Why CNN Suppresses YouTube's Internet Democracy

I wonder if the GOP would dare try a YouTube'd debate... I doubt it, as I'm sure they're all scared witless about having a flood of questions for Ron Paul.

Wacker, the world as you think you understand it is shifting. Ron Paul has a very, very good chance of winning. He will in fact, win the post debate poll on August 5. He will in fact, defeat Mitt Romney in the Ames Straw poll on August 11, and you among others will claim this is meaningless and some sort of rural isolationist aberration.

Huckabee,T. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter will drop out by September. Ron Paul will raise $10 million in 3rd Quarter fundraising, and many reporters, yes you, will be amazed, try to explain how this is so and reluctantly begin to concede that perhaps Dr. Paul does have a shot at the nomination.

Now, if any of these 3 predictions turn out to be false:

1. Ron Paul will win ABC's post-debate poll on August 5

2. Ron Paul will win the Ames Iowa Straw Poll August 11

3. Ron Paul will raise $10 million July-September

Please quote me and mock me incessantly. Because I will be writing you on all 3 occasions to say, "I told you so."

Post the questions and let the youtube viewers vote on what

questions should be included in the debate. Rank the questions according to votes.

IN MY OPINION LITTLE IS SAID ABOUT THE DOMESTIC SITUATION HERE AT HOME. I FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY INEQUALITIES THROUGHOUT OUR SOCIETY SUCH AS THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM THAT HAS NOT KEPT ONE FAMILY TOGETHER AND FAVORS ONE PARENT OVER THE OTHER,THE CHILD WELFARE LAWS THAT CONDEMN MINORITY CHILDREN TO PLACEMENT SO THAT A AGENCY CAN MAKE A PROFIT, THE WORKMAN COMPENSATION SYSTEM THAT IS SUPERVISED BY A BOARD OF EX-CEO'S WHOSE POLICIES HAVE DEPRIVED THE INJURED OF NECESSARY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND THE GOVERNMENT POLICY THAT USES TAX PAYERS DOLLARS TO FINANCE THE OUT-SOURING OF JOBS IN VARIOUS WAYS. PLEASE PICK ONE OF THESE TOPICS AND TELL US, THE EFFECTED CITIZENS, HOW YOU WOULD REMEDY THIS PROBLEM AND HOW WE CAN BE SURE YOU WOULD KEEP YOUR WORD AFTER THE ELECTION?

Yet once again the Mesmer of the main stream media chants

"Ron Paul, realistically does not stand a chance of winning"

CNN eagerly assumes President Bush's job of "repeating the truth over and over agin." More correctly "repeating what we decide is the truth" over and over and OVER again.

For the first time as a species we have the ability to communicate directly to each other.

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, TBN, the storytellers, the media outlets, the "ministry of truth" are terrified of that.

Read past the shrink wrapped, prepackaged, sound byte enhanced "truth" that is being spoon fed to you.

Learn the candidates positions on the issues. Learn the candidates character. Who is serving their own ambitions? Who is serving you? Who flip-flops at the slightest whim of the lobby and special interest groups? Who panders to the money power?

And who consistently stands firm in their position.

Educate yourselves, take responsibility for yourselves.

Sincerely

So what if a stupid question is asked, or a serious question is asked by someone in a viking suit? Considering the banal and assinine responses to serious questions, the risk is worth the reward of bring back democracy.

Maybe what CNN may be more concerned about is losing campaign ad revenue if the politicians are asked serious questions, repeatedly, until a serious answer is forthcoming.

Of course, it doesn't seem that a serious question has been put to the current administration in years, so even a first serious question would be refreshing, even from someone in a business suit.

Good read, I definitely agree that CNN has an interest in screening questions. But why not screen them to reasonable questions, then allow the public to rank them through voting? (assuming technical details to prevent fraud can be worked out.)

Actually candidates should just respond to all the YouTube questions that they deem valuable anyways and post a response video that strings together all the questions and the candidate's responses. Then the candidate can talk directly to the people asking him/her questions and cut out the middle man.

Political debates rarely have any back and forth between candidates, similar to experienced boxers who eschew the knock out and real fighting, the stay technical and try and win on scorecards. Well unless its Bush vs. Gore - then both candidates try and knock themselves out.

Well, it can not be any worse then the questions asked by the "journalists".

