cialis generique livraison rapide viagra amazon viagra myynti
köpa viagra sverige tadalafil foro kamagra kaufen berlin
purchase microsoft office 2013 license 
buy adobe photoshop lightroom software 
photoshop elements 12 cheap mac 
download final cut express 4 mac where to buy adobe photoshop elements 7 download photoshop elements 9
ranbaxy generic products ranbaxy sildenafil citrate tadalafil no rx
viagra online discount 
what dosage of cialis should i take 
is generic levitra safe 
gabapentin 900 mg tablets thyroxine price in india dermovate clobetasol propionate cream buy
metronidazole pill for men for sale lasix furosemide buy online ciprofloxacin 500 mg for sinus infection

Watching the Nader-Baldwin Debate

McKinney states that the debate was basically run unilaterally by the Nader campaign, she will be on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” Friday at 9 am ET.

Moderator Chris Hedges claimed that Chomsky will be voting for Obama, but what he read I don’t think backed that up. In his interview with The Real News, which I think Hedges based his comments on, Chomsky seemed to advise people “in swing states” to vote for Obama. Chomsky lives in Massachusetts — McKinney probably has a better chance of winning there than McCain … So far the debate feels like a “parallel news conference”. … It is a great failure of the candidates in my view that they hardly ever talk about VotePact as a solution to the voters’ dilemma, as in the beginning of this debate. …

Hedges is certainly raising alot of the crucial issues:

(though some of his questions are long): Fundamental view of voting, economic collapse, morality connected to that collapse, “War on Terror” fundamentals, Iraq, Afghanistan, size of military, backing Israel, pre-emptive war, torture, unitary executive, health care … But there’s minimal interaction so far between the two. Here’s an interesting question: “Are you closer to each other than you are to either of the establishment parties?”…

The saddest part of this is that this took place so late in the process. Especially the Nader camp, which has been through this several times, should have had a game plan to have events like this several months ago. …

Extensive discussion about ballot access restrictions, some about media black balling, but no mention of voting systems as an obstacle to smaller parties and real voter choice. …

Good question from Baldwin on immigration, and good response from Nader. Very good question from Nader on corporate personhood and an encouraging response from Baldwin. Baldwin “skeptical” of human created global warming. Obvious split on abortion rights, though Baldwin notes how Republicans have stiffed their voters. Separation of church and state — too bad no one questioned the selectivity of applying religion in the public sphere — no one thinks to talk of the Sermon on the Mount…

A truly substantial exchange. Very disappointing that the organizers did not include (not sure of the back story) McKinney and Barr. But you feel like you ate a real meal here, not a bunch of greasy slimy fast food with the Obama-McCain “debates”.  But strange ending with each of the candidates seeming to revert to their standard lines.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.