Comments on: Clinton, Edwards and the short circuiting of democracy http://www.bloggernews.net/18629 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:02:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jim H http://www.bloggernews.net/18629#comment-60624 Jim H Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:57:50 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/18629#comment-60624 Could it be that it's Kucinich who's being the opportunist? I've had it with the 8-person debate/cattle auctions. That's what every candidate should be fighting to end. Two groups of four, randomly selected, seems to be a reasonable alternative, and not one to disparage the lesser candidates. Believe me, I've worked in TV, and once an "interview" gets above two, you're not interviewing, you're herding cattle. Could it be that it’s Kucinich who’s being the opportunist?

I’ve had it with the 8-person debate/cattle auctions. That’s what every candidate should be fighting to end. Two groups of four, randomly selected, seems to be a reasonable alternative, and not one to disparage the lesser candidates. Believe me, I’ve worked in TV, and once an “interview” gets above two, you’re not interviewing, you’re herding cattle.

]]> By: Josh Medeiros http://www.bloggernews.net/18629#comment-60577 Josh Medeiros Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:08:48 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/18629#comment-60577 It appears you need to update your post. Edwards has explained his comments and that is not what they meant. As he said yesterday in Iowa, he wants to find a way that candidates can talk more substantively about issues. See Elizabeth's explanation here: http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/7/13/215314/314/14?mode=alone;showrate=1#14 John meant what he said in Iowa: he wants smaller groups (or longer debates) so that there can be an end to the notion that a candidate can skate through the debates with sound bite answers. Everyone has sixty seconds to explain their helath care plan and John's truly universal plan ends up sounding just like a "plan" to talk about health care. It does a disservice to the voters. Since no one (maybe not even the candidates' spouses!) would watch a three hour debate, it seems more sensible to have a series of randomly constituted smaller groups. Listen, John wants to talk about substance; that should be no surprise. And the format with this many candidates doesn't allow that to happen. If you have an idea that would work, let us know. Or better yet, let MSNBC and CNN know. It appears you need to update your post. Edwards has explained his comments and that is not what they meant. As he said yesterday in Iowa, he wants to find a way that candidates can talk more substantively about issues. See Elizabeth’s explanation here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/7/13/215314/314/14?mode=alone;showrate=1#14

John meant what he said in Iowa: he wants smaller groups (or longer debates) so that there can be an end to the notion that a candidate can skate through the debates with sound bite answers. Everyone has sixty seconds to explain their helath care plan and John’s truly universal plan ends up sounding just like a “plan” to talk about health care. It does a disservice to the voters. Since no one (maybe not even the candidates’ spouses!) would watch a three hour debate, it seems more sensible to have a series of randomly constituted smaller groups. Listen, John wants to talk about substance; that should be no surprise. And the format with this many candidates doesn’t allow that to happen. If you have an idea that would work, let us know. Or better yet, let MSNBC and CNN know.

]]>