ABC co-sponsored the so-called debate with The National Constitutional Center - Who is that you say?

[cyberpj]

With thanks to DUer:
IamyourTVandIownyou Thu Apr-17-08 03:42 AM

From Transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=1

GIBSON: ABC News is pleased to sponsor the debate, along with the National Constitutional Center.

Guess who?

National Constitution Center Board of Trustees

NATIONAL HONORARY COMMITTEE
Mrs. George H.W. Bush
President & Mrs. Jimmy Carter
President William J. Clinton &
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Mrs. Gerald R. Ford

CHAIRMAN
President George H.W. Bush

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/about_us/BoardofTrustees/index.shtml

[anonymous171]

1. OMG...really?

:wow: :wtf:

[cyberpj]

10. Yep. Now let's get this info to the top of the Greatest page for some real attention. nt

[onenote]

20. yes, because its important for everyone to see that a bi-partisan organization sponsored the debates

O.M.G.!!!

(Check the Board of Trustees -- a number of Obama supporters in that list, in case you didn't know).

[cyberpj]

27. see reply #24. nt

[CreekDog]

41. one of the trustees was a participant

:eyes:

[onenote]

47. which one?

Hillary, by virtue of being a former first lady, is an "Honorary" board member. As is Betty Ford, Rosylnn Carter, Babs Bush.

You want to make a wager that the bylaws of this organization do not give "honorary" board members a vote on board decisions?

Does it bother you that members of the actual board include donors to Obama's campaign (as well as donors to the campaigns of Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards?)

Would you prefer that organizations that have as their mission education/awareness about the constitution only have people who do not participate at all in the political process as their members?

[CreekDog]

54. by her logic, Ayers board membership mattered

so her membership on the board matters even more.

[onenote]

55. do you think Ayers board membership mattered?

I don't.

Which means I'm being consistent.

Are you?

[CreekDog]

62. it would matter if the board Ayers was on sponsored a debate Ayers participated in

:think:

[onenote]

70. as an honorary member? Nope.

And if the debate had been sponsored by the Univ. of Illinois where he's a tenured professor? Nope.

The National Consitution Center is, first and foremost, a museum. It was the site of the debate. BFD.

[CreekDog]

71. on balance i agree with you

that's almost nit picking at this point. the problem with the debate was the content and moderation.

[onenote]

72. absolutely. It was a horrible debate. And I blame the journalists for that

not a non-partisan non-profit organization that lent its name and its building to the debate.

[mhoran]

80. Don't you think it was at least worth a disclaimer?

Using Georgie-Boy as a moderator was also just plain stupid.

[onenote]

104. No. SHe has no actual involvement. Its an honorary title.

Of course, the fact that several of the actual voting board members have contributed to various presidential campaigns -- including to Obama -- maybe that should've be the topic of a disclaimer.

And every news organization -- broadcast and print -- should run disclaimers about who their board members have contributed to. Doncha think?

[JDPriestly]

124. But the honorary members -- are honored and admired by them.

[Adelante]

2. Ed Rendell is a Trustee, btw nt

[cyberpj]

4. Yep. Here's the entire list:

National Constitution Center Board of Trustees

NATIONAL HONORARY COMMITTEE
Mrs. George H.W. Bush
President & Mrs. Jimmy Carter
President William J. Clinton &
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Mrs. Gerald R. Ford

