Comments on: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes

Katie Couric Asks The Top Presidential Candidates To Explain The Standout Slipups Of Their Lives

[pawfelts]

Looking forward to Ron Paul''s answer.

[chilly123110]

From personal experience I have always found the best way to learn about a person (Candidate or otherwise) is to ask them tough personal questions. To let them respond and while they answer read their response, their body language, eye contact and last but not least the content of their response.
I think there should be more one on one question and answer sessions and less debate. I think America should have the opportunity to read a candidate from specific Core Value Questions (CVQ''s) that cut to the integrity of a persons being.
When one answers a specific CVQ with a political/work/business response and not a personal/from the heart & soul answer, I see that as a subconscious defensive disguise to protect ones vulnerability. And in that person I see a flawed character and a person who should not be considered a candidate to be the leader of the United States.
The CBS Evening News and Katie Couric are doing what needs to be done with all political candidates, now and in the future, especially those running for the President of the United States. Good job!

[wayfarer02]

amichel1 I feel your pain!! CBS and other mainstream news outlets will never acknowledge the Ron Paul Revolution, because he does not serve corporate media interest. It should not suprise us that he is not included, but we can''t help feeling infuriated. This is a prime example of why and how grassroots campaigns are born, build and take effect. We can not rely on these traditional news media sources to be truthful and fair, they have too much to lose. Stick with public news sources like NPR and other public broadcasting sources, they''re a little less bias.

[bohummer]

I am hoping CBS has a very good reason why Ron Paul is not a part of your 10 questions piece. Surely this is not another big media ploy to push legitimate and popular (at least with voters) candidates out of the picture so that only corporate sponsored politicians have free air time. Surely not CBS, any comments CBS?

[amichel1]

I''m very concerned about the omission of Ron Paul. He has the highest number of individual donors, the highest number of active volunteers, the most support on college campuses, the most support on the Internet, is the leading Republican fundraiser this quarter, holds the GOP record for most funds ever raised in a single day, and is a 20 year veteran of the United States Congress. Given all this, the fact that CBS News omits Ron Paul from a list of *10* candidates seems patently unfair. It is also self-destructive for CBS News to actively exclude him given the demographics of Ron Paul supporters (on average, they are more technologically savvy, higher income, younger, and more passionate media consumers than the supporters of the other candidates). When CBS News, for reasons known only to itself, effectively tells these attractive media consumers that their huge grassroots campaign doesn''t really exist, these media consumers turn to other sources for news, and CBS news hastens its own decline in viewers.

[mattcbsmatt]

Which presidential candidate can answer this very difficult question? Is illegal immigration, illegal?
And of course they do not know or can not understand it.
Even though there is a hint in the phrase illegal immigration. : )
And of course the courts do not know and I guess even the Supreme Court does not know.
Excuse me I am about to have uncontrollable explosive diarrhea verbally : )

[mattcbsmatt]

Which presidential candidate can answer this very difficult question? Is illegal immigration, illegal?
Even though there is a hint in the phrase illegal immigration. : )
And of course the courts do not know and I guess even the Supreme Court does not know.
Excuse me I am about to have uncontrollable explosive diarrhea verbally : )

[mattcbsmatt]

Candidates Reveal they think illegal immigration is legal?
Even though there is a hint in the phrase illegal immigration. : )

[cassihayden]

Stop trying to blind Americans. Ron Paul is a leading candidate. Include him! The least you could do is try and give equal airtime to ALL candidates and let the people decide for themselves.

[cassihayden]

Stop trying to blind Americans. Ron Paul is a leading candidate. Include him! The least you could do is try and give equal airtime to ALL candidates and let the people decide for themselves.

[wayfarer02]

I''m not the first to comment on the lack of Ron Paul in this story. Really, the presumtion that Katie''s stupid self indulgent question is only worthy of the "front runners" is insulting. The manipulation of the electoral process by the media is so blatant. Because they (the media) choose to exclude candidates from the conversation, no matter how retarded it is, they devalue those people in the eyes of the American public. Hey CBS, talk to everyone, or talk to no one. Try to not be so obvious in showing your corporate run media bias for a change.

[jfk19631]

Can you tell me why Ron Paul was excluded from your "Questions for Candidates" series? He is a top candidate...at least with millions Americans.

[hayalayea]

CBS:
Didn''t you miss something (or someone?)
Ron Paul.

Why would you exclude him (and others like Tancredo..)?

Why not step ahead of other news sources and actually include Ron Paul. He''s got a passionate following, something no other candidate can claim to the same degree. We, his passionate followers, would love to see him given the opportunity to appear on television like the other guys.

