They have a piece on the changes the Internet has brought to the campaign, but they never say his name.
WTF?
"Net gains; How technology could save presidential debates" by Dan Gillmor November 11, 2007
ON THURSDAY NIGHT, most of the Democratic presidential candidates will travel to Las Vegas for the latest in this election cycle's "debates." The quotes around that word are deliberate, because political debates are stuck in a world of television sound bites, after-the-fact spin, and almost blatant contempt for voters.
Mass media, the communications technology that became supreme in the 20th century, has ruined debates. Today's mass media, reflecting a cultural short attention span, elevates shallowness.
This year's endless series of events, with so many candidates aiming for the nominations, have been especially puerile, little more than mini-press conferences and spin sessions. Even when the questions are serious, the time limitations on answers puts a premium on regurgitating canned, semi-clever lines that entertain instead of illuminate.
Not Ron Paul!
But technology can also help restore the debate. The Internet and digital tools - search, blogging, online video, wikis, interactive games, and virtual worlds - are made to order for serious conversations. The collision of technology with media offers an unparalleled chance to hold debates that would illuminate our problems and opportunities and give us true insight into the people who want us to elect them.
The role of technology in politics has always been prominent, notably in communications. The Internet subsumes all that came before, and adds a many-to-many capability. The democratization of media means that anyone can publish; that what we publish is available to a potentially global community; and that creation naturally leads to conversation and collaboration.
The Net has, of course, already made itself felt on the campaign trail. In this cycle, the presidential candidates are all over the Internet map, and so are their supporters - witness the now-famous "I've got a crush on Obama" video and Mitt Romney's invitation to his supporters to create advertisements, among countless other efforts.
But no Ron Paul, huh?
But before we finish yet another campaign cycle in the traditional way, let's resolve to bring debating into the new century. We have the ability to turn top-down, sell-the-candidate methods of electioneering into edge-in conversations among candidates and the electorate. I'll happen eventually. Why not this time?"
It WILL BE THIS TIME, and his name is Ron Paul!!
Then there is the Globe's N.H. poll that has him coming in fourth at 7%, but they never mention him in the article!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!
"Romney, Clinton ahead, vulnerable in N.H. poll; Race still open, analysts say" by Scott Helman/Boston Globe November 11, 2007
Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton remain the clear front-runners in the New Hampshire presidential primary, but both have vulnerabilities that could erode their support among voters in the weeks ahead, a new Boston Globe poll indicates.
Two months before the New Hampshire primary, Romney leads his nearest rival, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, 32 percent to 20 percent, with Senator John McCain of Arizona third at 17 percent. Among Democratic voters, Clinton, the New York senator, leads Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, 35 percent to 21 percent, with former senator John Edwards of North Carolina third at 15 percent.
The primary contest in both parties remains highly fluid - just 16 percent of likely Republican voters said they had definitely decided whom to back; among likely Democratic primary voters, only 24 percent are firm in their choice. And neither Clinton nor Romney has closed the deal with their party's voters, the poll suggests.
Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the Globe poll: "It's still really open."
The poll also found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats favor diplomatic steps over military action or further sanctions to resolve a showdown with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, views that could work against hawkish candidates who have advocated a harder line. A majority of voters in both parties also say that building relationships with Muslims and improving homeland security would be more effective in combating terrorism than fighting Al Qaeda or waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which means New Hampshire loves Ron Paul!!
Voters polled believe Clinton is less "trustworthy." Only half of those who said they would vote for Clinton listed her as the most trustworthy. The results follow a national Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey released last week in which 43 percent of respondents indicated a negative view of Clinton's "honesty."
Because WE ALL KNOW about the lying Bilderberg Queen and her mass-murdering husband!
Managing the war in Iraq, preventing terrorism, and containing the perceived nuclear threat from Iran have been defining foreign policy issues in the campaign, with candidates in both parties sparring over who has the right approaches and experience to protect the country.
Despite the combative views of Republican presidential contenders, likely GOP primary voters in New Hampshire favor diplomacy over force in dealing with Iran and with terrorism.
WE WANT PEACE!!!!!
Nearly two-thirds of Republican voters said they consider Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program "a serious threat" to American security, but nearly as many, 59 percent, said the United States should seek diplomatic solutions with allies or talk directly to Iranian leaders, compared with 32 percent who favored military action or tougher economic sanctions.
The AIPAC/Clean Break/PNAC/MSM plan not popular with Americans!
Republicans said, by a 28-to-19 percent margin, that cultivating relationships in the Muslim world was a better way to fight terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden and fighting Al Qaeda.
Hard to find a dead guy, and as for "Al-CIA-Duh," pfffffftttttt!
A majority of Republican voters, 54 percent, said they would be willing to surrender some civil liberties if it "significantly improv[ed] our security against terrorists," but three-fourths of Democrats said they were unwilling to make that bargain.
This I don't believe! Who wants to surrender our liberties? No one I know!!!
And C'MON OVER, Dems!!! We'll be glad to have ya!! Vote Ron Paul!!
More Democrats said they consider Iran a threat to the Middle East than a threat to the United States, and Democrats overwhelmingly favor working with allies and talking directly with Iran over using force or imposing new sanctions. More than half of Democrats surveyed said building relationships in the Middle East was the best way to combat terrorism.
Too bad AIPAC runs U.S foreign policy!
Almost two-thirds of Democratic voters said healthcare was the most or second-most important issue facing the country, followed by Iraq, and the economy. Republicans narrowly chose Iraq as the most important issue, followed by the economy and illegal immigration, a lightning rod in the GOP. More than half of Republican voters said a candidate's position on illegal immigration was "very important" to their vote."
Ron Paul!!