CHAIRMAN
President George H.W. Bush

CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
Lawrence J. Kent

CHAIR EMERITI
John C. Bogle
A.E. Wolf

PRESIDENT & CEO
Joseph M. Torsella

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Shahara Ahmad-Llewellyn*
Yale Asbell
Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D.
David Boies, Esq.
Madison E. Bond
Daniel R. Butler
Gilbert F. Casellas, Esq.
Richard M. DeVos, Sr.*
Richard Dreyfuss
W. Joseph Duckworth
Andre V. Duggin
Stuart F. Feldman
The Honorable Peter G. Fitzgerald
The Honorable Vincent J. Fumo
Steve M. Galbraith
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Ph.D.
The Honorable Robert W. Godshall
The Honorable Slade Gorton
Amy Gutmann, Ph.D.
Stephen J. Harmelin, Esq.
Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
Paul C. Heintz, Esq.
Linda E. Johnson, Esq.
Sidney Kimmel
Chris Larson
Paul Levy
Alan Roberts McFarland
The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor
Russell E. Palmer*
William G. Paul, Esq.
Vivian Weyerhaeuser Piasecki
Alan L. Reed, Esq.*
The Honorable Edward G. Rendell
Derrick A. Roman
Helen Ryu
William A. Slaughter, Esq.
Stephen D. Steinour
The Honorable Peter Terpeluk, Jr.
Stanley B. Tulin
Paul R. Verkuil, Esq.
Richard Worley

*VICE CHAIRMAN

[papau]

9. My God Presidents and supreme Court Judges and well known liberal lawyers

[defendandprotect]

161. Wasn't O'Connor part of the Gang of 5 who put Bush in White House?

[Botany]

153. Richard Dreyfuss?

Talk about jumping the shark!

[MonkeyFunk]

3. so?

[Usrename]

94. So, you already knew that she sponsored her own debate.

What's the big deal, right?

[MonkeyFunk]

97. It looks like

the organization has an honorary board consisting of presidents and their spouses.

And we need more information before we can conclude something nefarious here. To what extent were they involved? To what extent was Clinton involved?

This is just a dumb attempt at a smear.

[onenote]

102. its dumber than dumb.

The NCC is primarily a museum. Its federally chartered. Its non partisan and non profit. It lent its name and its facilities for the debate. In less than 10 minutes I found four of its trustees who had donated to the Obama campaign. BFD.

[Usrename]

111. So you don't believe that her associations are important, either.

Why is there a long-standing practice of ethical people disclosing these things? It's common practice, isn't it?

Why is an ethical person expected to make such a disclosure. Do you think ethical people are mentally challenged?

[onenote]

112. Its fucking automatic -- she's a former first lady, so she gets the "honorary" position

What sort of disclosure.

SHould Obama have disclosed that some of the actual voting board members of the NCC have contributed to his campaign? If not, why not?

[Divine Discontent]

126. Obama supporter and I agree with you EOM

[Bluenorthwest]

164. The NCC has been the scene

Of many past campaign events, including in this very cycle, Senator Obama's address on race. So he selected the NCC as the site of the most important speech he has delivered thus far in the campaign.
The problems with the debate were ABC problems, and I am glad people are waking up to ABC for whatever reason. Our candidates should never have done a debate with that network at all. I won't even watch ABC, so I did not see the debate. Was it moderated by Jim Belushi? Did they debate the Path To 9-11?

[Usrename]

108. Wouldn't it be the standard form for her to disclose this relationship?

Why do you think she failed to do this?

I never said it was nefarious, it could just be incompetence, or it could be (what I actually believe) that she doesn't feel that she owes the public any kind of disclosures about who she associates with or what conflicts of interest she may have.

I think she believes, deep-down, that bribery and the buying and selling of political influence is what makes the world go round.

[onenote]

114. No. There is no "relationship" its an honorary title that goes with being a former first lady

It no more needed to be "disclosed" than the fact that several of the actual voting board members have donated to Obama.

Do you know anything about the NCC? Do you know anything about its "relationship" to the debate. It lent its facilities (the deabate was held at the NCC, which is principally a museum) and its name to the debate.

Good grief. YOu realize that Obama (whom I support) gave a speech there not that long ago?

[Usrename]

117. So you are arguing that they did not sponsor the debate?

If that's the case then there is no need to disclose anything. But I thought the OP stated that they did sponsor it.

How can there be "no relationship" when they are the sponsors? Just curious about how you make such an assertion.

[onenote]

119. they "sponsored" it by putting their name on it and lending their facilities

BFD.

By the way, earlier this year, the Congressional Black Caucus co-sponsored a debate with CNN. I don't recall any big concern being voiced about the fact that one of the candidates in that debate -- and only one -- was a member of the sponsoring organization.

I'd be interested if you could link me to some of your outrage about that.

