From what I've heard, due to the nature of this debate, they are supposed to have more of a chance to talk to each other, and more time go in depth on subjects instead of just sound bites.

Will you be listening?

12/4/2007 6:54:53 AM

maybe....republican or democratic debate? and all the candidates gonna do it? also how long is it?

12/4/2007 7:04:12 AM

Democratic. at 2:00, i think, on 91.5
since the audience is radio instead of TV it should change the dynamics a bit. It would be amazing to have them, you know, debate, instead of fling sound bites at each other

12/4/2007 7:28:43 AM

I don't know why anyone would expect them to do anything other than fling sound bites at each other.

One of them is going to say I did this as

Another one is going to say that they didn't

There won't be anyone to let the public know in a clear concise way what the real story was

Nothing will get accomplished

12/4/2007 7:41:03 AM

Quote :

" There won't be anyone to let the public know in a clear concise way what the real story was"

i don't know, this is the sort of thing that npr usually excels at. i don't know if the candidates will ever actually get into any substantive debate (hey it's not really in their best interest most of the time to do so), but npr will likely have some in-depth analysis of it. and if they don't right then, diane rehm is sure to tomorrow morning

12/4/2007 8:11:10 AM

I might listen, but it'll probably just piss me off. Like ^ said, I'd rather wait for Rehm in the morning, plus the usual online news and commentary sites.

12/4/2007 9:27:53 AM

is this gonna be on internet feed also?

12/4/2007 10:38:22 AM

it will most certainly be on the WUNC feed, since they're playing it live on the air
http://wunc.org/front-page
you can submit questions here http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/debates/

12/4/2007 10:40:46 AM

i dont think you can submit anymore after clicking that link...thanks for the link btw, just saying...i think they got all the questions they want because the questions are split up into topics(such as iran, healthcare, etc)

i was gonna ask what they thought about those that dont feel the need to vote because they live in a state that traditionally consistently votes for a particular party(for example, nc going to the repubs)

12/4/2007 10:44:31 AM

i didn't realize there was no studio audience. this could be interesting

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : here we go]

12/4/2007 2:02:01 PM

As I listen to these guys rattle off answers one after another, I can't help but notice the language used compared to the republicans. It's more eloquent.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : until we get to Edwards ]

12/4/2007 2:13:22 PM

I detest Hillary. She's politician top to bottom. She's well versed in double speak and answer avoidance and it's disgusting. She's an ice bitch, too. There must be some big time money in the media machines that has her as one of the top candidates. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

12/4/2007 2:26:38 PM

I detest Thompson he's a Bush Jr up and down

12/4/2007 2:28:28 PM

I like that they are focusing on so few issues, and going in depth. So far they've had about half an hour on Iran and how to apply to it lessons learned from Iraq. I think it will help show how the candidates differ.

12/4/2007 2:35:37 PM

Except for so far, they haven't shown to differ all that much (though I am doing work while listening, so perhaps I'm not a critical listener).

Most of them seem to be trying to pin the other person on their language use to describe a particular action they took or advocated

Ie Hillary talking about "rush to war"

and whoever else (Kucinich?) saying "no rush to war at all, it's NO war"


etc

12/4/2007 2:38:00 PM

^that is actually a pretty substantive difference. plus others saying that there has been no proof of iran's involvement in terrorism and that no proof has been shown.

12/4/2007 2:40:27 PM

aha no proof of iran's involvement in terrorism .... aha ha aha

12/4/2007 2:42:47 PM

Quote :

"aha no proof of iran's involvement in terrorism .... aha ha aha"

if i'm not mistaken, most of the proof lies in the fact that they are supplying arms to fighters in Iraq, right?

If that's considered full blown terrorism, aren't we turrists for arming the Iraqis when they were at war with Iran?

12/4/2007 2:47:42 PM

yeah i don't know. i'm just saying what was said.

12/4/2007 2:47:49 PM

^^^^^There was one specific difference that Edwards pointed out. It was some vote on relations with Iran, maybe calling part of their military "Terrorists" where I think only Hillary voted for that one. Had I not been eating at the moment I might have caught the specifics though. The quote was something like "only one person at this table voted for this measure that Bush & Cheney were pushing"

"republican or democratic debate?"

