Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Friday, January 2, 2009
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Eh Cumpari!
It is coming up on the anniversary of my parents' deaths. They were so close to each other that they died on the same day, one year apart. I have always found some strange comfort in that.
This month is will be four years since my father died, and three since my mother died. I have been thinking about them a lot the past few days. Happily, mostly it has been good thoughts!
This song reminds me of being little, running around the yard at my Aunt Frances's house in Brooklyn, while old Italian songs played on the phonograph. Outside, it was the Feast of San Paulinus, the 5th Century bishop of Nola, the city my mother's family came from. So while this song has been stuck in my head for about a week, it is a good and happy memory.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The You Tube Debate Secret Transcript
It turns out that CNN heavily edited the You Tube debate. Here is the secret transcript of what really happened.
Labels:
2008,
GOP,
political humor,
presidential debates,
YouTube
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Planting Questions at the You Tube Debate
The issue of General Kerr's appearance at the You Tube debate continues to raise a firestorm. General Kerr lends his name to a Clinton campaign committee on gay rights. (And apparently his name was on a letter for a Kerry veterans committee in 2004). At the very least it shows bad judgment on his part, especially in light of questions whether the Clinton campaign was planting questions at her rallies.
CNN apparently edited the General out of the rebroadcast of the debate.
There are other issues now being raised regarding whether other questioners were "plants." Some of the other questioners were either supporters of Democratic candidates or have some other left wing connection. That does not really bother me. All of the questions were respectful and serious questions. The Muslim woman might have been a former CAIR intern, but the question was a good and serious one, and was respectful (not a GOTTA type of thing). The black man who asked about getting more black support for the GOP apparently runs a satire site about black Republicans, but again, his question was serious and respectful. (I doubt the guy who asked the gun question of Biden in the Democratic debate was a Democrat)
My only problem is with the General because his name is attached to the Clinton campaign, and he was flown in at Google's expense to give a rebuttal to the answers given. His question was a serious one, but one that someone else should have asked.
CNN apparently edited the General out of the rebroadcast of the debate.
There are other issues now being raised regarding whether other questioners were "plants." Some of the other questioners were either supporters of Democratic candidates or have some other left wing connection. That does not really bother me. All of the questions were respectful and serious questions. The Muslim woman might have been a former CAIR intern, but the question was a good and serious one, and was respectful (not a GOTTA type of thing). The black man who asked about getting more black support for the GOP apparently runs a satire site about black Republicans, but again, his question was serious and respectful. (I doubt the guy who asked the gun question of Biden in the Democratic debate was a Democrat)
My only problem is with the General because his name is attached to the Clinton campaign, and he was flown in at Google's expense to give a rebuttal to the answers given. His question was a serious one, but one that someone else should have asked.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The You Tube Debate
Well, I finally watched a debated -- or at least most of it. I really like the You Tube format, although I think people should dress better if they want to ask candidates questions. The questions did not seem to be as silly as during the Democrat's debate (even the Cheney animation was a serious question, and the Red Sox v. Yankees question was a funny way to end it all).
The question on "don't ask don't tell" and the seemingly forever rebuttal by the questioner lost me. It also turns out that the questioner, a retired Army general, is connected to the Clinton campaign.
McCain came off extremely well. He seems to have done well in the debates so far. He is calm, focused, and shows both his competency and his principles. The showed his incredible grasp of foreign policy as well as taking the torture question head on. Yes, this man should be president.
Another who did well was Huckabee. He had the best answer of the night -- what would Jesus do about the death penalty? " Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office." Huckabee, however, continues to run as the great social conservative hope and sounded like he was interviewing for a pastor's job. I think he will end up if not winning in Iowa and maybe South Carolina, coming a close second.
Romney did not impress me. He seems too polished, too much answering questions based on what he thinks will be popular.
Thompson seemed very relaxed and answered the questions well. Thompson was a better non candidate than candidate and has lost much of his early bounce. So maybe he was relaxed as he was trying out for VP. He (and the other candidates) really punted the Rebel flag question though.
Giuliani stumbled at times. He was expecting to skip Iowa and New Hampshire and concentrate on Florida with the hope of pulling off an upset in South Carolina. But he is in trouble in the early states now. The pressure is on him and he knows it.
Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul. The Paulistas reacted, well, as you would expect.
We should have a pool as to when Hunter and Tancredo drop out. My wife (not a Republican) has no clue who they are.
In the end, McCain won and Huckabee really helped himself. Let's hope we see more of this type of format.
The question on "don't ask don't tell" and the seemingly forever rebuttal by the questioner lost me. It also turns out that the questioner, a retired Army general, is connected to the Clinton campaign.
McCain came off extremely well. He seems to have done well in the debates so far. He is calm, focused, and shows both his competency and his principles. The showed his incredible grasp of foreign policy as well as taking the torture question head on. Yes, this man should be president.
Another who did well was Huckabee. He had the best answer of the night -- what would Jesus do about the death penalty? " Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office." Huckabee, however, continues to run as the great social conservative hope and sounded like he was interviewing for a pastor's job. I think he will end up if not winning in Iowa and maybe South Carolina, coming a close second.
Romney did not impress me. He seems too polished, too much answering questions based on what he thinks will be popular.
Thompson seemed very relaxed and answered the questions well. Thompson was a better non candidate than candidate and has lost much of his early bounce. So maybe he was relaxed as he was trying out for VP. He (and the other candidates) really punted the Rebel flag question though.
Giuliani stumbled at times. He was expecting to skip Iowa and New Hampshire and concentrate on Florida with the hope of pulling off an upset in South Carolina. But he is in trouble in the early states now. The pressure is on him and he knows it.
Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul. The Paulistas reacted, well, as you would expect.
We should have a pool as to when Hunter and Tancredo drop out. My wife (not a Republican) has no clue who they are.
In the end, McCain won and Huckabee really helped himself. Let's hope we see more of this type of format.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Norwegian Borat Want-to-be In New York
This is really funny, though if you object to strong language, turn it off!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Ron Paul (Again) and Ronald Reagan
Ron Paul is trying hard to claim the mantle of Reagan.
You have got to admit, Paul supporters are both technologically savvy and committed.
EDITED TO NOTE -- in response to a commenter, I note that this video was made by a supporter of Ron Paul, not his campaign. Which I knew, but did not make clear. So it would be better to say that a supporter sees Paul grabbing the mantle of Reagan.
You have got to admit, Paul supporters are both technologically savvy and committed.
EDITED TO NOTE -- in response to a commenter, I note that this video was made by a supporter of Ron Paul, not his campaign. Which I knew, but did not make clear. So it would be better to say that a supporter sees Paul grabbing the mantle of Reagan.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Republican YouTube Debate
The Florida GOP has decided to get into the act and is sponsoring a "YouTube" debate. However, unlike the Democrats, the leading GOP candidates seem like they may pass. Big mistake. Like most on the right, I do think the media is biased, though I think the bias is more toward a collectivist/aristocratic bend rather than a true liberal bias. Thanks to technology, we are able to break the big media monopoly on information -- the web, podcasts, blogs open up new lines of unfiltered thought.
The YouTube debates are merely one manifestation of this new technology.
GOP -- listen to Ann Althouse -- don't wuss out!
The YouTube debates are merely one manifestation of this new technology.
GOP -- listen to Ann Althouse -- don't wuss out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)