Should they even be posted on YouTube? All the candidates have to do is go to the webpage, look at some of the questions and formulate an answer in case that question was asked during the debate instead of the question coming from out of the blue and hitting a candidate hard which is the way I think it should be as it catch em off guard and shed some light on their true feelings towards a subject.
2007-07-25 01:34:24 · 2 answers · asked by ICE raider 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
People had the right to know the questions and answers of the candidates so that they can vote wisely.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.
2007-07-25 01:38:21 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point. All the questions were posted in advance. They probably shouldn't have been until afterwards.
There were 3,000 of them, which would make it hard for a campaign to view, and formullate responses for, them all.
But anyone mounting a serious campaign for president would, I'm sure, devote the resources and labor to doing just that. Why risk losing the presidency by beling lazy this one time?
I thought there was the germ of a very good idea here, but it seemed to be swallowed up by gimmickry and "American Idol" type ratings-chasing. Posting the questions in advance served the purpose of "generating hype," but NOT the purpose of seeing the candidates unvarnished and not "prepped."
And I thought it was somewhat undignified to take a question from a snowman puppet. Maybe I'm an old crank. But it just struck me as wrong.
Then again, maybe undignified is nothing new. Nixon appeared on the hippie comedy Laugh-In in 1968 (think "The Daily Show," 40 years ago - sort of) and said "sock it to me!" Humphrey refused. Nixon won, narrowly.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ItU6tkdF2A
2007-07-25 08:40:55 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