[Usrename]

121. Of course it would be unethical to fail to disclose that relationship.

Why wouldn't it be?

[onenote]

127. You are referring to the CBC sponsored debate?

[qazplm]

131. if this were Obama on the board

you'd be crying a storm.

Now you admit there are unanswered questions, but have decided unanswered that its just a dumb attempt at a smear.

You've got the intellectual curiosity of George Bush.

[onenote]

134. I wouldn't be making a sound about it.

First off, I'm an obama supporter. And I had no problem with the Congressional Black Caucus sponsoring a debate even though only one of the candidates was a member of that group.

And I could give a rat's ass as to whether some of the members of the boards of trustees of the following universities, all of which hosted a Democratic debate (just like the NCC hosted a debate) have endorsed or contributed to the campaigns of Obama, Clinton or anyone else: Clevland State, Howard, South Carolina State, U of Texas, Dartmouth, Drexel, U of Miami, St. Anselm.

BUt I guarantee you that if you checked, you'd find members of the boards of all of those institutions that have contributed to one or more presidential campaigns.

BFD

[Selatius]

5. Why did the League of Women Voters stop moderating the debates decades ago?

Wait, now I know. The two parties were issuing bullshit terms to try to control the debate, and they withdrew in protest.

[liam_laddie]

85. The Collier brothers book "Votescam" addresses this...

An entity named News Election Service (NES) was created in 1964, a joint venture of ABC, CBS, NBC, AP and UPI. It was formed to aggregate the national unofficial election results via call-ins by volunteers from various organizations, primarily the LWV, which had sponsored the Presidential debates since 1960, and which received substantial support from the media.

In 1985, "those behind the curtain" pushed out the LWV; the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an establishment think tank, drove the decision plus the networks didn't want a non-partisan sponsor. This allowed agenda-driven control of the debates. It all fits into the "new world order" scenario, I'd say. The Big Two parties certainly had a piece of the action. ABC's performance last night fits the script perfectly. :grr:

[PATRICK]

160. The results

have been abominable for BOTH parties. The safety factor, never getting near the tough issues or certain one-uppings by clever candidates and defining the advantages of incumbents, plus more "enthusiastic" and numerous media slots look pretty pitiful when taken all together or separately. Everyone looks stupid, insulted or insulting, distracted from reality, with absolutely the worst quality of intrusive moderation imaginable(well, maybe worse than that). The ones that "work" have the best moderators and the more serious people issue venues.

They wanted it this way, they put up with it pretty meekly and they deserve every bit of it. They being most of the allowed participants. Naturally those excluded by this ugly affair can be more honest. Edwards this year has made the strongest slap down of part of the process, but this goes to that paper trail style of repair work. The whole thing is rotten.

We shouldn't necessarily just go back to the LWV alone but at least start with their tradition to fix a better, fairer and real debate standard. Maybe with some DC clout for a change they can help get some friendly debates for all parties, picking intelligent, unobtrusive, non-stooge, professional moderators and more important questions from John Q. Public. I can see where parties might want to display their own show debates. Fine. Let them go all out on their own dime. Public access for non-partisan moderated, tough debates should be the only free ride and it should be a scary one for the undeserving.

A fine display of all the crap we get from Foggy Bottom and their pathetic attempts to avoid public accountability.

[wowimthere]

6. That about explains it!

[uponit7771]

7. O no wonder!!!

[JimGinPA]

8. In A Related Story...

When the 'Mystery Machine' arrived, Velma & Freddy pulled the rubber heads off Charlie Gibson & George Stephanopoulos they found out they were really Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh.

[uponit7771]

11. On hold for Tom Hartman right now,.........don't know my que

[Greyskye]

12. Fox in the henhouse

Nice catch. :kick: and R

[Buzz Clik]

13. Earlier this week, some smartass suggested that Hillary is running as a stealth Republican.

Um. Shit. WTF?

[krkaufman]

46. I would only argue with the classification of "stealth."

She hasn't been to subtle or stealthy, from my perspective.