Do you beleive in the theory of evolution, would it be good if Bill Clinton was back in the Whitehouse, Do you consider Carl Rove a friend.....

Come on! Now those questions were meant to get at what deep qualifications for the possible next President of the United States or to just fuel the DNC's talking points?

...for actually opening his questions up to citizens to choose which ones he will answer during his Post-Debate online town hall, tonight.

http://johnedwards.com/watch/debate-webcast/

I am a Deist minister and wondered if CNN would ban questions on religion. Since Romney would be holding the keys to our nuclear arsenal in his hands, the question of logic and reason comes to my mind. I wanted to know if Romney thought it was logical and reasonalble to believe that God lives on the planet Kolob and that the sun and moon are inhabited by people dressed like William Pen on the Qaker Oats box. I am concerned that a man that believes in those dogmatic items should be questioned on his ability to rationalize fact in dogmatic issues.

Rev Keith Wright

The United Deist Church

PS Our church has absolutely no dogma except for a belief in a creator. Period.

I agree in principal that some kind of selection must be made. I would only ponder what group should be involved in the selections themselves. Should CNN be the 'holder of the keys'? Doesn't that color the result as far as viewers are concerned? Why not include CNN as the managing entity (they provide the technological communications) and link others into an online selection group. Various 'responsible' folks could be included in the group and thereby offset some of the perceived control by CNN. Also, the votes for different questions could be revieed for a time, allowing the extra curious to review ALL submitted questions and seeing how various members of the voting group voted. A means of providing feedback to these members in a public BLOG-type forum might provide the average person with a means to expressing their opinion as to the quality of the voting.

Sounds complicated through - could the average web-user keep it all straight?

Thanks.

If the people vote to have questions come from someone in a viking costume, then what's wrong with the person in the viking costume asking the question? They should be able to veto questions that actually have nothing to do with the debate or politics in general, but short that, who cares where they come from? I don't think high paid lobbyists should be the only ones with access to the candidates, so this would be a giant trump card in the hands of the common man.

I don't even like Ron Paul but dosen't it beg the question, Why would anyone trust an ultra liberal news organization like CNN to ask tough questions of ultra liberal candidates? This venture between CNN and YouTube is CNN's attempt at mixing with the new media and its a last ditch effort. CNN is loosing ground and fast. The fact is, CNN is going to go out of business and Fox news is watched by millions more people every day. Hurrah for YouTube and hurrah for the death of the old media. Long live talk radio.

Good writing! You've a chance at a Pulitzer; only my opinion, of course. I totally agree.

Joanne

I believe this You Tube debate is finally the beginning of the American people taking back the political process. Instead of well rehearsed answers to questions the candidates know are coming, we will finally see them in a forum where they will have to deal with real life questions in real time. Hopefully we will see who can thing on their feet. After all, being President requires dealing with circumstances as they occur, not scripted, not rehearsed.

Ever since CNN has made "public discussion" available on their articles, I have wondered why the comments are overwhelmingly liberal and/or critical of the GOP. It became clear very quickly when I attempted to post some reasonable responses -- I was censored. And this didn't happen only once, this happened about two dozen times.

It is hardly a surprise that CNN is equally selective about the news it posts in the first place. When I talk to friends and family members who are deployed in Iraq, you'd think they're in a whole different universe -- so little about the positive changes brought about by US troups is reported here.

The same problem is at work here. Not only do the questions selected, but also the mode of the questions asked influence the answers given, and the likability of the candidates.

CNN has *nothing* to do with democracy. CNN practices lobbying by careful selection of news, reader-responses, and -- now -- questions asked of presidential candidates.

CNN should not be in total control of the final questions. They should have taken the time to accept questions, put up 50 or 100 contenders, and leave it to their web visitors to decide which questions get asked.

And so what if someone is dressed as a Viking as long as their question is pertinent? To use a long-forgotten phrase (these days)....Open your mind, man.

What will the candidates do to address the Military insustrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. It is obvious that it has taken over every aspect of our lives. It effects our pockets, childred, and minds. As we live in a culture tht is now based ( and has been for a whiile ) on fear, contempt, media propaganda...mind control.

Yes , and the money is being sucked from the poor and midle class by the ruling elite. It is as if the debts are being called in just before leaving town. Enough corporate controled politics,.... we need a fair capitalist act!

