Debate could've been great, but shallowness and arrogence ruined it

[Armstead]

After watchging last night's debate, I am more disgusted than ever with both the "major" two candidates and the Media Whores.

The format was much better, actually having a discussion around a table. But it was handled so badly they might as well have phoned it all in.

The way Kucinich was treated was just awful. And more important, the way his ideas were treated shows just how shallow and cluless the reporters and the "centrist" Democrat strategy is.

Kucinich, unfortunately, was treated like the shy, smart kid who knows the answer but isn't paid any attention or taken seriously because he isn't big and brassy.

Neither of the two "major" candidates nor the media whores even bothered to respond when Kucinich brought up ideas like universal health care or why we shouldn;t have gone to Iraq in the first place.

The only response was that asshole Larry King muttering "socialism" or John Kerry's imperious dismissal of DK.

I would have even liked Kerry and Edwards better if they'd bother to refute Kucinich and state why they didn't feel that was possible. At least they would have engaged with the idea.....But inst4ead, once again the impression is left that the only way to improve healthcare is to get in bed with the Private Insurance Monopolies.


Similarly with Iraq and free trade.

It is clear between the shallow duplicity and arrogence of the Corporate Press and the Corporate Democrats that they want to limit political dialogue to soundbytes and preening beauty contests.

[trumad]

1. John Kerry's imperious dismissal of DK.

What debate were you watching... Kerry was clear on the other side and was as polite as usual... Get real!

[Armstead]

3. Different strokes for different folks

I think he is imperious and it's worse that he ignores the beliefs that many people have about these issues then to refute them.

It's like "single payer health care. Never heard of it. But I won't bother to consider it because it's too radical for my corporate backers."

[trumad]

8. Wait a minute

You said: "John Kerry's imperious dismissal of DK."

He didn't do that.... It's just that you can't stand Kerry enough to pretend that he was er..imperious, just to make you feel good.... Facts are pretty important here because if they weren't then I'd have to say that it was disgusting the way Dennis was picking his nose during the debate!

[Armstead]

9. No Trumad, I've been trying to "like" Kerry

I realize he will most likely be the nominee, and I have been trying to convince myself that I can become enthusiastic about him because I am ultimately very ABB.

But Kerry keeps disappointing. Like I said, it's one thing to disagree with ideas like universal health care. I can accept that. But to totally ignore it when DK gave an opening to discuss it is typical of the Democratic centrist tactic of pretending that only a narrow little menu of options exists on any issue.

[trumad]

10. Kerry has his plan and so does DK

If this was a one on one with the both of them that would be great... I'd love to see Kerry's 18 years of Senate experience and DK's years of experience in the Congress go at it on this issue.

But I'm sure that in a debate format like last night you're not going to see a guy with 8 delegates drive the debate. Don't dismiss Kerry for that.... Dismiss CNN.

[Armstead]

14. I do more than dismiss CNN

Please note that my original post blasted the media presstitutes too. They are lergely respobible for so much of this nonsense.

I was just hoping that this format would give a real chance to discuss the issues, and see the candidates wrestle around about the ideas and message each of them represrents.

Even if the ultimate outcome is basically pre-ordained, this is the stage of the campaign where all factions of our side have a chance to engage and deal with our own differences. In the General Election, the nominee will be spending all his time just defending the most basic aspects of these issues against the more fundamental onslaught from the right wing.

But whether we really defend the entire specrtum on our side depends on whether we deal with these differences now.

[edzontar]

23. You have dared to criticize the ANOINTED ONE. You will be purged.

All must bow down and pay homage to the ELECTABLE ONE.

[mountebank]

11. Kerry did imperiously dismiss DK at one point.

Kerry was talking about Iraq and was saying how it was done poorly - and DK interrupted and said "What was the right way to do it?" Kerry paused for a moment, looked over, and then continued right on with his talking points. Fine - DK did interrupt him - but when that happened at other times in the debate, the person interrupted usually responded with a clarification. Imperious Kerry kept right on moving.

[IrateCitizen]

17. And that would make Kerry "Winston Noble"?

Compared to DK's Hubert Hogg?

Yes, elections in this country are coming to reflect the vision of Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451, all right. :grr:

[info being]

40. He did. Kucinich tried to engage him...Kerry looked, and then...

looked the other way without even awcknowledging him. It pissed me off too.

[Iverson]

66. That must have been the "big tent" in action.

Now that Kucinich has been allowed to sit at the same table, all the DK supporters owe their votes to whoever the nominee might happen to be.

