這位老兄說這場辯論很無聊，下次辯論如果要來點刺激的，不如 把兩位候選人綁起來，吊到鯊魚池上吧。 我個人覺得這是不錯的提議，雖然他老兄沒詳細解說這樣的辯論 細節該怎麼執行。我的建議是，既然民主黨現在為初選可能一路 打到黨代表大會而煩惱，那麼乾脆就照Adams先生的提議做。辯 論完後馬上來做個全國民調，看哪一個候選人辯論表現的比較差， 結果出來輸的那個馬上就切斷繩索丟到鯊魚池中。這樣民主黨的 提名人便在驚險刺激的生死一瞬間產生了。 如此一來可以省掉更多的內鬥跟口水戰，早點把焦點放在大選跟 共和黨巨大的政策差距上，相當理想。 Too much talking The Guardian http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/02/ too_much_talking.html US elections 2008: Once again, the promise of a debate punch-up between Clinton and Obama turned into a mildly fractious talkathon Richard Adams About Webfeeds February 27, 2008 5:00 AM Last night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was the twentieth time the Democratic candidates have met since the primary season began. It's also probably the last. Having watched most of those debates, as well as a dozen Republican ones, I think I speak for many when I say: thank god. It's not that last night's debate was the worst of the 30 or so I've seen in the last year. Earlier in the cycle there were several utterly tedious debates when the stages were crowded with eight or nine candidates, making it impossible for any thread to develop. But what this series of talkathons proves is that more of something is indeed not necessarily better. Both candidates looked and sounded exhausted last night. If this had been a boxing match, both corners would have thrown in the towels. The strange thing is that when the series started, Hillary Clinton was obviously the better debater, and the leading candidate. Barack Obama, while he could give a good speech in front of a crowd, was no great shakes. But as the cycle has gone on, he has improved while she, on the evidence of last night, has got worse, to the extent that Obama probably out-debated her for the first time since this started, and where Clinton was complaining about the format. It also has to be said, for someone who is supposed to have all the details at her fingertips, Clinton does sometimes slip in some whoppers, such as last night's claim that solar power manufacturing had created "hundreds of thousands of jobs" in Germany - simply false (the actual number is about 45,000 jobs), as was her claim that those jobs couldn't be outsourced. Want a bet? For the second debate in a row, though, Clinton did finish strongly, giving a fine summary of her experience, and sounds so much more likeable. Obama had the better sound-bite of the night, when he likened Clinton's vote for the Iraq war in 2002 to "driving the bus into the ditch" - calling it the biggest strategic blunder in US foreign policy, and stressing that Clinton had been an "enabler" of Republican foreign policy. In doing so he neatly hijacked one of Clinton's strongest claims: "She was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue." Clinton still has no reply to this, even after all these debates. Curiously, at the end of the debate she was asked her greatest political regret, and she mentioned a wish to take back that same Iraq war vote. I bet she does. But that's as close to an admission of error she's made on the subject. Obama also had the better comebacks: first, when asked to comment on Clinton's heavy sarcasm aimed at his cult-like support, he smiled and said it was funny, thus brushing it off. Second, when Clinton pressed him in overly pedantic fashion to "reject" rather than "denounce" support from various unhappy quarters (Louis Farrakhan, for example), he replied that he didn't think there was a difference but was willing to "reject" as well. The first half of the debate was a thicket of healthcare and talk about trade policy. Frankly, neither of these candidates have an optimal position on either issue, although on healthcare the question is what is possible. The two have debated these issues, or the slim points of difference between them on healthcare, so often now that it has the air of a medieval disputation on the quantity of angels vis-a-vis pin surface areas. Obama's policy is more likely to get passed by Congress, and that is the best thing that can be said in its favour. Clinton remains unable to explain how she would enforce a legal requirement to have health insurance, which seems overly reticent, especially when she uses that very issue as a point of difference with Obama's plan. On trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) in particular, both Obama and Clinton are indulging in vote-winning rhetoric, understandable in the context of the prospect of a primary in Ohio next week. The difference is that in the case of Clinton many people assume that she doesn't really believe what she is saying, in that she is merely taking a position for political gain, whereas Obama might actually believe this stuff, which is even more worrying. Clinton almost comically raised the spectre of mighty foreign companies suing feeble American ones (I'll need to see the transcripts to get my head around exactly what that was about). So, would that be through the World Trade Organisation's disputes mechanism, a forum within which the US regularly loses trade disputes, mainly because it has broken international law? Hmm. An administration that wants to avoid US obligations under its previous treaty commitments when it suits them - who does that sound like? The current occupants of the White House, perhaps? Anyway, the Doha trade round isn't likely to benefit from either a President Clinton or President Obama, based on last night. With that in mind, one of the reasons this debate was such a downer was the poverty of the questions. With both candidates talking about re-negotiating Nafta, the obvious - blindingly obvious, some might say - question is: how exactly? Why, when US house prices are melting, was that subject not deemed worthy of a long discussion? In terms of the effect on the primaries next Tuesday, in Texas and Ohio, I doubt this debate will make a jot of difference to the result. Clinton should still win Ohio with some comfort, and Texas will be close. And that leaves open the possibility of one thing: yet another debate. And unless it's conducted with the candidates suspended over a tank full of sharks, it's hard to imagine how to keep the thrill alive for number 21. -- ■所有荷蘭人如果每週一天不吃肉，就可達到荷蘭政府希望家家戶戶一年所減少的二氧化 碳排放量目標。 ■南美洲約有四億公頃的黃豆作物是種給牛吃的；如果是提供給人類食用，則只需兩千五 百萬公頃就可以滿足全世界所需。 「不吃肉、騎腳踏車、少消費，就可協助遏止全球暖化。」 by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 122.127.64.2 ※ 編輯: swallow73 來自: 122.127.64.2 (02/28 02:27)