MyFox
 

pride101's Blog

by pride101 from Philadelphia

Last Post 249 days, 22 hours Ago


I watched the debate at the constitution center with 40 friends at my home.  We were a mixture of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  (I have been a Independent since my first vote in 1980.  The year 1980 was a presidential election between Reagan and Carter) -

To a person we were all extremely disappointed about how the debate was moderated by Charles Gibson, and George Stephanopolis.  The first 46 minutes of the debate was about nothing.  The questions were about controversial comments by both candidates.  There was nothing concerning the important issues like...the economy - food and gas prices - the war in Iraq - health care.  The questions were all geared toward trivial matters that most voters do not care about.  There was a online chat, and those who contributed were outraged that the moderators spent so much time on nothing of substance.  You could have had TMZ moderate it, and done a better job, because the moderators seemed to be concerned with the "gotcha" questions, instead of real issues. 

After the debate, Ed Rendell, (who is a Clinton supporter), was incensed about how the debate was run, and in true Rendell form, commented on it to a reporter that asked him who he thought won.  He exclaimed, "what are we doing", when questioning the direction of the debate's questions in the first hour.  Rendell has the rare ability to be  loved by Obama, McCain and Hillary supporters all at the same time, due to his honesty, and straight forwardness.    Everyone in my home were so happy that he spoke up about how poorly it was run.

Even after the debate, when the local network did analysis of the debate. They practically ignored the issue about content.  In the online comment room, they had a reporter ask university professors who were taking the questions, and answering them, what type of questions were asked.  Some of the professors spoke about how the online commentors wrote about how angry they were that the questions did not have anything to do with the issues.  The reporter even made a comment that "they" (the voters), could go online to "their", (candidates), sites to get information on their stands on the issues.   

This is typical of the "out of touch" mindset of the media.  I know that they, (the local station), were caught in a tight spot, because they would be critiquing their national network news organization, but it was absolutely ridiculous how poorly it was moderated.  It seemed both moderators were more interested in ratings instead of issues.  There was a comment by George Stephanopolis about 9:03, a complete hour after the debate started, that the next question was about "the most important issue for voters today", the economy.   My living room exploded with anger.  If this was the most important issue, why did it take over an hour to get to it, was the question everyone  in my home asked. Even after asking questions about some real issues, the moderators did not spend enought time on them.  They spent far more time on the "gossip" questions.  They even started rushing the candidates, because time was running down, and commercials had to be run.

(since the network has a public good responsibility - they must answer how they meet this each time their license comes to be renewed - how better than to run debates commercial free?)

It was hilarious how the commentators made comments about how the candidates concentrated on certain issues at the beginning of the debate.  The debate is run by the moderators.  If they asked substancial questions, then that will be the direction of the debate.  The candidates can only address issues that they personally want to when they have free time to make opening statements or closing statements.

We were all excited about Philadelphia being the showcase, the debate being on national TV instead of cable, and the importance of  the issues.  Everyone left angry and disappointed, although we had a good time talking about the issues to each other, and enjoying some good food.

I would like to know how others felt about the debate, and it's direction by the moderators. 

 

 

 

17 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 17
Page 1 of 1
Jill2008
Apr 17, 2008 | 9:42 AM

Jill2008
2008 Debate Was A Joke!!!!!! I watched the Presidential debate and I was not impressed at all. They spent a whole hour asking questions about nonsense, that I was not interested in at all. I wanted to hear Obama and Clinton speak on real issue's, by the time they got to the real issues I was not interested. Charles Gibson did a horrible job. I don't care whether Obama wears a flag pin, nor do I care about what Dr. Reverend Jeremiah Wright said a month ago, also and Hillary's lies about Bosnia don't intrest me either. I wanted to know what these canidates are going to do for this economy, the war, education, gas prices, the violence in our city of Philadelphia, people losing their homes and jobs. That is my main concern. That debate was a waste of my time and I was very disappointed with it. I truly hope they don't let Charles Gibson do the November Presidential debates, because he doesn't know what questions to ask. Jill

MisplacedChildhood view my photos
Apr 17, 2008 | 11:02 AM

Two words: Liberal Media. Those two Morons are not going to ask anything difficult. They don't want to be responsible for exposing Obama and Clinton for the extreme liberals that they are.

ibejim read my blog view my photos
Apr 17, 2008 | 11:56 AM

A mutual butt kissing fest perhaps? Kind of like Al Gore on 60 Minutes?