[youngred]

57. Bull

Kerry was rude and dismissive of Kucinich. It has nothing to do with like/dislike of Kerry. It's fact

[Carolina]

41. I agree, he comes across

somewhat pompous and imperious which will go over quite well with the everyday Joes and Janes in the GE campaign.

I have met and heard Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark. Kerry needs help connecting. Don't be fooled, his 'electablility' appeal to Democratic primary voters will be sorely tested in the GE and I hope he can pull it off but I'm :scared:

[Khephra]

2. I thought it was the most boring of all the debates

The two "major" candidates are starting to sound so much like each other that it's silly. I'm reminded of the Gore/Bush debate skits on SNL.

And that's how I think it will sound again by the time we have a nomination to go up against Bush. The DLC isn't going to let either Kerry or Edwards sound too "lefty". They've already stated their opinion on the matter too many times to doubt them.

4 more years of war. That's all we have waiting on us.

[SangamonTaylor]

50. that's rediculous

The same? Their policies the same as bush? That's just too funny. Sounds like Nader talk to me. If you cannot see the difference then you should look a bit harder.

[mmm]

4. They should have taken the discussion to the level of Kucinich

They blew an excellent opportunity to discuss some important
issues. Of course, they knew just what they were doing.
This is why it is so sad.

[Armstead]

5. Yep. So much time wasted.

They get a chance to actually talk about issues but instead waste so much of it over "horse race" questions and minor distinctions between two very similar politicians.

[silverlib]

6. Well put!

My sentiments, exactly. I am definitely ABB, but I thought DK, his platform and ideas received a "you don't exist" attitude.

[drthais]

7. my personal un-favorite part

was the transparency of the questioners
trying to get the candidates to attack each other

it was like 'c'mon, c'mon'

I agree with the other posts
Kucinich was treated poorly
Sharpton not so much, but then again
Al will just bust his way through that sh*t

one striking moment, I though
was when Edwards laid his hand on Kerry;s sleeve
and Kerry was trying mightily to ignore it
because it was a lengthy gesture

[janx]

12. I didn't watch it. Was it as boring as I imagined it might be? n/t

[CWebster]

16. Worse

It was offensive.

Don't watch if you are searching for an easier way to be ABB.

[janx]

19. How was it offensive?

?

[CWebster]

30. The preselected images spun as our choice

were focused on as the only credible candidates. The others were dismissed by the establishment elite as crackpots with crackpot messages.

[janx]

36. Figures.

:-(

[redqueen]

20. I recorded it

Will watch tonight, because I don't have to vote for them. :)

[Armstead]

22. Keep a vomit bucket handy when you watch

Sorry for the graphic phrase, but it was eally sickening the treatment Kucinich got.

[redqueen]

28. Yeah I have that impression, for sure

Sneering and eye rolling from King Kerry, eh?

It will make not voting for him SO much sweeter. :)

[no name no slogan]

18. Boring but infuriating

It was Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum trying to differentiate themselves from each other, Sharpton being his normal wisecracker self, and DK not only getting ignored but SNUBBED when he brought up important points like the Iraq war and universal healthcare.

And that was just by the candidates! The "panel" was a joke, and seemed annoyed to be there. Larry King was a jackass, flapping his gums over anybody who tried to answer a question seriously. Like anybody needs to hear more of that two-bit beltline gossiper anyway.

[janx]

26. I had a *hunch* it would turn out that way.

I take it that Mr. Kerry was looking fairly confident... ?

[no name no slogan]

43. Oh yes, confident and arrogant

and almost inhuman with the added botox. His hair looked a little darker, too, IMHO.

Because apparently it's all about image, big suprise.

[KoKo]

13. It's the only debate I've missed. I didn't watch because I don't care

anymore. I feel it's all a "done deal," so why bother with the candidates left. Kucinich has stayed in, and no one listens because the debates aren't about issues it's about "grandstanding," and who's going to carry the debate and preen to ask the questions. The best debates were the early ones, it was downhill from there, imho.

I thought this was going to be an exciting Primary season with much Democratic enthusiasm over fixing what went wrong with Selection 2000, why we Dems lost in the Mid Terms, Corporate Corruption and the whole dangerous fiasco of this Administrations bungling of everything they've touched and how they are sending our country into the skids.

But, no. It's the same old, same old. And when the excitement leaves the political process then we are doomed to the manipulation from the "powers that be."

I don't care about debates. I won't watch another one. I want to think about what can be done to rebuild the party from within. I don't know what that will be--Dean says he will try. I hope so. :-(

[janx]

24. We all have to try, yes? It didn't work this time, but we have

to get Chimpy out of the White House this time. In the meantime and after that, we can work to affect change.