[raebrek]

64. That smart asses comment sounds like Rush speak to me. n/t

[wowimthere]

14. This information should be sent to every alternative media there is n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. We're all fucked.

[wowimthere]

16. I'm hopeful that this won't work... especially if we fan these flames.

[cyberpj]

17. Check out their Mission Statement - Me thinks they should have been studying there, not on the board

At the very least they should have sent George Jr. on a field trip!

Mission Statement
The National Constitution Center is an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of, and appreciation for, the Constitution, its history, and its contemporary relevance, through an interactive, interpretive facility within Independence National Historical Park and a program of national outreach, so that We the People may better secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

[uponit7771]

18. me 2

[crankychatter]

25. Juxtaposition this Fritz the Cat, Political Pornography, Pseudo Debate to that Noble Document

It's the most obscene thing imaginable, on this, quite possibly the last Primary Debate of this Election Cycle.

obscene... offends the sensibilities... appealing only to prurient interest...

I give you Ed Rendell, gloating with GLEE

creepy voyeur - he probably went home and Pastorbated

[onenote]

19. And what exactly is wrong the the NCC co-sponsoring the debate?

Its board is a bi-partisan group of lawyer, business people, etc. Its not "stacked" against anyone. Some of its Board members are repubs, some are Democrats, some have donated to HRC, some (such as Andre Duggin, Henry Gates, Steve Galbraith) have donated to Obama. Others supported Richardson or Dodd.

As an Obama supporter who thought that last night's debate was a journalistic fiasco, I don't think making an issue out of the NCC's co-sponsorship is going to do anything but embarass those trying to make it an issue.

[cyberpj]

24. Bi-partisan is a suspect term in the last 7 years. Many play both sides and some who are Dems are

DLC Dems who aren't Dems at all, to me, anymore.

You name some good names but I doubt if every person on the list was contacted for input on questions to be asked.

I think the top of the list says enough to indicate a conflict of interest here.

[onenote]

30. I doubt any of them were contacted

They co-sponsored it. BUt the journalists, who did an abysmal job, were the ones that came up with the questions.

And while bi-partisan may be a "suspect" term around here, as maybe it should well be (this being "DemocraticUnderground), its not a suspect term for most people, who are sick of partisan warfare and would like to see something actually accomplished.

[mkultra]

39. I think maybe you should consider...

A debate ran in conjunction with a group who has one of the participants ON the committee and moderated by a top staffer of one of the participants husbands might seem a little tainted.

[onenote]

42. I think again that you don't understand the concept of an honorary board

One that you become a member of apparently by virtue of having been married to a past president.

[crankychatter]

21. chairman of the board... carter's a little outnumbered in that list of luminaries, eh?

Nazi-Disney
The CIA Network
and now...
The Anti-Constitution Center of Living Ex-Prezzies and Spouses

America is too weird

[onenote]

22. you do understand the concept of an "honorary" board don't you?

The actual board of trustees consists of a broad, bi-partisan group of lawyers, politicians, business people. That's a bad thing?

And, by the way, the board includes a number of folks who have donated to Obama's campaign.

Silly silly facts.

[crankychatter]

28. don't ever speak to me

ever

[onenote]

31. okay. whoops. Sorry. Just did.

[Cha]

137. You'll have to forgive it...

it has only one note.

[cyberpj]

32. You do understand the concept of "chairman" don't you?

CHAIRMAN
President George H.W. Bush

"A chair is selected by a company's board to lead the board of directors, preside over meetings, and lead the board to consensus from the disparate points of view of its members."

[onenote]

34. Yes. And I represent many organizations with "honorary" chairmpersons

Who do not a think but lend their name to the organization.

Try living in the real world.

[mkultra]

40. yes

An honorary board would be one in which you have little ot no voting power but you have comitte at large status and have input and influence in all projects.

[onenote]

45. so you think Bill Clinton had input and influence in the President's Cup golf tournament

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-588060.html

and Barack Obama had "input and influence" in all of the projects of the Museum of Contemporary Photography's Gala Opening. http://www.mocp.org/uploads/AnticipationPR.pdf


Sure you do.