The senators statement in Shooter is more FACT than fiction it's not about Shietes or Sunnies.Democrates ,Republicans.it's about the HAVES and HAVENOTS,our government is lost with NO direction,Lies,Curruption,child molesters,womanizers,does anybody watch even our censored news,it is about the oil,the Iraqies cant decide how to split the profits and give the moneychangers thier gross share,thats why were still thier,we got to git thier cut....

Nobody wants it to END look how many are getting filthy rich,munitions companies,oil,Hallibuton,security contractors are they like Mercineries but legal?

They cant even do anything about 12 to 20 million illegal aliens,that are sucking up plenty of benifits off the rest of us...The deficit grows,social security shrinks,medicade,medicare?? IS ANYBODY OUT THERE ON OUR SIDE???Follow the money flow and you'll see who runs the world and it ain't the GOVERNMENT they bought them !!!

"The questions themselves have impressed even the biggest names in CNN: "There are questions that we, the journalists, we, the mainstream media, would never think to ask in the presidential debate," [CNN Senior Vice President David Bohrman] said."

Interesting. :-)

"At one time it appeared that Ron Paul's cash-on-hand for the campaign, raised almost entirely through the Internet, exceeded the cash-on-hand figures for McCain (McCain's fundraising numbers later came out to be higher than expected, though)."

Right. McCain has more cash on hand...$3.2 million. That is, he has more COH if you don't take into account that $1.2 million can only be used in the general election, and only if he gets the nomination...and if you also don't take into account that he has $1.8 million in debt.

I wish Google News would filter out poorly written "blogs" like this one from appearing as headlines on their "News" site.

Much like the electoral college mystifies people so does CNN picking out 'appropriate' questions.

I think in an ideal democracy, which perhaps we should strive to achieve, there would be no feeling of necessary restraint applied upon society by it's most influential members. The feeling being that if we were all genius businessmen or scholars that democracy would function better.

Face it, Democracy gives power to the people and realistically that's just not always the best answer. In many instances a panicked or uneducated public can do far more harm in a very short time than a diligent leader who puts the nation first and the people's impulses second.

That IS truth behind managed democracy. To ensure rapid change does not destroy the nation the tradition we have is to somewhat buffer the people from their ability to cause drastic change. The fact that we are a republic more than a democracy should make it clear to people that while they ultimately have power they do not necessarily get to wield it any way they want.

I'm all for a true democracy but as far as I know only Ancient Greece was able to achieve a stable direct democracy in which all citizens voted on each issue and served public office. Perhaps in todays electronic world this is now again possible or at least a direction we should move toward. If for instance we get 80+ percent of the public on the internet we can start to have more realistic polling abilities where hundreds of millions of people actually respond instead of rely on statistics and generalization.

So, CNN picking out questions probably isn't that big a deal. It's not as if CNN really has any exclusive rights on political debates. If the market doesn't like the debate or CNN's choices in questions then the ratings and overall popularity of the program will suffer. Since CNN is a businesses they are going to have to let some biting questions through, but at least pick out the ones that a rooted somewhere in reality and guarantee a level of civility for the candidates. If the candidates want to spend their time answering the hard questions, they don't really need CNN because most media stations will air any hard hitting statements simply because that gets ratings.

Even Fox aired Clinton's outburst against their own journalist. That's just good businesses. However, don't be surprised if you notice the inequalities of American representative democracy playing out in similar ways in corporate america, media, and just the basic culture of the nation. The basic premise is that the public is really not quite bright enough to let fully run itself and that government protects the public from making bad or hasty decisions. I would guess this is at least partially the case but likely the fears of giving too much control to the mob and realizing the silent majority doesn't vote for a reason (because it's too dumb).

In general there probably isn't a much better answer because why else would less than half of the country even BOTHER to vote. Can we really keep telling ourselves that it's truly that difficult to get out and vote. What good will it be to have a bunch of people vote who know almost nothing about the topic? Why not let monkeys vote because all they are doing in the end is pressing buttons more or less without much real information on their candidate. Even the, so called, educated voters don't seem to really know all that much about the people they vote for.