They said they tried scheduling the republicans who almost all said no due to "schedule conflicts" NPR said they are going to try to reschedule, and I think it would be interesting to hear them in this format, but I don't think it will happen... atleast not without more restrictions than this one has.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 2:48:15 PM

I only saw about 1/2 of the Republican youtube debae, 1/3 of the Dem youtube debate, and only heard about 1/2 of this radio debate. apart from that, i've only seen highlights and clips of all the other debates.
Having said that, the 50-60 minutes that I did hear of this radio debate, I can definitively say (for myself) that these candidates in this format produced the most eloquent and "presidental sounding" quotes and mini-speeches than any of the other debates so far.

Like I mentioned in the Repub youtube thread, removing the studio audience was a huge help, and removing the cameras was good too in getting real discussion going. I think it's important to get the candidates on camera at some point for debates because camera and stage presence is important for a President, but I think the radio format really led to more substantial discussion without distractions of the state set and clothing and facial expressions.
I think it's also important to have a studio audience at some point, but not for all debates. And even when there is an audience, they need to act more like they're at an Opera than a high school basketball game.

12/4/2007 4:32:16 PM

Quote :

"if i'm not mistaken, most of the proof lies in the fact that they are supplying arms to fighters in Iraq, right?"

You're mistaken. They actively train, fund, arm and collaborate with Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, among other terrorist groups. They are a state sponsor of terrorism, by definition. Try a google search on "Khobar Towers - Iran" for more information about their direct involvement in terrorist attacks against the US.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : 2]

12/5/2007 12:06:14 AM

Quote :

"From NBC's Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Andy Merten On a day when Iran remained in the headlines -- with the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003, and with President Bush commenting on the issue at his news conference today -- Clinton's rivals pounced on her vote for a months-old measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. "I just want to be clear to the listeners that we have a real division here," Edwards said at today's NPR/Iowa Public Radio debate in Des Moines. "I mean, among the Democratic candidates, there's only one that voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted." Dodd and Biden voted against it; Edwards, who is no longer in the Senate, and Obama, who was campaigning, didn't vote on it but have said they opposed the legislation. Obama added, "What I've been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed. And that we needed to oppose George Bush again. We can't keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence." Biden called the bill "self-defeating." "The moment that declaration was made, oil prices jumped over $18 a barrel," he said. "The moment that declaration was made, every one of our friends, from Iraq to Pakistan, felt they had to distance themselves from us because it appears to be a war on Islam." Clinton responded to that criticism by noting that some prominent senators who opposed the Iraq war -- like Sens. Dick Durbin and Carl Levin -- voted for the legislation. "And all of us have said that if we thought that anything in that resolution gave even a pretense of legitimacy to President Bush taking any action, we wouldn't have voted that way. In fact, a number of the Democrats worked furiously to clarify the meaning of that resolution." She continued, "The specifics about designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, I believe, fits into a broader diplomatic effort. I believe in aggressive diplomacy when it comes to Iran. And when you engage in aggressive diplomacy, you need both carrots and sticks." And she dismissed criticism of her voting for it this way. "Well, I understand politics, and I understand making outlandish political charges," she said, "but this really goes way too far. In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior." Biden disputed that. [T]here's no evidence -- none, zero," he said, "that this declaration caused any change in action on the part of the Iranian government." Yet that exchange was the only instance in the debate when the seven Democratic candidates -- Richardson wasn't there -- engaged in any kind of combat. In fact, Clinton did not explicitly go after Obama, as she has on the campaign trail in recent days. On the issue of China, Clinton sought to highlight her days as First Lady as experience. “You know, 12 years ago, I went to China, and the Chinese didn't want me to come,” she said. “And they didn't want me to make a speech. And when I made the speech, they blocked it out from being heard within China, where I stood up for human rights and, in particular, women's rights, because women had been so brutally abused in many settings in China.” She added that she “certainly did” advise her husband, Bill Clinton, on China policy. “I not only advised,” she said, “I often met with he and his advisers, both in preparation for, during and after. I traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department, occasionally the Defense Department and even the CIA. So I was deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team, in the first Clinton administration.” On the issue of illegal immigration, there again was little disagreement or difference among the candidates. They all said they don't want to create an atmosphere in which Americans are taking it upon themselves to turn in illegal immigrants. “We do not deputize the American people,” Obama said. “They are embedded in our society,” Clinton said. And Dodd said Republicans want to talk about immigration to change the subject from Iraq, the Bush Administration's fiscal policies and health care. “So they're going to use this issue as a wedge issue here to inflame the passions, the fears and hatreds of too many Americans," he said. This debate was certainly different from previous ones. For starters, it wasn't televised, which made it difficult (or impossible) to gauge the candidates' reactions and expressions. It focused on just three issues -- Iran, China and immigration -- which resulted in a more robust discussion on those issues, but which also ignored other subjects. And, for the most part, there was little disagreement among the candidates. "I completely agree with Chris," as Obama said after Dodd stated that immigration is a source of this country's wealth and richness. In fact, candidates pointed out five times that they agreed with a competitor or the group. So it really wasn't a debate; it more like an in-depth discussion. Perhaps the most interesting exchange among the candidates came on the last question: What is the toughest choice that remains for you? Clinton mentioned Iran and China before settling on balancing how the US should stimulate its economy; Obama cited climate change (which should please Al Gore), noting that the science is showing an even more rapid deterioration of the climate; Dodd said education; Biden mentioned competition and trade; Kucinich responded with holding Bush and Cheney accountable "for lies"; Gravel said it was convincing Americans that they are the solution, not politicians; and Edwards answered with this quip: "Who I would choose as my vice president." When asked for a serious reply, Edwards said restoring democracy back to the people. "