[mkultra]

53. i think a golf tournament and a political organization would have different allowances

[Grinchie]

157. What disturbs me is that you try to sound human when you harp on and on about semantics.

Sponsor in my dictionary usually means people or organizations that provide resources to promote something, such as a foreign exchange student, or maybe a bill to remove regulation from dangerous chemicals that taste great!

Sponsors usually have a say in how their resources are spent.

You went too far to try an diminish the significance of the board members, especially in light of the irresponsible way the debate was conducted.

Not so silly facts, which now demand a closer look. Thanks for trying so hard!

[City Lights]

23. Wow. That explains a lot.

:argh:

Too bad Chuck didn't spell it out last night before the sham got under way.

[onenote]

26. so what exactly does it "explain"?

Other than that a bi-partisan group with the goal of educating the public about the Constitution -- and that has, on its board, supporters of pretty much all of the candidates, including several donors to Obama's campaign, co-sponsored a debate that was handled shabbily by the journalists in charge of actually conducting it.

Please explain.

[cyberpj]

29. see #24. at the very least, conflict of interest. nt

[onenote]

33. give me a break -- basing a "conflict" on an "honorary" board?

Its an honorary board whose membership includes past presidents and first ladies. HONORARY.

[cyberpj]

36. I repeat:

You do understand the concept of "chairman" don't you?

CHAIRMAN
President George H.W. Bush

"A chair is selected by a company's board to lead the board of directors, preside over meetings, and lead the board to consensus from the disparate points of view of its members."

[onenote]

37. I guess in your world, Bill Clinton picked the pin sites for the President's Cup golf tournament

After all, he was "Chairman" of the tournament:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/news/1999/06/25/clinton_presidentscup/

[LSK]

52. "Honorary" is an assumption on your part n/t

[onenote]

56. And safe assumption at that.

[City Lights]

38. It's hard to take an organization seriously when they claim their goal

is to increase public understanding of, and appreciation for, the document that the Chairman's son has put through the shredder.

[mkultra]

43. One of the participants is an honorary board member.

That should disqualify them from participation.

[LSK]

51. one of the CANDIDATES was also on the board

Did you not see Hillary on that list???

[onenote]

57. H-O-N-O-R-A-R-Y

I'll ask the same thing I asked in an earlier post:

Does it bother you that members of the actual voting board include donors to Obama's campaign (as well as donors to the campaigns of Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards?)

Would you prefer that organizations that have as their mission education/awareness about the constitution only have people who do not participate at all in the political process as their members?

[mkultra]

75. Donors dont matter

The actual participant does.

[onenote]

99. the only reason HRC has a role as an honorary board member is that she's a former first lady

just like Betty Ford.

Its a freakin' museum, chartered by the Federal Government. It wouldn't surprise me if the legislation that created it designated that former presidents/first ladies would be ex officio board members. If any of them ever attended a board meeting, I'd be shocked.

[mkultra]

132. you seem to know alot about the nature of the specific roles in question

do you have any contact with this organization?

[onenote]

143. other than reading about it and once visiting the museum, No.

[mkultra]

167. see as how they are a political organization

with Bush as their chair. i would assume that they let the trustees run the administration and have the honorary members advise on projects. That would seem to fit with my understanding of how non profits run.

[jwirr]

138. How does a primary debate educate one about the Constitution? nt

[onenote]

144. if it had been done right, it could have. But the moderators were total screw ups

If you watched the debate, you know that they said that they were going to set it up to tie the questions to the constitution. "We'll begin each of the segments of this debate with short quotes from the Constitution that are apropos to what we're going to talk."

Of course, in reality,they seemed to get their questions from the National Enquirer, not the Constitution.

[AllentownJake]

35. Nothing here

This place is run by people who aren't on the "board" they put those people on there to make the place look important.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS!

Former Presidents and their wives?

The nerve of these people!

Why didn't they just hold this "debate" at the PNAC Pavilion?





