The Presidential Debates - Is It a Level Playing Field?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
November 17, 2007 9:49pm CST
They just had the 10,000th (or it sure seems like it!) Democratic Presidential debate on Thursday night and as with all the ones that came before for either party the pundits spent hours afterward plus most of the next day talking about who won and who lost. The problem is they only focus on the ones the media consider to be the "front-runners" no matter how well the other candidates do and that's so unfair I think. It's already way too much about the money; the debates should be the one forum where the playing field is leveled but that 's not the case. People are easily influenced by what they read and hear and I'm sure even if someone watched every second of a debate it would still be possible for them to be convinced that their perception of who was the "winner" wasn't necessarily an accurate one. Is it just me or does anyone else here feel all the candidates aren't getting a fair shake?
Annie
1 response
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
18 Nov 07
The very nature of politics is not a level playing field, anniepa. To be honest, I'd rather eat snails than watch a Presidential debate. I think that most people already have their minds made up as to who they are going to vote for anyway. I don't trust the candidates enough to believe they will follow through on the many promises they make. You just have to go with the one who most mirrors your views on the issues.
1 person likes this