12/5/2007 8:45:39 AM

if you're going to quote an article, link to it

12/5/2007 10:10:40 AM

Quote :

"As I listen to these guys rattle off answers one after another, I can't help but notice the language used compared to the republicans. It's more eloquent."

Quote :

"these candidates in this format produced the most eloquent and "presidental sounding" quotes and mini-speeches than any of the other debates so far."

you can put a pretty red ribbon on a turd but its still a turd

12/5/2007 10:16:40 AM

considering that much of a president's duty is basically PR for our country to the rest of the world, the pretty ribbon actually does make a difference. it matters a lot how well-spoken and convincing our politicians are.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 10:30:11 AM

well image is certainly important and clearly has been for presidents since at least Kennedy/Nixon (first televised debate)

course they are running for President of the United States, not poet laureate...lets just elect Maya Angelou if we're going for eloquent speeches...at least she means what she says

12/5/2007 10:40:52 AM

obviously it's not just about image. but image is important. but even more than image, an ability to persuade others (world leaders, business people, whomever) to go along with your plans, is very important for a president.

12/5/2007 10:48:44 AM

Anyone who can't see the importance of a well spoken president must be a Bush supporter.

12/5/2007 10:52:16 AM

You prefer eloquence. I prefer substance.

12/5/2007 10:58:27 AM

who has said a thing about preference here?

12/5/2007 11:00:22 AM

Me?

12/5/2007 11:01:51 AM

then stop saying someone else "prefers eloquence." no one has said that.

12/5/2007 11:02:22 AM

Quote :

"who has said a thing about preference here?"

I was going to respond as such, but it's a TreeTwista hallmark to decide for the other posters what their position is for them. Just not worth the effort. It's just part of what makes him a douchebag and what has driven this seciton into the shitter over the years. He did the same thing yesterday. I PMd Duke and Joe Schmoe and they both didn't think it was a suspendable offense.

Just like the current politicians, all that rhetoric last week, no action this week.

12/5/2007 11:03:02 AM

How bout you guys comment more on the substance of what the candidates said, instead of how eloquently they said it? Course you guys also claim that its not what I say that makes people mad or comes across as trolling, but how I say it. So yeah, both of you prefer eloquence to substance. FACT.

12/5/2007 11:05:07 AM

Quote :

"you can put a pretty red ribbon on a turd but its still a turd"

thanks for the substance, twista.

Quote :

"Course you guys also claim that its not what I say that makes people mad or comes across as trolling, but how I say it. So yeah, both of you prefer eloquence to substance. FACT."

i'm out. you're blatantly troll-baiting here.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 11:10 AM. Reason : response to v]

12/5/2007 11:06:53 AM

who's troll baiting? i'm talking shit about the bullshit debates with loaded preselected quesitons and lying candidates and how a couple posts in this thread praise their answers for being "eloquent" instead of having any legit substance. if you don't like it, don't address it, nobody is forcing you to post

Quote :

"Course you guys also claim that its not what I say that makes people mad or comes across as trolling, but how I say it. So yeah, both of you prefer eloquence to substance."

this is the reason both of you as well as others have given me in the past as to why you think im disliked by some in this section...not what i say, but how i say it....now when i mention what you yourself have said in the past, when its completely relevant to the thread, it its troll baiting? how convenient

12/5/2007 11:09:52 AM

the discussion in this thread was moving along quite well by all parties.

then someone showed up to troll, and the thread took a nosedive.