:sarcasm:

[jordi_fanclub]

48. K&R (n/t)

[not_too_L8]

49. It sucks, but doesn't suprise me...K&R thanks for the info

[wowimthere]

50. I hope this goes all over the Blogosphere

[mod mom]

58. Help by sending it around!

:hi:

[ORDem]

59. WOW! Their deviousness knows no limits.

:kick:

[npincus]

60. Carter is an (undeclared) Obama supporter

sorry, I don't see anything there.

I think it's the corporation that owns ABC calling the shots, wanting to foment chaos among Dems, drive away Mods and Inds to McCain and continue their 100-year Iraq profit-machine.

[rucky]

67. a candidate in the debate is on the co-sponsoring committee

and there are no questions in your mind?

this is Ethics 101 stuff.

[reclinerhead]

61. Relationship map

I was doing some random searches on some of the trustee names, when I came across this website that lets you visualize the relationships.
Check it out: http://www.muckety.com/National-Constitution-Center/5002838.muckety
(Site requires Java to view the relationship map)

[reclinerhead]

63. Wow, neat

I've been playing around with the map.

For instance:

National Constitution Center -> Trustees -> Stanley B. Tulin -> Jewish Theological Seminary -> Lester Crown -> Aspen Institute

What fun!

[rucky]

65. Holy Conflict of Interest, Batman!

Why did O even agree to this sham of a mockery of a travesty of two shams?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

66. Uh oh ... guess what time it is?

[Maine-ah]

68. k&r

[hisownpetard]

69. K&R!!!

[quantass]

73. K&R

[beezlebum]

74. kick

and rec

why am i not surprised...

[baldguy]

76. Conflict of interest that should have at least been acknowledged.

[guyanakoolaid]

77. But Obama didn't wear a lapel pin! It's all about the lapel pins!

but only because Hillary is on the Board of Trustees of the group who sponsored the debate... But it's an AMERICAN FLAG lapel pin, don't you people see???

:sarcasm:

Did they think they could hide this? Devastating to any credibility Hillary had left.

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

78. Incestuous to say the least

Strangely not surprising........

[onenote]

98. sure is...after all, the board includes several donors to the obama campaign

Oh...maybe that's not what you meant.

Fer cryin' out loud. The National Constitution Center is first and foremost a museum, chartered (and partially funded) by the Federal Goverenment. It has, not surprisingly, former presidents and first ladies on its "honorary board". It lent its name and its facilities to the debate (it was held at the museum).

BFD.

[quantass]

79. .

[nvme]

81. Please use what limitted brain cells are floating

to sign the pettition of moveon.org to protest last nights hit job/ candyass debate. Do we keep getting assfucked by these shitmongers or do we at least say "NOT THIS TIME!" IT WOULD AT VERY LEAST, CHANNEL THE ANGER OVER LAST NIGHTS MOCKERY.

[nvme]

84. pS

Quit with the conspiritorial crap on this one. IT was ABC stephanopolis and gibson. that put that abortion of a debate. they asked and allowed the questions. I am suprised that either or both hillary and obama didnt walk off the stage. It was a hit job by the MSM. fucking boycott them if you dont like to be called an idiot. layoff each other.

[dixiegrrrrl]

82. More info on the Center

On March 18, 2008, United States presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech called "A More Perfect Union" at the Center. The speech addressed race issues.

oh, yeah, I remember that one...

[Texas Hill Country]

83. every living ex president and his/her spouse is o the board of trustees...

[uponit7771]

87. Hillary was a president? Check more carefully next time

[onenote]

100. what part of spouse don't you understand

Babs in on it; Roslyn Carter is on it. Betty Ford is on it (and, I'd be willing to bet Jerry was on it until he died) and Hillary is on it. Presidents and spouses.

[Texas Hill Country]

118. LOLZ

[uponit7771]

86. K&R

[odelisk8]

88. k&r

[HowHasItComeToThis]

89. I.E. OBAMA IS NOT A GOOD OLE BOY

[malik flavors]

90. Damn, that's crazy

[democracy1st]

91. man thats some bs

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

92. The mob does a hit then sponsors the funeral.

Fucking pathetic.

