Why are the media calling these "debates"?

[Maddy McCall]

It seems to me that the exchange would be between the candidates instead of one-on-one candidate vs. moderator.

The only exchanges I saw tonight were candidate to moderator.

Wouldn't these more aptly be called panels or forums?

Just wondering.

[asjr]

1. Actually it should be called

"The media trashes the candidates." I have yet to see a "moderator" ask critical questions. It is always about what someone said about someone else. The moderators in this debate were particularly snide and uninformed. I hope this is the last debate because I don't think they have accomplished much of anything other than let all the candidates hang out to dry.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Interrupting responses so that they can guide responses is low.

[poopyjr]

3. Agreed. It isn't a debate in that sense.

Each candidate responds to different things.

[mmonk]

4. They should call it malicious interrogation

not debate

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Agreed

My little sister spent the evening crying and drinking herself silly, and she didn't even watch the debate, she only read about it on the internet.

[snyttri]

5. Because it sounds as is they were doing a public service that way!

[Maddy McCall]

6. What about a "line em up and shoot em down"

Or a Republican duck hunt. Send in your email and we'll doctor it up and bag em for you. No season limit.

[Desertrose]

7. whatever the hell they are, they sure aren't "debates"

I never heard so much attitude from so called "moderators" directed at the candidates...and their questions were pointless and condescending...

Pretty much the usual lying whoring press we always hear anymore....

:puke: disgusting...


DR

[JI7]

8. candidates were allowed to reply to other candidate answers

but they chose not to. i think the only one who did was joe lieberman who wanted to reply to howard dean on iraq.

[DjTj]

10. They are debates with the media...

...like all the rest of this campaign.

Why can't we let the candidates talk to each other or *gasp* let the people talk to the candidates?

[joanski01]

11. Agreed. And this is exactly

what the Presidential debates are going to look like. First a question to the Dem nominee, then a softball question to the chimp. They won't be allowed to talk to each other. Democracy is dead. Thank you corporations and media.

[spooky3]

12. I thought the questions were classic RW manipulation.

They asked about trivial issues or laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, in order to make candidates look stupid or keep the candidates from focusing attention on important issues. Chimpy would have been completely incapable of answering most of the questions.

Questions were designed to embarrass the candidates by asking about things you would not expect candidates to focus on. Why would an honest inquirer expect Al Sharpton to be ready to name a new Federal Reserve Board chairperson?

Why is it necessary for any of the candidates to repudiate what an endorser (e.g., Michael Moore) said about them?

Despite this, I thought several of the candidates did a good job, and some were wise to answer quickly then ask why we were not focusing on the right issues, then talking about that. They all need to be ready with this strategy for the next Blindside-You-About-Trivial-or- Wedge-Issues night. They did a good job in refusing to attack one another.

[Jawja]

13. Last night's "debate"

was a "gotcha" fest. The candidates were excellent in not playing that game.