12/5/2007 8:48:16 PM

Quote :

"ChanceI PMd Duke and Joe Schmoe and they both didn't think it was a suspendable offense"

goddammit man, dont PM me then publicly misrepresent what I privately replied to you.

the instance you PM'ed me about was not regarding this thread. it was for a different thread, which wasnt (IMO) a suspendable offense.

I didnt say one thing to you about this thread. if i were you, i wouldn't fuck up the little support you still have.

12/5/2007 8:58:16 PM

Despite all the talk you and Josh Duke were doing last week about making changes, nothing is changing around here unless it's blatant "fuck you idiot" or something similar.

He is giving TreeTwista a general free pass, and you're being a pussy and giving him a free pass on this thread, too.

Whats the problem? The whole TSB enlightenment was started because of he and I. For the past 2 weeks I've basically turned my posts in this section 180 degrees, refusing to turn my work boredom into entertainment by launching a flurry of expletives and insults whenever he drops his standard TreeTwista gems like can be found above.


If neither of you are actually going to follow through with the attempt to clean the scum from this section, I'm going to revert to my old ways. And if Josh Duke starts suspending me, I'll be asking of the owners for a refund of all the money I have spent on this site for past violations of terms of service with legal implications if they fuck with me. That's all I've been asking for for weeks now, to give me my money back, and I'll gladly leave.

12/5/2007 9:14:58 PM

Quote :

"I'll be asking of the owners for a refund of all the money I have spent on this site for past violations of terms of service with legal implications if they fuck with me."

Quote :

"Account abuse will not be tolerated under ANY circumstances. As we have limited the accounts per user to ONE, we presume that our users will value their sole account at The Wolf Web. All users must abide by the Posting Guidelines. Free accounts and Paid accounts will be treated identically. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate any user account."

good luck!

12/5/2007 10:17:40 PM

Quote :

"All users must abide by the Posting Guidelines."

Yea, I'm pretty sure I have a strong case seeing as how the Posting Guidelines and suspension enforcement is not at all uniform or even well defined for that matter.

12/5/2007 10:28:36 PM

Quote :

"We reserve the right to suspend or terminate any user account"

I boldfaced that line so you'd see it but you must have missed it...seems pretty cut and dry to me

12/5/2007 10:29:57 PM

Quote :

" "I just want to be clear to the listeners that we have a real division here," Edwards said at today's NPR/Iowa Public Radio debate in Des Moines. "I mean, among the Democratic candidates, there's only one that voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted." Dodd and Biden voted against it; Edwards, who is no longer in the Senate, and Obama, who was campaigning, didn't vote on it but have said they opposed the legislation."

Thanks flying Ryan, that was one of the quotes I was talking about earlier in this thread, but couldn't remember how it was worded.

I also remember Edwards saying to Hillary something to the effect to
if you believe in the terminology that we are in a "War on Terror" which Hillary prescribes to
and if you believe and declare parts of Iran's Military as "Terrorists"
then that seems like we are on a path towards war with Iran.

Hillary then laughed it off and said calling Iran's military terrorists is helping them to reform their military.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/edwards.also.running/index.html

Quote :

"# John Edwards tied with Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Iowa # Clinton, Obama have been attacking each other's judgment and character daily # Edwards toning down criticism, believing Iowans will be turned off by attacks DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- With Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama increasingly sniping at each other, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards sees an opening in Iowa. Edwards, Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in the Hawkeye state, according to the latest polls, and, with a little less than one month left until the Iowa caucuses on January 3, Clinton and Obama are trading almost-daily attacks on each others character and judgment. ... Edwards is banking Clinton's and Obama's bitter sound bites will backfire in notoriously-friendly Iowa. So, Edwards, the first and the fiercest of the Clinton critics, is dialing back now and emphasizing the vision thing. ... And even if he places a close second in Iowa behind Clinton, Edwards could solidify himself as the "anti-Hillary" candidate."

I think he did pretty well in this debate. Gravel was fun as always. A few of the lower tiers seemed to be constantly agreeing with whatever Hillary said. Obama did alright too.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 10:30:47 PM