Tell me, do these media people think we are stupid? Do they realize that we are perfectly capable of making up our own minds, and not dependant on their bias innuendo to make a choice?

pride101 read my blog
Apr 17, 2008 | 4:18 PM

I must disagree with you MisplacedChildhood, it is not just liberal media. Conservative media also talk about insignificant things. What we have to do as citizens is pressure them to do better. Their licenses are up for renewal at specific times. If there was a store selling alchohol in your neighborhood next to the elementary school, and a sign was posted to invite the communtity to come to a meeting to determine if the business license should be allowed, that meeting would be full. If we, (community), wrote in the thousands to not renew the lisense of ABC CBS or NBC, they would stop doing what they are doing. It is ridiculous for us not to participate. We had conservative minded, liberal minded, and independent people in my home. All of us were friends, and shared some opinions, and were opposite on others, but we agreed that as citizens we should work together. Those that were Republican wanted to watch because it is our country. If one of them is going to be our President then we all want to know what they are planning for our country. None of use have idiologies, but we do have beliefs. We change views sometimes based on information giving by one of our friends. If more people were interested in working together like we do, then our country would be a better place.

ColbyDogg read my blog
Apr 17, 2008 | 8:40 PM

LIBERAL MEDIA??????

Help me back up... i fainted....

the corporate owned media showed it was more interested in continuing the spectacle than helping citizens make an informed decision... and STILL we get these "liberal "media comments... its unbelievable!

Hmmm, lemme see, liberals really want to help the evil corporations by not asking the real questions of the candidates to they will begin true and open dialog of the real reasons for our foreign policy the past 100 years... for it was never about corporate interest... not for Dole or Chaquita Banana, Not for Enron, Exxon or Monsanto.. never for WalMart or Halliburton... not for wall street or the financeers of offshore tax shelters... not for GE- westinghouse maker of nuclear arms and military weapons...

Yes liberal minded talking heads still read the teleprompter... but its the corporation who writes the words. Propaganda 101... and apparently still as effective as when goebbels introduced it in 1934.

pride101 read my blog
Apr 17, 2008 | 8:48 PM

Thank you Colby - The issue is that the news organization is run by entertainment producers - so the object is create "drama" and controversy - who will question the media? - the media? - they are so out of touch - the if it burns or bleeds it leads mentality does nothing to help the community understand what is happening - just ask any organization that is doing good in the community about their attempts to get subjects aired - it is practically impossible

ibejim read my blog view my photos
Apr 20, 2008 | 8:33 AM

I agree, Pride, About the entertainment producers. And we KNOW They have a liberal mindset.

As far as liberal minded media folk asking liberal politicains tough Questions, Don't hold your breath.

"the if it burns or bleeds it leads mentality ". Well said. But, you forgot sex and scandal. :)

BTW, did you see algore on 60 minutes? Disgusting! And an insult to out intelligence!

ColbyDogg read my blog
Apr 21, 2008 | 3:07 PM

VOTE FOR OBAMA

Hillary will do anything to be President- except help America

stever2258 read my blog
Apr 21, 2008 | 5:05 PM

The best indicator of who we really are is to get to know the company we keep. When a person wants no part of questions about who they associate with, look out! That's the first sign of a hidden agenda certain to be sprung on all after the election. People can SAY anything. What have they DONE and who do they know and hang out with? Hillary's and Obama's policies are nearly identical. It would serve ABC, or any other network for that matter, no good to ask questions about policies when they are identical. Not much of a debate!

The fact is, their are both full-blood socialists who seem to take most of their policies right out of a Karl Marx textbook. We fought for nearly half a century to stop communism and its philosophies from spreading all over the world. And now the people are willing to ELECT someone who wants more government controls over every citizen's life? I don't think so. What are you people thinking or smoking??

drerunner read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 12:32 AM

I guess you must have missed the previous 20 debate ,because we already know by now what their take is on health care and the economy. If you cant figure that out by now, then that's your fault. We wanted to know who they were. Maybe that's something that's not important to you. ABC attempted to do that but you guys want the man behind the curtain to be ignored. Well, ABC and most of my friends want to know who the man is behind the curtain. IT'S IMPORTANT!

pride101 read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 2:49 AM

How many people even know about the true nature of health care. We say we don't want the government to run it and make the decisions, but the insurance company governments do it all the time. People actually die because of this. I am speaking from experience of someone that is close to me that was refused an operation, due to policy, and died. It is not something I am getting from ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX. It is the real deal. I have friends that live in Canada, and are happy with their health care. I do not want to have total control by the government, but the truth is they run medicare, and the program runs almost perfectly. The funding is not doing well due to demographic issues with the aging polulation, but the program is a model of effeciency. So the government can do things well. This scare tactic that the government is some evil person is rediculous, we are the government. They respond to what we tell them to do, if we do so in mass. When a person is a idiolog, anything that is different from the standard line is called bad. The Jessie Jackson's and Al Sharptons say that all the problems are based on white racism, and even when they see areas where that is not true they stick to thier idiology. The ultra conservatives, talk about the next boogie man, be that communism, then socialism, then liberalism, Islam, now black nationalism. Neither of these groups look into thier own participation in thier issues. Al and Jessie do not look at gangsta rap, conservatives do not look at racism, or even care. The only way that we are going to make our country better is by wo