So there is a realistic problem there. When the country was formed voting numbers were very very low and that more or less represented the few educated and wealthy among the general population. That means the country really was guided and formed by wealthy elite groups some businessmen some academiccs, but none of them just your average Joe. So, you have a traditional of elitism among politicians in America and you have probably the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world by far. So, you can't say elitism doesn't work, because more so than democracy our nation has been guided by wealth and academics. We've still not even reached a point at which half the people bother to vote. Our supposed majority is only representative of around 25% of the people. Democracy in my mind doesn't really work when less than half of the people are the entire voting public. We can argue they do nothing because they are content, but looking at the crime rates and news I doubt that. They aren't content and they don't vote. Figure that out and tell me how that mindset works with democracy because all I can see is a downward spiral for an apathetic democracy. We just better hope our wealthy leaders can manage to save our dumb non-voting asses once again.

The solution is don't follow leaders. Think for yourself and demand what you want from life because you are the people. If you don't like CNN's choices, don't watch their station. If you don't like bi-partison politics, vote independant, but never sit at home pouting that your ideal candidate doesn't happen to be running this year. You just do the same exact thing you do when a commercial comes on. Filter all that crap out. Nobody really cares about Obama Girl it's just funny to watch idiots making videos of themselves and the personal video service thing is still a pretty new concept so it has a lot of hype. It's great the Dems are using it and showing clear signs they want real people to at the very least feel more involved and without the chore of having to write a letter or email because in the end what's a better forum for ideas than a collection of humorous video clips of people who trying to become famous. Well, it was a nice try at least.

What you say makes sense, but by and large, these debates, regardless of party affiliation, are really just so much fluff. Most often, when a candidate is posed with a question, the response has little-to-no similarity to an answer! It's as though each candidate has a carefully rehearsed line of spin to be delivered in allocated segments conveniently divided by "questions." Aside from giving each candidate the opportunity to demonstrate just what command of the podium he or she may possess, these debates are really just the ideal forum to put one's best face forward for public critique.

I hope that your wrong about the YouTube/CNN debates. Anderson Coopers show last night was indeed a gust of hot air. And why would a "vice president" of any thing be delegated the responsibility of picking which questions get asked? But in all fairness. CNN implied that some the questions might just come out of "left field." Whatever that means. I also was amused when Mr Cooper spoke of an image of candidates practicing in mock debates to prepare their responses. Why would they have to prepare to be honest? Either you're honest or your not honest. It's that simple. When I saw Ron Paul in Iowa. He walked up to the podium empty handed. No prepared speech. Just one tiny memo pad size piece of paper that he used as an outline. He connects with the people. He looks them straight in the eyes. And after the speech anyone could walk right up to him and ask him anything they wanted to and get a straight answer. And they did just that. Can anyone just walk up to Rudy, Hillary, Obama, Mitt or Edwards and ask them anything and actually get a straight answer? That's the difference in the candidates. The so called "top tier" candidates are classic politicians. Ron Paul is a Citizen Statesman. He's one of us.......

Seems just like you need the Ron Paul audience to ride some sort of journalistic wave is all..as otherwise you are a fart in the wind, so you light up fires online, its just about trying to get your name out there in the end,..you're a fraud.

Basic principles of rhetoric show us that the questions chosen along with the time alotted can determine the outcome of such a debate. If CNN chooses the questions and who to ask them to, they could easily make one cadidate look like a fool and another look like a patriot basking in the light of freedom. Certain questions require more then a sound bite and others beg for them. This is an example of why at an early point in the race with the field not close to being narrowed down, debates are not the best forums for determining the viability of the candidates. The media should consider a new method... say giving the candidates a generous, alotted amount of time to explain fully his or her approach to governement and the principles guiding that approach instead of picking issues here and there. Our model over the past century has built to the point where the candidates that get shown the most coverage are those that are well liked and can give quick simple answers instead of those that can articulate a fully developed platform of government.

Its hard to ignore that the idea that democracy is a good and effective system for choosing leaders sits in a very uneasy opposition to the idea that experts must limit people's choices. Which is it going to be? Are we going to admit that people are smart enough to choose or are we going to stick to the notion that experts know better?

The Internet and especially YouTube may not be what it once was, a frontier of early adopters, the highly literate, well-informed media junkies and science buffs, but it still probably represents a collection of somewhat above average people and if those people tend to favor a candidate that mainstream reporters prefer to ignore and often forget to invite to their debates then doesn't that say something very significant about how democracy is being suppressed?

So what if people start to go-in for a fad of debating politics while costumed as vikings? If real issues could be addressed that way that would otherwise have been suppressed, it would seem to me to be a win-win situation. The debates would become more relevant to people as well as more fun.