[rucky]

33. Can you believe Richard Hatch got voted off?!

[diamondsoul]

35. Hey, KoKo-

I stared a thread at the Kucinich board because of some concerns about rigging the votes even in the primaries...

Totally off the thread topic but if there are any legal beagles you know in the DFA groups this might be a valid proposition for EVERY candidates supporters to consider in the absence of a federal "paper trail". I'm thinking it could be just as effective in a GE but it requires major participation on the part of voters. It's worded to focus on DK and some of the things I've found out about Primary tallies over the past few months and because obviously I work for him, BUT it seems to apply to everyone with the possible exception of John Kerry.

Here's a link to the thread-

http://us.denniskucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4242&sid=e59d1e8773d62b9e58d3374445596cf2

Please check it out and invite others if you think it might be a worthwhile notion.

[KoKo]

51. Thanks, will check it out. Don't know any legal beagles, but will pass

along to anyone who might.

[redqueen]

15. I've never been happier to live in Texas

Where I can safely NOT vote for either of those two bush-backing centrists.

[lastliberalintexas]

45. Whoda thunk

that living in a solidly red state might actually be a good thing for once? :o

I have made a concession to my hubby and family though- if the polls are close in Texas in Oct, I'll reconsider my vote. We shall see. I doubt it's anything that I'll have to worry about in this state!

[redqueen]

53. Oh I agree if it's close (?!) I'll definitely vote for the Ham Sandwich

But if it's not (which is about as close to a sure bet as you'll ever find) then it's the Protest Vote for me! :)

[RichM]

21. My only difference with your observations is the intensity of outrage.

Well, OK, maybe I'd also leave the "Debate could've been great" part out of the subject line. Too conciliatory.

Other than that, I saw it precisely as you described it.

And the implications of the grotesque deficiencies that you identified are enormous. In themselves, they demonstrate that our political system has altogether ceased to function. It's a sclerotic dysfunctional failure. A "debate" like last night's is far more an exercise in SHUTTING DOWN real discussion than in having it.

The purpose of last night was to AVOID discussion of issues; to DIVERT attention from real questions (Iraq, health care) into moronic TV idiocy (like "Sen. Kerry: What nice quality does Sen. Edwards have that you don't have?"). The purpose was to LIMIT the range of dialogue, to smash down attempts to explore issues... In short, to crush challenges to the framework of thought most acceptable to ruling class interests.

The last sentence of your post cannot really be improved upon, even by a tough & critical eye. ;-)

[Armstead]

25. Not much difference in intensity

Maybe I'm more disgusted than you because I still harbored some hope this primary might make a difference.

But we're right back to the V-Chip politics of 96, and the "gosh I'm so afraid to be progressive populist so I'll just talk in general about special interests" tone of 2000.

I wanted to throw my television out the window at one point, but my cooler head prevailed.

ON EDIT: I added the all important "than" to replace "by" which I certainly didn't mean. Just sloppy typing.

[RichM]

38. OK, if you wanted to throw the TV out the window, we were about even

on the intensity. Point conceded.

[Armstead]

48. Yep

My television was saved by my moderate side. ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. The DLC?

Don't Lob Cathode.

[redqueen]

29. A bonus

is that it literally drives people AWAY from the process who might otherwise have been interested.

The powers that be can be safely assured of the continuation of the status quo as long as potentially activist people are sufficiently demoralized, no?

[IrateCitizen]

32. "Potentially activist people" are not their target of disaffection

Their target of disaffection is the great mass of people who do NOT vote because they feel completely alienated by the process.

When issues are discussed that address the real concerns that many of these people have, then they might just become engaged. Hell, just imagine what a difference it could make if only 10% of those eligible to vote but didn't in 2000 were to vote in 2004? You'd be talking about another 8-10 million people at the polls!

That's why the discussions are so quickly shifted away from talk of health coverage, trade and war/peace issues -- and instead things like same-sex marriage, "likeability" and similar issues.

The disaffected then remain disaffected, and the status quo can continue on apace.

[redqueen]

42. That was my point exactly

By "potentially activist" I was referring to just that mass of people who don't vote because they're alienated. They're alienated in no small part by the kind of pointless BS as was apparently displayed last night.

So sad that so many are so willing to accept it. But hey, if you're only concern is to be on the side that's winning... :) (who can name that song reference?)

[Tinoire]

27. Last night's debate disgusted me and pushed me over the line

It's drawn now. Unmovable. I shall not be voting for Kerry. No amount of hand-wringing or plastering posts with BFEE bogeyman is going to make me change my mind.

