Democratic Presidential Debate News
The Democratic National Committee announced today that it will sanction six Democratic debates, one per month, starting in July 2007. Additional details regarding cities, dates, logistics, etc. will be released at a later date.
Governor Dean:
“Debates provide an important opportunity for voters to hear directly from our outstanding Democratic candidates about their vision for America. I'm pleased the DNC can help play a role in facilitating such an important dialogue with our candidates. Given our strong, dynamic and diverse field of Democratic candidates and the great enthusiasm voters already have expressed, we can expect a lively, thoughtful discussion of the issues.”
Comments (27) «
I hope this also means we'll not be holding any of these debates on Fox News?
Hopefully with all these upcoming debates we'll get to hear a bit from the candidates on their plans to address poverty. The Millennium Goals were set in 2000, when we agreed to eliminate world hunger, yet we are still waiting for a plan to be developed and implemented. According to the Borgen Project there is a $19 billion annual shortfall to achieving these goals, while $340 billion has gone towards Iraq.
For better debates:
1) Longer answers, not 3 minute sound bytes.
2) Better questioners. No pundits allowed. No media establishment. Better questioners would be state Democratic Party officers or past delegates.
3) No FOX propaganda TV.
Hopefully response windows will be as short as humanly possible to avoid the inevitable "long speech with nothing to say" habit of politicians.
I love debates. I can learn a lot about the candidates. Will it be on C-Span? You can learn a lot about the debaters, when you watch them.
Will someone please tell Clinton and Obama to put their ego's aside and run together. I can tell you right now that would get my vote, otherwise I might vote for Rudy. If they joined together they would run way with the election next year!
Jeez, we haven't had "lively" and "thoughtful" since Dean was in the race himself.
I'm frustrated. I want a Dem candidate, but the options to date seem miserable. Hillary is an untrustworthy politico who will do anything for her own self-interest (you should have seen the letter I got back from her as a NY resident after she voted for Bush's war - Insulting!) I have to take no-doz to make it through one of Obama's speeches: He's so careful with his words that I have now idea what his passions and convictions are. He makes Kerry look manic.
HELP!!!
Glad to hear that the Fox debates will not be among the ones sanctioned by the DNC. Someone has been listening.
most of the Republican loyalists that I speak to support the Republican party because of their Christian beliefs. I am a Christian and I cringe everytime the current [Bush] administration justifies their policies based on a Christian fortitude. Why are Christians being influenced by these false profits?
Why is it that Democratic Leadership is so weak? Debating on Fox was a colossal Mistake. It appears that every FoxNews "Anal-ist" is not as fair and balanced as their slogan contends. Democrats NEVER seem to get a fair shake on FOX. This was a mistake. It is akin to running a candidate that cannot win, OOPS we haven't crosssed that bridge yet...
It will be interesting to see if the Republican GOP who claims it is the only party for business rights will think of wiring their Republican Candidates with the words ‘American worker’ like they wired George W. with the proper pronunciation of the word nuclear in the last Presidential Debates.
A presidential hot topic is health care. Each of the candidates has his or her spin on what is best for America and how he or she would fix the problem. Before any one begins to seriously consider nationalizing (socializing)our health cage I suggest that they copy the URL provided and visit this site for a free sample of Canada's socialized health care mess. God, it's unbelievable that a person has to wait up to three years for cancer surgery or a knee replacement, but, its true.
A presidential hot topic is health care. Each of the candidates has his or her spin on what is best for America and how he or she would fix the problem. Before any one begins to seriously consider nationalizing (socializing)our health cage I suggest that they copy the URL provided and visit this site for a free sample of Canada's socialized health care mess. God, it's unbelievable that a person has to wait up to three years for cancer surgery or a knee replacement, but, its true.
Folks, we have simply got to do better this time. What I mean is that we have to become better judges of integrity, of honesty and of talent. Most of all we have to be more thoughtful in choosing a candidate that best reflects the better nature of the American People.
We are not a nation of torturers. We are not a nation of fearful cowards that cower at the very mention of Terrorists, surrendering our civil rights in knee-jerk response thereto.
And I do not want us to become a nation that chooses its next president (as we have chosen many before) in some sort of television-based popularity contest that is micro-managed by image-consultants. In the past we had fewer choices. Our media outlets were driven from the top down. Broadcasters determined what we would see and what we would hear, and our choice was to turn the receiver off or on.
But we now live in an internet age. For the first time in our history we have an interactive media. And I want it to be used to give us, the voters, a more active voice in determining which candidates get "air time" and how much.Actually I want ALL the candidates to be accessible to us in MANY electronic "town hall meetings" so that each of them can "hold forth" (and be questioned by us), about many topics of concern to average voters.
I want us to determine the questions that get asked, and I want us to know what John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden ,Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Tom Vilsack have to say. Not just Hillary and Barack.
And I want us to hear what Sam Brownback,John Cox,Duncan Hunter,Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Huckabee have to say, not just Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
If we can somehow get the candidates to start coming to internet-based town hall meetings, and if we can get "a lot" of voters to start turning off the TV spot campaign commercials and start using an internet-based "neutral-ground" (I would ask the League of Women Voters to be moderator/sponsor of a website for just this purpose), if we can bring voters to these town hall meetings as their primary source of candidate information...then we will have effectively "taken the money out of politics".
If we can create these new internet-based media venues, and if we can become more intentional electors (voters), then we can take back our government from the big-money interests, and open up our field of real choices from just the current "gang of four" to a genuine wide array of possibilities. This is something we need to make happen, for the sake of ourselves and for the sake of future generations.
-
Mary in Seattle. I don't know about your state Democratic Party officers, but there are states where the party officers wouldn't be much better than the pundits.
I'd like to see a town hall type thing, and nothing resembling the Republicans' carefully screened supporters asking questions.
How about a lottery system? A buck a chance to ask a question? It would make for an interesting mix, and raise money too.
I think all the candidates should participate in the debates includng the Fox debates. What good are debates if eventually each party only paqrticipates on the channels that they feel are fabvorable to their cause. Democrats debating Democrats, Republican's debating Republican's?
It seems weak and evasive to opt to debate only on stations that are favorable to your cause. I think the democratic candiates could actually use the fox debates to their advantage. There are a hugh number of dissatisfed Republicans who possible upon hearing and seeing the democratic candidates would think more about their party alliance. Instead of opting out of the debates why not try to recruit some of those loyal Fox listeners .
I cannot believe the utter cowardice of our party and the Dem candidates. Because the Black Caucus and the radical left dislike Fox news they ordered the candidates not to participate in a Fox News Debate. I can't understand how a news network can be so threatening to the Democratic Party. I have watched Fox News and I compared it with MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN. With the sometime exception of CNN, all of these networks rarely allow a dissenting opinion or a debate between repubs and dems or libs and conservatives. If Fox is biased towards conservatives (freedom of speech and all that), all of the other networks are biased towards liberals. At least Fox has Alan Combs. Some at Fox News like to say that the Dem Party has been hijacked by the the radical left. I'm beginning to believe them. This should be about what is best for the Country which is open debate by all, not about the Dem party excluding a conservative network because they will not play nice with moveon.org and other lunatic fringes of our party.
That fringe elements of the Dem Party can dictate to the candidates over the best interests of the Party as a whole and the Country is astounding. This debate would have shown the Country what the Democratic Party is all about and might have even won over some conservatives. I am very dissappointed.
Why are the "top" candidates canceling the Fox News debate? Lets say that Fox is the Republican slanted network. The questions will be fair unless you think the CBC is unfair. I know Obama gave everyone a free pass on the CBC issue but lets look at this a closer than that. If all the “right-wingers” are watching Fox, which is the claim, who is left but the “left” and they have to be watching CNN. If this is the case then to avoid Fox is like preaching to the choir. We have to change hearts and minds to win. We are supposed to be the party of open ideas. By canceling the Fox debates the party is only showing their unwillingness to speak in front of a politically diverse audience. Are we going to change minds and put a Democrat into office or are we looking for a group of like-minded individuals to tell each other how great they are. Most of the country is center-right to center-left and we need to reach out to all of them.