mommareenie read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 12:47 PM

The debate was a big joke. I don't care who Sen. Obama's pastor is although I would love to sit in on one of his sermons. He's quite an intelligent and compassionate man. A person would never know it if they listened to that 2 mins. of his sermon which was taken out of context. The news media made him out to be some kind of tyrant. I don't care about the "bitter" comment Mr. Obama said. Again, that was taken out of context. Any person with intelligence can read the papers and see the violence with guns and how some people use religion as a crutch (400+ children raised in a polygamist evironment by that so called preacher as their leader). I don't care who he sat on a panel with (Mr. Ayers). I have common sense enough to know that Barack at 8 years old when Mr. Ayers did those attacks, Obama was probably outside playing with the neighbors children.
Through life, we meet all kinds of people. I know some crack heads that I can sit downn and hold a conversation with. Does that make me a crack head, I don't think so. That saying, you are the company who you keep is not totally true. If a person only can associate with people just like them, that is a shame. That person is missing out on some much in life. So, what I'm expressing is Sen. Obama is just as good as both his opponents. He's not a radical or terrorist. He's a man that along his lifetime got to meet many different people from many walks of life and he doesn't prejudge them. That's how I try to live my life.

pride101 read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 1:32 PM

I fear the the election is going to turn this country upside down. Obama will probably be the nominee. McCain is a good man, but I think he is stuck in a party which at this time has great issues, and don't think like he does. Regardles of what McCain tells those around him to do, they will turn this into the most racist election ever on both sides. Not the candidates, but those around them or that support them. They will bring up how McCain voted against policies to fight Aparthied, and the Martin Luther King Jr holiday. There will be people in the Republican party that he has some association with who have said racist things, and that will come up. The Rev. Wright issue will come up, and any quasi relationships Obama may have had. The media wil concentrate on that and not the real issues.

mommareenie read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 2:08 PM

I couldn't agree with you more pride101. This election is going to get very, very dirty on both sides. Mr. Obama tried to make this an election about issues, but between the bias news media and his opponents (Hillary Clinton) they forced this to be an election of color.

You know, when the election first started, my first choice was John Edwards. I wasn't voting for him because of his color but because I believed in what he was saying. The same for Obama, I don't support him because of his skin color, but I believe in him and how he wants to lead this country. We definitely need change no doubt. Hopefully, Barach will win the nomination, but if Hillary wins, I will support her. For one, I am a democrat and I believe in backing my party and McCain ideals are nothing in common with mine. He's a nice man BUT another thing he voted against was equal pay for women as men who do the same job. His reason being it woulc cause to much confusion. Now you know that's a lame excuse. Not to mention he wants to continue the war.

Hopefully, after the dust has settled (a president is elected. Please don't let it be McCain), America can start healing and we all can find some common ground.

pride101 read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 2:20 PM

I agree with you. I am in business for myself, and I grew up in a lower middle class to poor home. I understand how business people think, and working people think. McCain is trying to get elected by going along with his party's view that the "market" will work things out. The "trickle down" theory, which suggests that if those who run the businesses do well then prospertiy will move downward with jobs, investment in more business, and higher stock prices which helps 401K's. The problem with this is it does not take into account greed. This is why there are Enron's etc. I liked John Edwards also, and like most people I am friends with do not base my view on race, but what they plan to do. Hillary is doing whatever she can to get elected because she believes she can do good for the country, but she is making herself look bad along the way. I personally think that they all should be in office together, then they cannot blame the other party when things are not going well. They would have to work together. Everytime I post this view people call me unrealistic. I guess they have lost hope.

mommareenie read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 3:10 PM

pride101,
I'm with you. They would have to work together. Hopefully, this will happen. Time will tell.

TWEET read my blog view my photos
Apr 27, 2008 | 9:59 AM

If the Penna. Independents were allowed to vote in the primary for a President, Obama would have won.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




pride101

I am a native Philadelphian who owns a business dealing in motivation, and writing. I am a single dad of a 6 year old, and also have a 20 year old son. Live in the South West region of Philadelphia, and am a member of most of the cultural organizations/locations in Philadelphia (Zoo - Franklin Institute - Natural History Museum - Adventure Aquarium - Penn Anthropology Musuem - Musuem of Art), as well as WHYY (PBS) supporter.

Member Since: 3/19/2008