Howard University and other Future Presidential Debates

Saw part of it from this clip on you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWA8upoFJ5A

Good points.   Think he could have taken the opportunity to allow space for applause, especially after the tempo surges when he nailed the key points.  Audience started gaining momentum at a couple of points there.  Probably could have had the room on fire by the end of that clip...

Other than that, solid delivery. Has good voice volume control, a slight adjustment to tempo and he owns the audience.

The debates can be found here : http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/video.html

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- Benjamin Franklin

Vote for Mike Gravel, anything else would be insanity!

During last evening's Howard U debate, in answer to the question about outsourcing and trade, I agree with Mike's opposition to NAFTA. But does he support the contention that NAFTA is unconstitutional since the constitution requires 2/3 vote of Senate for treaties, while NAFTA only got simple majority, passing with 63 votes, rather than 66. But you say NAFTA is not a trade treaty? The only reason NAFTA is not a treaty is that it could not pass Congress if it had been called a treaty. We have been skunked again. Why didn't he explain this on TV?

I'm watching the Howard University debates tonight, and I've got to commend them on running a fast and fair debate.

I've also got to commend Mike. He's not pandering to his audience, but answering the tough questions with tough answers. Someone asked him if outsourcing was hurting America, and he said it's not the outsourcing, but our system of health insurance and taxation that are killing our companies ability to compete globally. That's a complex answer, but it's also a truthful answer.

Most likely, they'll try to rig the debates again and again. This tactic needs to be destroyed and we need to make the media listen to the People rather than the green bills from the major candidates.

this is a copy of a letter i sent to PBS at the begining of june. i was hopeing that they would reply but i havnt heard anything

the email address is viewer@pbs.org

-----------------------------------------

I had some questions and suggestions for the presidential debates to be held by PBS “ALL-AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL FORUMS ON PBS, MODERATED BY TAVIS SMILEY.” I was directed to this email address by the WGBH email feedback.

Supposedly the next presidential debate will be on PBS. This makes me immeasurably happy because the previous 2 debates have been sickeningly biased towards the candidates that the media networks have decided are our American democratic idol. i am under the impression that PBS will approach this from a very fair perspective and not give 2 candidates 3x the time of another candidate.

 

I had some questions and suggestions regarding complete impartiality in this debate. It was dramatically obvious at this last CNN debate that the amount of time given to each candidate was almost identical to current campaign funds. For reference, this link contains an image of the “talk clock” http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r273/veristic/CNNBiasChart.png

 

Aside from the allotted time, those candidates that the corporate news media have already decided as winners were placed in center stage with the others placed on the edges of the stage sometimes with tables amplifying the distance and the camera zoomed in close to physically exclude them from the majority of the debate. The front runners were always allowed to defend themselves when a comment was directed at them. Also of note is that the host, Wolf Blitzer, had more talk time than everyone but the 2 top candidates and was even more dramatic in the republican debate where the time was a bit more even among candidates but the host had more time than any of them. Time limits were not enforced on the front runners while the fringe candidates were cut off early. I do not think the question should be asked 2 or 3 times to the same candidate because they use political maneuvering to avoid answering the question. Finally, it seemed that important questions were directed towards the celebrity candidates and the more irrelevant questions were directed at the sides of the stage.

 

I realize that absolute impartiality is probably impossible due to the host having a general opinion, but he can still aim for complete impartiality and I have a few suggestions.

 

1 – Arrange the candidates in alphabetical order (last name) to avoid any bias.

 

2 – Limit the questions to relevant topics and make sure every single candidate gets to answer every single question.

 

3 – For the beginning of the debate allow NO immediate rebuttals until all of the important questions are asked and give the candidates a bit more time. This can be done because the host will not waste time asking new questions to each candidate. He can pose the question once then give each candidate about 2 minutes to respond. If they start to get off topic the host can remind them mid-response. If they never answer the question the host can comment that the question was not answered, but NO EXTRA TIME and move on to the next candidate.

 

4 – During the answering of questions, the question will be first posed to the next candidate in line from that of the previous question in a serial order. Ie 3 candidates: question 1, answer (1,2,3); question 2, answer (2,3,1); question 3, answer (3,1,2). This way different candidates get to have the final word.

 

5 – Impose the time limits. Give a clear timer so they know when to wrap up and cut off the microphone if they refuse to stop talking. Again, if they do not answer the question they do not get an additional cycle. Remind the audience that the question was not answered and then move on.

 

6 – At the end of the debate I think that you should allow each of the candidates to pose at least one question, have all the others answer then the asker gets the final word. If they pass on asking a question then that’s fine it gives more time for additional questions.

 

7 – Allow for a short closing statement but do not let the initial candidates run over time and then cut off the final candidates to 10 seconds as was done at the end of the CNN debate.

 

I strongly believe that these ideas would do wonders. Many Americans were disgusted with the way CNN handled their debate and we believe that many are also oblivious to their bias because it can not be seen as easily from the replay clips. My general questions for you, PBS and Tavis Smiley, are do you plan on being far more impartial than the previous CNN and MSNBC debates? Do you plan on using my ideas, which ones, and if not why?

 

I have strong faith in the fact that PBS will not be running the debate with the corporate media bias as was done previously by the other networks as PBS is funded directly by the people. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and please forward this to whichever department or individual will best make use of it!

 

Sincerely, #####, registered independent voter in Massachusetts.

 

 

All i want is the truth, why is it so hard to find?

give 'em hell, mike. and interrupt other candidates and get in as many words as you can. our country needs to hear from you. fight the good fight.

Anybody know what the forum format will be like?  The last "debate" was what I called "The Frontrunners' Show Starring Wolf Blitzer."  Let's hope all the candidates get a chance to explain their ideas in this one.

First post on this topic! :)

 

Seriously though, have all the candidates agreed to go.