I am watching the debate live (well, live for me), drinking coffee, and watching the equivocation.
What strikes me as interesting is the format: Questions from people all over this country, asked in a formal or informal manner, so tough, and, in John Edwards's case, his questioner on gay marriage showing up in the audience to push him on his gay marriage position further. Ostensibly, it all seems very egalitarian.
It would be interesting to see what questions got rejected, and on what grounds. It seems to me that, on the net, Gravel and Kucinich, get a lot of play, yet they are not getting many questions. Would I be out of line if I said, out loud, that CNN et al. , in the annointment of Hillary Clinton, are actively working to make sure it comes to pass?
Bush will leave the mechanism that has created this disaster, and who can we trust to not only resist using this mechanism, but dismantle it completely. Nothing good can come of it, even if it is used for "good reasons".
So...six months out, I'm interested in hearing who you like and why.
Update: Bush don't like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment