choices, the only fair and equitable thing to do is to give the candidates equal time. Lacking that, there really is no point in watching.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “‘Nuff said

  1. Considering that Richardson was only about a minute behind Edwards in speaking time, it shows he is at least picking up some good speaking time. I liked his point of more pay for teacehrs, with a minimum bas pay of 40K.

    I would argue a Obama/Richardson ticket would be a strong one for Democrats, but considering the poll numbers, Hillary might get the nod.

  2. Obama/Richardson might have appeal for the Hispanic base (which had started trending Republican as of 2000 but I’m guessing after four years of neocon pundits bashing dirty Latin immigrants that trend will reverse itself) as well as driving up turnout among solid democrat black voters. But Richardson is overqualified when it comes to bringing up the rear on Obama’s ticket. The biggest sell Obama has to make to white democrats of both genders is that he’s qualified to be president, and while I don’t really think any job in America that would give you the sort of experience that would prepare you to be President, there’s no denying the Richardson has more experience than Obama. A fact that would be highlighted every day between the primaries and the general when you put their two resumes next to one another, much to Obama’s detriment.

    In terms of the demographics, Hillary has been doing very well with women, a traditionally-democratic voting block. White middle-class mothers underperformed for Kerry and overperformed for Bush in 2004. If Hillary continues to consolidate her position with female voters, I’m confident that she can be the next President of the United States. Whether she’d be the best next President, I’m not as certain.

    …Wolf Blitzer is such a freaking windbag. I sorely miss the days of tv news anchors, before we arrived at our current crop of “news personalities.” I don’t give a damn what Anderson Cooper ate for lunch yesterday, just tell me what’s going on in the world.

  3. Vivian, excellent post! My husband and I checked our watches and after the first 20 minutes, only the top three – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards had even been given questions.

    This so-called debate was even more unbalanced than the controversial League of Women Voters debate between Charlie Hall and Linda Smyth, the two candidates for Providence District Supervisor, in Fairfax County.

  4. I agree this is pretty ridiculous, but to be fair — Hillary and Obama had no problem interjecting their comments to take control of the conversation (ie when Hillary spoke about the candidates not wanting to ‘guess’ on those asinine ‘raise your hand’ questions).

    Still, Dodd’s campaign has a valid point.

  5. Remember when Howard Dean was inevitable? He was supposedly the front runner long before anyone ever had a chance to vote.
    I do wish they’d limit these to the top four (coincidentally, that includes the candidates I like best). Actually, more to the point, I wish that Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and particularly Biden would drop out, so we can get some real information from the real candidates.
    And Wolf? Finish. A sentence. Without. Pausing. Please.

  6. “Remember when Howard Dean was inevitable? He was supposedly the front runner long before anyone ever had a chance to vote.
    I do wish they’d limit these to the top four (coincidentally, that includes the candidates I like best). ”

    Is it just me, or is this person completely contradicting themselves?

  7. Yeah I’m left scratching my head just a bit, too. Maybe he’s lamenting that we would have run Howard Dean if only we hadn’t let folks like John Kerry or Wes Clark come to the debates???

  8. Nope, I’m glad Howard Dean self-destructed. But we did not need to hear a whole lot from Moseley Braun, Gephardt, Graham, Lieberman, and, once again, Kucinich to make a decision. That’s still true, especially of Kucinich, Gravel, and Biden.

  9. I’m glad you can now read the future??? How do you know which candidate(s) will self destruct. That kind of mentality is why we essentially have an aristocracy running this country.

  10. Smart money was on Dick Gephardt to do well in the Iowa caucus, actually, potentially winning it. He polled pretty well locally and the field program’s numbers were supposed to be pretty solid. Dean was hoping to do well in Iowa but take the lead after New Hampshire; what catapulted Kerry forward after Iowa wasn’t just that he beat Dean, but that he outperformed Gephardt, too. Which is why Gephardt had to be in those debates; you might not have been interested in him, but apparently up until the last couple weeks people in Iowa were leaning towards voting for him.

    And Lieberman? Really? I dislike him personally and don’t agree with him very often politically, but he was Gore’s VP selection. The Gore/Lieberman ticket won the popular vote in 2000–you’re going to *not* invite the only candidate who’s won the popular vote in a national election?

Comments are closed.