I think that the tension between the preferences expressed on the internet and those expressed in the mainstream media shows a kind of long-tail effect, following Chris Andersen's analysis of the music and movie industries by his theories it should seem odd if only two brands continued to satisfy everyone in a broadband and media-rich world where people don't have to form their opinions from the limited lines of an editorial page constrained by the logic of mass-production. And if this is true, then prepare for those candidates who would have been considered second-tier or third-tier in the old days to be taken more seriously in the future.

Is it not clear to all that nothing has changed ?

U-Tube based `debates' may sound innovative, but still, BigBro, via one of their surrogates, CNN, still runs the show. My simple question would be WHY the major networks still demand cash for political advertising ?

They make all these whining excuses, like operating expenses, etc., but the bottom line is that they are really the 4th branch of the US govnt, and need to control & manipulate the political process in order to ensure their own survival, which in turn perpetuates the eternally corrupting system of money-based rather than intelligence-based politics . In the process, we all become LESS free, deluded by the internet into believing the opposite.

It doesn't seem fair to suggest that because Ron Paul is so popular on the internet, his supporters should be censored. Does it make any sense to show more videos from Rudy supporters, even though they're few and far between? This manipulation would give the public the misconception that Rudy is as popular or more popular than Ron Paul is on the internet. Is that what real journalism is about? If pundits at CNN want to say, "The only reason there are a lot of Ron Paul questions is because he's only popular on the internet," let them say it. It's not very convincing, but to censor questions so that it APPEARS as though he is only as popular as the next candidate, would be a grave injustice, in my opinion.

Of course by replying to your article, I've caught myself in a Catch-22, proving that Ron Paul's supporters are loyal and willing to step up to his defense, but also, perhaps in doing so, prove, according to your standards, that we, by our mere presence and by our voices, are a threat to democracy, because there's more of us than some people would like. Don't censor us for wanting to spread our beliefs. CNN should do it's job.

On a side note, what do you have against Vikings?

Citing Ron Paul supporters as the reason for CNN screening and sanitizing thier YouTube questions contradicts the whole purpose of having a YouTube debate.

If YouTube is such a powerful force/tool for political change, to the point where CNN is structuring a whole debate around it, then how can a majority opinion on YouTube for particular questions be considered invalid because it came from a Ron Paul supporter? I am a Democrat, but I am leaning toward Ron Paul because the front-runners in the Democratic party are starting to appear just a bought and sold as the Republicans.

How do us real people out here in the real world (the people on the Internet are real) get to have the questions we want answered if the filtered world (CNN, FOX, etc) screens them for us?

If YouTube really makes the political difference that CNN and others claim to admit, then how can you at the same time dismiss the consensus opinion of its users as being non-representative? Maybe they don't represent unmotivated, apathetic, and oblivious segments of our population, but I bet you those types will not watch the debate anyway.

I dont know what is so "radical" about Ron Paul's views and I don't know why the mainstream media keeps saying that he doesn't stand a chance. Is freedom such an impossibility that is seems radical to support and fight for it? If in fact Dr. Paul wouldn't stand a chance is because the mainstream media keeps discrediting him and his supporters. There are plenty of people that support Dr. Paul and it's not just on the web. There are several meetup groups all over the country with members that are trying to bring Ron's message to the streets. I guess freedom is an exciting notion, wouldn't you think?

GO RON PAUL!!!!

Ron Paul would easily be the best U.S. President we're had since the 1700s. Elect Ron Paul President in 2008!

If some dude in a viking helmet wins enough votes for his question to be included in the debate then so be it, let him ask. Politicians need to see how screwed up the world really is anyway.

Everyone on the right thinks that the media is run by a bunch of leftists, and everyone on the left thinks it's run by a bunch of conservative GOP'rs. If the two sides could hear eachother through their own shouts, they might see the tragic irony in it.

This is just the first go around of Internet debates done this way, and it's a step in the right direction. There will always be room for improvement, and removing CNN as the final arbitrator would be a great start.

Stop focusing on proving "the other side" wrong (whomever it is you spew venom at on an hourly basis and is, in your mind, the cause of all the world's suffering). This is great progress towards having people more involved in our government, and having the general public more active in government. Bravo.