Skull & Bones vs Skull & Bones and the corporate media complicit to the neck.


Kerry. The man who wants us to believe that he was misled by the village idiot. If you're misled by that village idiot, then you're not smart enough to be my President. And phooey on that misled garbage. No one was misled. People like Byrd & Kucinich made that very clear at the time. Pages and pages of DU archives bear witness to that.

Edwards at least has the saving grace of not weasling and saying he was misled. That & the fact that he is anti-NAFTA are about the only thing I like about Edwards but damn it, Edwards is a MAN standing behind his bad votes. Kucinich is a courageous upright MAN who didn't cast those bad votes. Kerry? I won't even say what I think.

[revcarol]

37. Kerry lost my vote too.

I have been a Democrat for 42 years. Kerry's actions, like he was chuckling every time DK spoke, were insulting to my candidate and to me, a Democrat and a voter.

And his arrogant dismissal of DK's question on Iraq and trying to portray him as a liar: REFUSAL TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES and NOT ABLE TO COUNTER THE FACT THAT HE WOULD SEND 40,000 TROOPS THAT ...WE DON'T HAVE...INTO IRAQ.

"DRAFT, ANYONE?"

Larry King tried to marginalize DK, but the real INSULT was Kerry.

Edwards had alrewady lost my vote for his NAFTA pandering. For a legal eagle, he sure is DUMB, or else he is PANDERING. Surely he knows that the corporations at the WTO can overturn any re-negotiated NAFTA in their secret tribunals, and they would.

Totally disgusted. Not ABB anymore.

[GreenArrow]

46. actually, Edwards says he wasn't misled

and would have gone. He's glad we're there, and we did the right thing. He says we should have had an international coalition, but at the same time says we "couldn't let the Security Council hold us hostage." He's thoroughly unrepentant, and proud of his vote.

I know you're looking for a way to stay within the party, but Edwards is as guilty as Kerry on every count. I was steeling myself to vote for either one of those fucks, but I'm getting to the point where I'm about to forsake ABB, which is a really a red herring anyway, as last night's debate spelled out perfectly clearly. The problem is bigger than some fake Democrat/Republican dichotomy. Like I needed more evidence.

[Tinoire]

47. That's what I was aiming at. That Edwards admits he wasn't misled

I know he's thoroughly unrepentant; still I prefer his attitude to Kerry's lies because it's less insulting to our intelligence. Sorry for my clumsy construction.

The rest of your post, paragraph 2, really discourages me because this is one area where I wish I didn't have any company. Last night's debate made everything irrefutably and irreparably clear.

Cry my beloved country.

[KittyWampus]

31. Someone Should Tell Dennis His Idea Of Having UN Deal With Iraq

is unworkable. The UN not only would not but COULD not deal with Iraq.

And yet every debate he spouts the same absurd notion and none of the other candidates call him on it.

They are probably just being nice.

While I agree the media is shallow and that last night's goal for them seemed to be to try & start a fight between Edwards and Kerry... I am tired of the deification of Dennis.

Take the profit out of health care... a poorly worded, misleading slogan. And yet Dennis keeps it up and his supporters cheer him on.

Even though I know perfectly well Dennis is NOT referring to doctors and nurses etc., most people hear that and think "Socialism. This is Dennis' fault for being a lousy communicator and essentially tone deaf.

[Armstead]

34. I partly agree but....

I agree Kucinich as a prsidential candidate is not the ideal vehicle on the playing field we're given.

I think his major problem is he is trying to be heard by using the corproate media and politician strategy of trying to sum up a position in a sound byte.

When Kucinich is in a venue -- like an unpressured one-on-one interview -- he shines. He is so damn smart AND his ideas are much more mainsytream and practical and nuanced and realistic than they come across in those stinking debates.


It's a basic dilemma because rather than the content, how you look and how loud your voive is becomes the emphasis.

That's one reason last night was such an abomination though. There is certainly room to challenge his ideas on universal single payer health care. But the Democratic Centrists and the Corporate Media don't even allow it to be discussed and argued about.

[KittyWampus]

39. Dennis Really Is Smart. And People Trust Him

in a way they probably don't other politicians... but I don't think of him as a politician.

IMO, he's an Advocate.

He might be more effective picking particular battles rather than trying to fight the war (run for prez).

[Mairead]

44. What an incredibly chauvinist view

The idea that the US is more capable of nation-building than all the other countries of the world working together seems ...poorly thought out.