[rndmprsn]

93. K&R

[Jack Bone]

95. No Nancy Reagan? hmmmm

[blayne]

96. The 2 moderators and ABC were perfectly able to fuck it up without outside help.

[TwilightGardener]

101. This should be a front-page, lead story today. What an insane and

obvious conflict of interest. Between that and Disney being a Hillary supporter--it's very clear what went on last night.

[onenote]

103. Only for crazy people who don't live in the real world.

HRC is an "honorary" member of the board by dint of her being a former first lady. That's it. I would bet you anything that (a) she's never attended a board meeting and (b) doesn't have a vote. The NCC is primarily a museum. It lent its name and its facilities to the debate. That's all. In fact, if there is a conflict,why isn't it that several of its actual voting board members have contributed to various presidential candidate -- including several to Obama.

Maybe we should find organizations where no one particpates in the political process to lend their support to the debates. That's the ticket.

[TwilightGardener]

105. Can relatives of radio station employees participate in on-air

"be the seventh caller" contests? No. No outside group that Hillary is in any way affiliated with should "sponsor" the debate, unless Obama is also in that same group. It's that simple.

[onenote]

116. silliest analogy ever.

She's not "affiliated" with the museum other than by dint of the fact that former presidents and first ladies are automatically members of the honorary board.

And no, I don't know why Nancy Reagan isn't listed, since an article I found did say that all former presidents and their spouses were honorary "committee" members.

[Dr.Phool]

106. Did they dig Ford up for the debate?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[VenusRising]

107. Ho-lee shit!

This explains so much. :puke::puke::puke:

[SKKY]

109. Oh Snap!

So, the fix was in from the start.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

110. Shouldn't Obama or his handlers have known this?

[Ronnie]

113. What makes you think they didn't?

[onenote]

115. known what -- that as a former first lady, HRC is an honorary board member of a museum

that lent its facilities and name to a broadcast debate? Whoop-de-do.

I'm an Obama supporter, but man are some folks stretching the fauxoutrage on this.

[mmm413]

120. This is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

[Snarkoleptic]

122. Wrote those fucktards a big ol nastygram on the 'debate'.

[JBoy]

123. OK, forget the "honorary" trustees. Checkout the "elites" among the real trustees -

I've never seen so many "Esquires" outside of a magazine shop.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Shahara Ahmad-Llewellyn*
Yale Asbell
Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D.
David Boies, Esq.
Madison E. Bond
Daniel R. Butler
Gilbert F. Casellas, Esq.
Richard M. DeVos, Sr.*
Richard Dreyfuss
W. Joseph Duckworth
Andre V. Duggin
Stuart F. Feldman
The Honorable Peter G. Fitzgerald
The Honorable Vincent J. Fumo
Steve M. Galbraith
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Ph.D.
The Honorable Robert W. Godshall
The Honorable Slade Gorton
Amy Gutmann, Ph.D.
Stephen J. Harmelin, Esq.
Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
Paul C. Heintz, Esq.
Linda E. Johnson, Esq.
Sidney Kimmel
Chris Larson
Paul Levy
Alan Roberts McFarland
The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor
Russell E. Palmer*
William G. Paul, Esq.
Vivian Weyerhaeuser Piasecki
Alan L. Reed, Esq.*
The Honorable Edward G. Rendell
Derrick A. Roman
Helen Ryu
William A. Slaughter, Esq.
Stephen D. Steinour
The Honorable Peter Terpeluk, Jr.
Stanley B. Tulin
Paul R. Verkuil, Esq.
Richard Worley

[onenote]

128. and several are donors to Obama's campaign

others suppport clinton. some donated to giuliani, some to mccain, some to dodd, and at least one to Biden and one to Richardson.

So what?

Its a museum dedicated to constitutional law. Of course it has lawyers on its board.

Here's a clue: the new "Newseum" in DC is a museum dedicated to journalism. It has...journalists on its board. OMG!!!

[Seabiscuit]

125. Is there supposed to be something sinister/subversive about that group?

I for one don't see it.

So what if they have honorary members who all happen to be living ex-presidents and their wives?

