Well, the debate was fun, but frightening, of course. There were so many times when I felt like a fool–not finding my words or letting some golden opportunities just slide by. But it was wonderful to be finally looking him in the eye and speaking the truth right at him. WMUR has an online poll of viewers. Those who though I won: 79%. Those who though Judd Gregg won: 20%. So I thank my many coaches on this site, and for all your encouragement, which was very real and very strengthening to me.
And to Professor Lessig, I do so thank you for your generous hospitality here. I shall look into getting one of these blogs for myself one day soon, and I will always thank you for teaching me how to do it.
A big walk and three speeches tomorrow, so I’m to bed!
Love again to all,
Doris
Congrats, Mrs. D. I hear you were great. Is there a torrent of the debate available? I’d love to see it.
Good job on the Debate, Granny D and best of luck in the election!
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/3841194/detail.html
This has the video of the debate broken out into short clips, by topic.
I just looked at the anonymous CNN article. It would be a worthwhile project, to have such things as video debates, contrasted with the mainstream article written on them. So people could see what sorts of biases write these articles.
re:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/nh.senate.ap/
Granny D faltered on the Patriot Act? Isn’t Judd Gregg the one who was wrong about law enforcement having to go to a judge in order to invate one’s privacy?
Judd Gregg also clearly stated that we start war, we were attacked and spewed bullshit connecting 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Granny D cut him down at the knees.
It’s all online at http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/3841194/detail.html
oops,
mistake above, should have read:
Judd Gregg also clearly stated that we did not start war, we were attacked and spewed bs connecting 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.
In any highschool journalism class, you hear about the inverted pyramid: start with the punchy summary, then put in increasingly boring things as the article drags on. (Boring = facts no one reads.) So you look at the bold header:
“Democrat Doris Haddock worked to paint U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg as beholden to special interests in a televised debate Thursday, but often confessed a lack of knowledge about key topics such as the U.S. Supreme Court.”
So this summary says two things. Granny D “worked to paint” — the obvious spin is “laboring in artifice.” Then this Democrat “confessed a lack of knowledge.” What a wonderful way to begin and set the tone for an article.
It fits in well with Jon Stewart’s recent point on… CNN. Politicians say tepid things since otherwise shows like “I’m Gonna Kick Your Ass” will jump all over them. (Incidentally, I hear some crafty people go to the ends of articles immediately for real news.)
hmm… my grandmother always read everything backwards, she’d start at the end and if it was interesting she’d read the whole thing.