[LosAngelesDemocrat]

49. A different perspective from personal attendance

I posted earlier from my personal account of what happened.
here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=405277&mesg_id=405437

[eridani]

65. Us poor watchers didn't get the benefit of all that human interaction

Glad you did, though.

[saracat]

52. Everyone is missing the point

These debates are not about appealing to the activist who lurks on this kind of board.There is a truism which says never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, and much as I hate to accept the fact, I think it is true.Most people are not informed on the issues. They just want a quick fix and someone who strikes them as having personality and looks to do it.
This election is not about anything else but winning. Kerry , whether people like it or not , is a President who could have come straight from central casting. He is tall enough and has a sense of gravitas. Some might find it boring but it smacks of presidential. For the average last minute voter, image is everything. Think about it. Remove the issues(everyone else does!).DK is too short and a dweeb. Sharpton is too jive. Edwards too young. Who's left?
Sorry, but this is about packaging and this is the only package we've got that will sell.Can anyone tell me that if you picture Bush side by side with Kerry, Kerry doesn't look more presidential?

[anti-NAFTA]

54. Voters don't care about who looks "presidential."

George Bush's image is one that allows him to connect with working class Americans and Southerners. Voters want a likeable candidate, not someone who looks like he some secretive insider.

[redqueen]

55. I have to agree

In talking with people about who they support, who they 'like' is much more frequently mentioned that who looks good.

I think that's a major reason that candidates should refrain from attacking bush personally. Voters won't react well to that at ALL.

[saracat]

56. What voters "TELL" you they want

and what actually persuades them to vote are frequently not the same thing.Under certain circumstances likability is the standard. It certainly was when Clinton was elected, and you may be right about Bush,though I think his "likability "is manufactured. I have yet to see it.
But with this "wartime" perception, people are voting for someone who can keep us safe. It is the same issue with the economy. We need a "Daddy" to fix our problem. Bush's appeal is based on the illusion that he is "one of us", "someone you'd like to have a beer with".
We need to use that against him. We don't want "one of us "in office right now. We want someone smarter than us to save us .I think the only one that fits the image is Kerry.

[janx]

58. Fear works.

Such a shame.

[saracat]

59. Good point

But I don't know if it is so much fear as"merchandising"! The Republicans created the fear and we must create safety to counter it.Unfortunately it is all about the manipulation of the voters perspective. And in our media oriented world it is very visual.
When we couldn't see the candidates the issues loomed larger. Now it is all about presentation.

[janx]

61. The fear is a part of the merchandising.

The media and Republicans instilled the fear, but some Democrats were not above using it. The whole soldier theme illustrates that.

[Armstead]

60. I think the point is different

You're right. Presentation is a key factor today.

But why not have both presentation and a real honest-to-goodness progressive agenda in a candidate?

That's how Reagan succeeded. He was "presidential" but he wasn't an empty suit. He stood for something distinct. He was not some bland "concensus" candidate but a strong voice for a defined political agenda.

We may not like REagan's politics, but I suspect if he had been a progfressive Democrat, we'd all have him on the same pedistal as FDR and otehr icons.

But the democrats seem to throw up people who have that personal appeal, but no substance. What's a shame about Kerry (IMO, of course) is that he does have presidential presence and could be a really strong progressive advocate. But he has chosen the course of the "mushy middle" instead of using his assets to be a Ronald Reagan for the left side.

[saracat]

62. Maybe thats asking for too much.

And BTW Reagan WAS an "empty suit" And he wasn't "presidential" either. He was "likable".I think Kerry will have broader appeal than some people think because his image will overcome what is perceived as a "liberal" bias. The "mushy middle "might be somewhat necessary to garner the majority of the voted. The Dem nomination is one thing but most democrats don't vote. Sad but true. And Kerry would never have the charm of Reagan but Regan would never have the presence of Kerry!

[anti-NAFTA]

63. 100% correct.

Reagan stood for something. It might not have been something any of us would consider great or even good, but there was something he represented. Kerry will never be a Reagan of the left. Republicans can refuse to mitigate their views. Why can't Democrats?

[saracat]

64. And BTW

Reagen was a "progressive Democrat" before having his arm twisted into running as a Repug by Alfred Bloomingdale.

[jsw_81]

67. The debate could have been great...

But Kucinich and Sharpton ruined it. Face it: these guys are joke candidates who don't belong on the stage with potential presidents like Kerry and Edwards. And if that offends the .002 percent who are supporting Kucinich and Sharpton, so be it.

[charlie]

68. Not offended

The mere fact that those two share the same air you do has been spoiling your digestion since at least October. That's worth something.