A video of 2 hot girls in bikini tops kissing one another and asking the candidates what their favorite Starbucks beverage is would certainly receive the most votes based on the demographics of Youtube viewers, but I don't think that information would be terribly helpful in choosing the next leader of the free world. Unless of course the candidate answers that they like decaf, because quite frankly, those people can't be trusted. ;-)

a bit too off the cuff. While there is the possibility for 'American Idol' style voting to tilt the playing field to stupid or pointless questions, as several other commenters pointed out, as it stands CNN is holding all the cards. Given the sheer quantity of questions submitted, they can slant the debate in qhatever direction they (or whoever specifically makes the choices) want it to go.

Unlike at least one other commenter, the 'Faux News' fan, I no longer consider CNN liberal, or even balanced. They too have abrogated their journalistic integrity and leapt on the bandwagon of spouting administration talking points as if they were actually news, and not public relations (or downright propaganda in some instances.)

Sadly, the only people who seem to be interested in the actual issues, our morality as a nation, or our civil liberties are Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. We laugh because otherwise we'd have to cry, I guess.

Somehow I think that the guy in the Viking costume and Obama Girl scare them a lot loss than questions that might make Ron Paul look good when the Republicans have their chance...

It's too bad for them that almost every question makes Ron Paul look good, according to the polls after the first three debates.

The presidential election should be about finding out which candidates have the intelligence, temperament, experience, and qualifications to be president, and which candidates are committed to the issues that the American people care about.

The presidential election should not be about determining who the "top" contenders are, based on popularity polls when only a few of the candidates are widely known, and then ignoring the rest of the field.

Fortunately, the Internet allows people to learn about candidates the mainstream media ignores, and make up their own minds.

Why does the republican poll itself say Ron Paul is in 2nd place, behind only Fred Thompson? Why were there more donations from Service members for Ron Paul than any other candidate. These are facts that can be hidden for a while, but remember that everyone is separated from each other by only about 6 people. I for one have conservatively connected with about 300 people, along with 1000's of others via my car signs and bumper stickers. We will get though before January if we just keep up the pace.

This YouTube debate is the beginning of real power returning to the people. There are lots of questions to be answered: How do you select the questions, how do you validate authenticity, if people vote on line for questions how do you guarantee fairness of vote, etc. Over the next 5-50 years or so we will agree on some answers to these questions. I want to make 2 extremely important points:

1. As the internet enables real potitical power, watch the old-world power elite try to stifle internet freedom in any way possible. In the next 5 years there will be taxes levied, laws passed, regulations enforced, etc. that will be the political parties' and the corporations' attempts at keeping the people on a short leash. If we are not vigiliant they will wrest all vestiges of power away from us.

2. Regardless of which questions are asked in the debate, there is absolutely nothing that would prevent a candidate from publishing his response to any question submitted, or even to post his own statements and positions about issues. I have not seen the Viking's question, but if it is relevant, any candidate worth his salt would answer the question without CNN's proding.

I find it interesting that these articles continue to repeat the mantra of "unelectable" or "who will not win" as if this repetition actually makes their opinions more true.

Slashdot has done this the proper way - with users submitting questions AND moderating the rubbish one down and the interesting ones up - for many years as part of their slashdot interviews. Slashcode, the software Rob Malda wrote to do this, is open source. CNN could have easily used it had they been so inclined....

Be careful what you wish for...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

--Benjamin Franklin

Amazing people who are open minded have learned clearly this election so far how unfair, biased and even down right hateful the media is. They have an agenda and it's clear to see when you got to open secrets dot org and see where the candidates are getting their millions.

Ron Paul doesn't except bribe money from the media, drugs companies, or banks that wish to purchase loyality from a candidate. He is supported by ma and pop american for the intent of preserving a free country for our children and grandchildren.

Those of you who accuse Pauls supporters of being wackos have no idea how you are showing your rear end and down right contempt for the democratic process you claim to protect. The media is deciding our elections by the coverage they provide or do not provide. This is not democracy.

How could anyone trust the republicans?

This was a total farce!

I was alwys completely disgusted with politics since I was voting age 15 years ago. I have now found someone who made me feel hope for my country, made me feel love for my country, and I have now, for the first time, donated money to a politician (every paycheck!). I am also VERY dedicated to campaigning for him, and every day I have a goal of getting 10 more votes for him. It's very easy to achieve just showing the facts; no trickery needed. He doesn't have a chance? I beg to differ, and everytime I hear a media outlet say that, it makes me work that much harder for him!

RON PAUL 2008

of course the debate was imperfect - but it was still a major breakthrough for the democratic process ... http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-youtubecnn-presidential-debate.html