I agree with the posters on here who are questioning your backing out of the Fox Debates. It makes you look like you're scared of what they might ask. Everyone agrees that ll of the mainstream media are slanted to the left. Yet, Republicans don't back out of their sponsored debates. It seems that the Democratic Party only wants to play in their own back yard. It sends a message to the American people that you don't have an answer to tough questions.
I only have one question Mr. Dean. Why have the leading Democratic candidates for President refused to appear on the Fox News Network? They say because it is "conservative". Well, are they afraid of the questions that conservatives may have about their vision for this country and their agendas if elected President? Or are they only willing to appear on networks that are liberal minded and will not ask the "tough" questions posed by conservatives? I am truly amazed at this refusal. I am a conservative but I need information to truly form an opinion about the candidates, but I want true questions and not just a "glorified" liberal opinion.
I am looking forward to the debates! We will get to see all the candidates and hear their ideas. And we have great candidates.
As for not appearing on FOX. I agree. Why feed bullies? At home, I vote with my remote, and I've blocked FOX news. Why? Because of the tenor of the nondiscussion. I want to hear both sides of issues. That's why I watch C-SPAN whenever I can. For example, I do watch republican candidates on Road to the Whitehouse even though I'm a John Edwards for President democrat. And there was a really good debate recently on C-SPAN about global warming with John Kerry and Newt Gingrich. At FOX, people yell and interrupt. What do you actually learn?
I take acception to the "bully" comment. When you watch Hannity and Combes, etc., this isn't in a debate setting. Besides they are no more "bully" than Mr. Dean and his ilk. As a conservative with no real party affiliation, I want the candidates to address the issues that concern me and I want them to state their agendas precisely and unequivocally and not in generalities. I have watched Mr. Obama (I was hopeful would not mince words about his agendas), Ms. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, etc. hoping to really understand their missions so I can make an intelligent decision as to who would best represent me and the AMERICAN CITIZENS and not special interest groups if it goes against what is right for the country (its citizens) as a whole. I want a candidate that is HONEST, has INTREGRITY, and doesn't back down on his/her stand no matter how the prevailing winds are blowing and doesn't let their egos and personal agendas keep them from doing what is good for the citizens of this country. I vote for the person and not the party.
What is the Democratic Party doing to help all the Americans who have lost jobs to outsourcing. First it was the blue collar jobs now high tech and white collar jobs. We will all be working at Walmart and McDonalds soon. I do not hear any members of my party talking about issues that effect the working class and employemnt!
I also want to know what the Democrats are doing for the CITIZENS of the United States. Where is the "NEW CONGRESS" that was going to change the way business is done in Washington? I know, I know (hand raised), their off doing things to boost their own egos and self importance. Instead of changing, its business as usual. Loads of pork spending, going after President Bush to distract the citizens from their incompetence and lack of action about those things the CITIZENS of this country care about. A question was asked on CNN 4/13 why people consider themselves anything but Republican or Democrat - Answer: There is no difference in either party. They are both beholden to special interest, big business, foreign governments, and more interested in promoting their personal agendas (which do not include the CITIZENS of this country), promoting themselves, enhancing their own egos and self-importance. Only the names of the parties are different - nothing else.
We need to have a Democratic President so bills benefiting ordinary citizens won't be vetoed. And we need more Democratic Senators because of the way the Senate works; just having a slight majority doesn't enable Senators to get bills through as those in the minority can hold them up. That's why the upcoming debates and elections are so exciting; we have the chance to bring about real change! And, in the last election, grassroots Democratic candidates were elected. Direct citizen involvement is very possible.
Gosh, after I wrote the above I realized it might give a wrong impression. I was talking about the hopeful results of the election since the topic was the debates. I think Democrats are doing a fantastic job right now - Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the bills that have been passed in the House, and the committee hearings. Finally we're hearing, for example, about climate change from Al Gore and the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (did I get that right?), etc. And John Edwards' message right now is don't wait, get involved. I found out about the grassroots Step It Up campaign to ask Congress to do more about Climate Change from the John Edwards campaign. There is so much individuals can to make a positive difference.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