What have they actually done that scares everyone here so much? Does anyone know? Or are people just freaked to see the "Bush" names on the list?

It would be nice if there was a real point to all this.

[onenote]

129. only in the fevered imagination of some

ooh..a museum offered to host a debate and got labelled as a co-sponsor..oooh....

[rug]

130. It's that fucking Jimmy Carter again!

:grr:

[jwirr]

133. And to top that off they put in their ringer - George S. from the Clinton

administration. If this does not turn uncommitted delegates against her I do not know what will. This is unethical.

[Ganja Ninja]

152. It couldn't have been more obvious that Seph was an ...

inappropriate choice for moderator of that "debate".

[Kurovski]

135. K&R

Nothing funny going on in this country...no, siree Bob.

[onenote]

136. Did some checking. While Gibson referred to the NCC as a "co-sponsor" that was inaaccurate

In fact, the NCC merely was "host" to the debate -- it offered its facilities.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/primdeb08/abc032008pr.html


Just like any number of universities have hosted other debates.

Now can we move to something intelligent to discuss?

[Divine Discontent]

140. please do EOM

[Lilith Velkor]

139. OH MY GAWD SHE'S CONSPIRING WITH JIMMY CARTER!!11!!1!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!11!!1!

[Catherina]

147. If that's what yuou got out of it, that explains alot n/t

[kentuck]

141. I wonder...?

If the National Constitutional Cneter was the "co-sponsor" of the debate, how much input did they have in selection of questions?? If any at all, it was a set-up...a political conspiracy of sorts.

[onenote]

142. how about...absolutely none. They hosted the event. Period.

Let me ask you this: how much input do you think that Howard University, or Dartmouth, or U of Texas, or Cleveland State etc etc. had in the debates that they hosted?

CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus co-hosted a debate. Does your tinfoil tell you that the CBC, of which Obama is a member, gave him a peak at the questions, or let him even write some of them? I hope not. Because its a ridiculous idea.

[defendandprotect]

145. National DISRESPECT the Constitution would be more like it ---

interesting group -- and Carter is always a question for me . . .

[donheld]

146. This needs to be publisized far and wide.

[tomp]

148. for the record: was there even one question about the constitution

...in the debate?

[cyberpj]

158. BEST RESPONSE YET. nt

[democracy1st]

149. Kick

:kick:

[liberal N proud]

150. Fabricated Distractions!

That is all this crap is!

Keep helping the republicons with this fabricated bullshit!

[Enthusiast]

151. liberal N proud has it right.

ABC is so one sided. They are no better than Fox. Obfuscation, smoke and mirrors.

[AzDar]

154. Kick...

:kick:

[annabanana]

155. We have GOT to get the LWV back in the game.

I am tired of all the "gaming the ref" going on in this Country.

[IsItJustMe]

156. So it was a set up. Thought something was seriously wrong with the moderators in this debate.

[tpsbmam]

159. You and/or IamyourTVandIownyou should post this widely.....

including on the ABC boards. This should be widely know. Thanks for the info!!

[SaveOurDemocracy]

162. This thread confirms what I've suspected ...

YOU PEOPLE ARE NUTS!!!

[Lilith Velkor]

163. Mmm hmm.

And if one of the nuts notices your post, you'll get flamed for using the phrase "you people," because that's racist code or something.

Fun fun fun 'til McCain takes the White House away...

:nuke:

[Stop Cornyn]

165. Jimmy Carter ought to get his money back on this deal

[Bluenorthwest]

166. ABC is the problem

And those of you who are suprised at ABC's tactics are actually also part of the problem. Where the hell have you been? ABC is a GOP mouthpiece. Our candidates should not have appeared on that network at all. Wake the hell up, the NCC is a constant sight of political events of all kinds, Obama himself has selected it as a venue for his own most important speech.
I did not see this debate. It was on ABC. I don't watch ABC. Those who do help sustain the propaganda, period. After the 'Path To 9-11', anyone who continued watching them and has the temerity to suggest they were suprised at ABC's vapid, slanted puppet show journalism is admitting to prior blindness on the subject. If this debate suprised you, you have not been paying attention.