There was a debate today. This was the last time the candidates would meet on stage before the first caucus on January 3rd. Their last shot to really get their points across to America before the numbers start coming in.
And they decided to have it in the middle of the day.
What better time to hold a national debate than when everyone's at work.
You know, it's kind of hard to blog about a debate that I didn't see. But even if I had put all of my work aside to watch the debate on the Internet, I couldn't:
- CNN.com told me to turn my television to CNN (that makes sense).
- FoxNews.com had a giant image of girl's panties that read "Who needs credit cards?" on their homepage
- And MSNBC.com linked me to Iowa Public Television's streaming video feed
Somehow the words "Iowa" and "streaming video" just don't seem to work for me. And they didn't work for my computer either. I spent the first 20 minutes buffering like it was 1998, and the next 20 minutes with an audio feed from the crowd.
My first question is, "Iowa Public Television?!"
Listen, before you start blasting me about the value of public television, I want you to know that I appreciate it as much as anybody! There's nothing I enjoy more than British comedies and cooking shows.
But, if you're going to host a national debate that may shape the future of our country, why not let the major news networks handle it? Something tells me that CNN's video technology may be a little bit above the same network that regularly airs Mr. Bean.
Nothing against Bean, but I imagine that many voters may be in the same situation that I am - employed with no television in my cubicle. Struggling to find a good video feed online. And unable to do so.
So that's my first problem. My second problem: when I tried to READ about what happened today, I was let down once again, thanks to my old friends MSNBC.com (the same news site that offered round-the-clock coverage of American Idol contestant, Sanjaya Malakar, just 6 months ago).
In a debate wrap-up article, entitled Rivals tout spending cuts, unite on tax reform, the MSNBC journalist spent the majority of the first page discussing Huckabee's fair tax and the other candidate's relatively positive reactions to the idea. Blah.
Reading.
Reading.
Reading.
17 paragraphs later, the first mention of Dr. Ron Paul! WOOT (it's in the dictionary; look it up).
That's right. 17 paragraphs. Even Tom Tancredo's name was mentioned before Paul's.
But it wasn't just ANY mention. Oh no. It was the one to beat them all. In fact, it was so good, that it was his ONLY mention in the two-page article.
Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, here's what MSNBC.com had to say about Ron Paul:
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was also participating...
So, no, I will not be commenting about today's debate. I'll probably watch it on YouTube later, but judging from MSNBC's riveting summary, I think I have a good idea of how it went.
www.paulandkucinich.com
Source: www.articlesphere.com