So next time, please include Ron Paul. Myself and millions others will be waiting!

[kissamaarse]

One that will definitely come back to bite:
Huckabee released the rapist Wayne Dumond, and Willie Horton, er, I mean Wayne Dumond went on to rape and murder at least one more woman. Huckabee, like Bush, wasn''t a very good one-term governor, but all the hyprocritcal religious right cares about, just as they did with Bush, is that Huckabee is against abortion, is for school prayer and vouchers, and bows his head to Jesus. (That would be the blue-eyed Germanic Jesus, not the actual swarthy desert Jew.)

[mudrose-2009]

Can we dispense with the mia culpa c/rap?

[rarely-watch]

I tuned in to the first of the "10 questions" segments and didn''t see Ron Paul''s picture.
I can''t believe that CBS would ignore the guy who is tied with McCain in Iowa and ahead of Huckabee and Thompson in New Hampshire. (with more contributors than McCain and Huckabee combined)

[robertkjjj]

Let there be no mistake: this is a weak group of Democrats, and they are fighting among themselves so much that they will become even weaker. I have correctly predicted the nominees and the winners of the last 10 Presidential elections, and although predicting for 2008 is tough, I''m going to now predict the race for next year. For Republicans, I see Mitt Romney getting the nomination. He''s the best speaker, best debater, and most intelligent of the bunch. Rudy will burn out. Rudy has too many skeletons and a temper. Huckabee has too little name recognition and his last name is killing him; sounds too much like a hillbilly. Thompson is lazy and too slow. Ron Paul: you got to be kidding. For the Democrats, it''s more a process of elimination: Obama? Sorry, but there is simply no way mostly-conservative America will nominate a black man named Barack Obama; not seeing this happen at all. Edwards? Too wimpy and whiny; he looks and talks weak. All the others are not well known and have incredibly small numbers. Clinton looks like the one who will stay on top. For the 11/08 general election, it will be Romney vs. Clinton. Look for a brutal summer and fall next year of Hillary vs. Mitt. Because Hillary is a polarizing figure, and there are over 20 million Americans who have said they will not vote for her no matter what, I see Romney winning a very close one in the general election, with about 5-to-10 more electoral votes than Hillary. The next President will be Mitt Romney.

[vet_sk]

We need fresh blood in the Whitehouse. Hillary votes for the war and then just last month voted to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a Terrorist Unit. Then days later she tells the president that it does not give him the authority to invade/bomb Iran. Don''t you think she should have thought about that before?

Then she sits ont he senate intelligence committee and had access to the NEI that tells us that Iran stopped their nuclear enrichment program in 2003 but acts like she didn''t know.

She''s a loss and a total insider. The only reason they say Obama does not have enough experiece (although he has far more elected service then Hillary) is that he not yet an insider who will make the rich richer.

[samthetvcat]

I just found an article about some guy who did some number crunching for an analysis of the effect of repealing the tax credit such as the one Hillary is proposing, and he estimates that about 164 million people would lose coverage under a plan involving revocation of the corporation subsidy for health care coverage.

So supposedly the idea of taking away the corporate tax deduction is supposed to be to ''streamline'' the system and make it purely consumer-driven. So when Hillary says that "over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton%u2019s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending" what she''s really saying is that she''s hoping that once companies cut us loose and we are forced by her law to fend for ourselves and our own healthcare, she''s hoping the sticker shock will motivate us to get off our duffs and exercise to lose weight and lower our blood pressure and reduce premiums that way.

I think that''s what she was saying with her plan . . .

[samthetvcat]

We''''re staring down the barrel of the primaries and we still don''''t have clear cut answers or out right plans on how Hillary plans to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Posted by likeitis5050

I checked out Hillary''s website and her healthcare plan is basically to force companies who offer insurance to their employees to pay tax on that cost. I guess it''s now eligible for a tax deduction, and since something like 60% of employees are covered through work that''s supposed to provide enough income to partially subsidize the other 40%.

The achilles heel of that plan though is that it assumes corporations won''t alter their behavior once the financial incentive to provide health care is taken away. If corporations make an across the board decision to get out of the practice of providing health insurance to their employees, then the collective financial burden on individuals and/or the government is going to be in the (hundreds of) billions. It might also depress wages if corporations instead decide to pass on the added costs to employees via fewer/lower raises or increased workloads for non-hourly wage earners. Or it might lower the quality of their existing coverage.

Because as it is, the soaring costs of health care premiums have supposedly cause many companies to stop providing it to their employees.

I mean I don''t know how the other candidates'' plans stack up against Hillary''s but this one doesn''t seem very realistic . . . will have to do more research tomorrow . . .