www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_david_sw_071115_wolf_blitzer_loses_d.htm

by David Swanson

That does it. It's time for the Democratic Party to stage its own debate, ask its own questions, and offer the video to networks as a completed package. Allowing CNN to not just air a debate but to ask the questions proved on Thursday night (even more dramatically than in the past) to be a soul sickening disaster.

A serious debate would begin by asking each candidate (including Mike Gravel, who was locked out of the room) what he or she would do if elected president. Thursday's debate in the opening 30 minutes had me longing for even the level of honesty and substance of the MSNBC debate hosted by Keith Olbermann in Soldier Field some months back, at which Olbermann managed the superhuman feat of asking things like "Would you cancel NAFTA?"

On Thursday Wolf Blitzer devoted the first 20 minutes to goading Clinton and Obama into bashing each other over how they have run their campaigns. Edwards was given a token 60 seconds to join the fight. At 8:18 (the debate began at 8:00 p.m. ET) Biden was permitted to add his two cents. At 8:20, Edwards was asked to bash Clinton from another angle. He took the bait, but then turned to the topic of poverty, in open violation of WB's rules. (Blitzer had announced at the start that candidates would not be permitted to stray from the topics of the questions asked.) At 8:23 Dodd got to speak, still on the debate over the debate. At 8:24 Richardson was allowed to add to the same substance-free topic. He introduced himself to the crowd as a way of registering his disastisfaction with being ignored for 24 minutes.

At 8:26, with Kucinich not having had the opportunity to say one word, CNN asked all the candidates to say whether they would support the Democratic nominee no matter what. They all said yes, except for Kucinich, who took the opportunity to say 10 words, receiving huge applause. His words were: "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy." A little vaguely worded, but I don't think that vagueness was Kucinich's intention. I think his intention was to contrast his own position with that of most of the other people on the stage. If he is not nominated, he is not going to be able to support the nominee.

Half an hour into this train wreck, no candidate had had an opportunity to speak to their priorities, but we heard a lot about CNN's. At 8:27 CNN asked Obama about immigration. At 8:29 WB dumbed this down and asked all the candidates for opinions on giving drivers' licenses to undocumented people. At 8:32 Kucinich got a chance to say his 11th word. He shifted the topic to NAFTA and took exception to the stupid question, refusing to answer it, winning loud applause.

Then CNN started asking various candidates about education, and for the first time asked Kucinich a non yes/no question. But instead of sticking with education, the topic of the questions before and after Kucinich's, WB asked Kucinich what he disagrees with labor unions on. Kucinich's answer was good, but not inspired. Maybe after 37 minutes, the Congressman had drifted off into daydreaming.

After education, CNN asked every candidate except Kucinich about Pakistan. At the end of this segment, at 8:52, Kucinich said "Hello? Hello?" But CNN refused to ask him a question.

Next CNN turned to Iraq, and this time Kucinich was included. He said that Congress should cut off the funding [big applause]. Then he answered the Pakistan question that CNN had refused to ask him. Blitzer quickly cut him off.

At 8:58, CNN came back to Kucinich on China trade, and he nailed it. And he criticized Edwards for having voted for normal trade relations with China. Edwards dodged the question. And Edwards criticized NAFTA, although he has made clear he will not end it. WB asked Clinton whether NAFTA was a mistake. She answered by talking about Chinese pet food. He asked again, and Clinton said NAFTA did not deliver on what she had hoped it would do. Dodd criticized Clinton and Obama for supporting the Peruvian trade agreement.

At 9:07 CNN's "clean coal" sponsored debate turned to energy questions. By this point, even Obama was criticizing WB for repeatedly framing questions along the lines of "Assuming we can't find a serious solution, what should we do about ...?" Criticism of WB was becoming the easiest way to garner applause. Richardson also rejected WB's frame and shifted the topic to renewable energy. CNN quickly brought the blather back to nonsense and specifically the topic of Hillary Clinton being a woman.

The second half of the debate included pre-arranged questions from non-CNN employees. The first question came from a 3-tour Iraq veteran and his mother. He said he wanted the troops brought home now and not sent to Iran. She asked what the candidates would do now to prevent an attack on Iran. But CNN only allowed Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama to answer. Clinton talked "carrots and sticks," while the rest of them criticized her vote to name the Quds force "terrorists." But Biden broke from the script in a surprising way.

"If Bush takes the country to war in Iran without an act of Congress," Biden said, "then he should be impeached!" [applause]

Richardson said something useful on the next question: he'd end the occupation by 2010. But Kucinich was not given the opportunity to say he'd end it in 2008.

When WB finally turned to Kucinich, rewording an audience member's question, he said "You were the only one who voted against the PATRIOT Act..."

"That's because I read it," Kucinich interjected to huge applause.

Kucinich nailed the question and turned to the topic of preventing an attack on Iran as well. WB saw what was coming and tried to cut him off, but Kucinich said "Impeach them now!" [huge applause]

you think howard dean would do better?

MSNBC has been doing well at calling out candidates on their crap...

the jefferson jackson dinner was great, but non-competative, and it lasted 6 hours...

a media outlet that's ready to ask important questions (not CNN) is the best forum for confrontation...

they may lie, they may ask questions that don't matter, they may placate their sponsors, but what other option do we have? do you have enough money to buy network time?

NO.

This is what we have.

we have to read between the lines, and read sincerity as it plays through the idiot box.

good luck.

live in love, and expect the best.

Nice try, Joe. But we all know that under Bush's legal theory, he will claim authority as C-in-C and assert that he has authorization based on the vague authorizations Congress blindly gave him for Iraq. In the face of this, the Democrats will cower, break ranks, and lose any hope of impeachment.

Nonetheless, Bush needs to be impeached, and he's already done more than enough to earn it. It's a matter of media and national attention and policy for the Democratic Party, not a matter of successfully convicting the President (the Republicans in the Clinton era understood this perfectly).

Then it's kinda too late, isn't it?
Once the deed has been done, how does one undo it?

Considering the mountain of uninvestigated evidence concerning Bush and company crimes,
my confidence that anybody would ever be impeached, (unless they're a democrat) is quite pessimistic.

[quote name='seuss' date='Friday, 16 November 2007, 10:30 pm' post='111593']
you think howard dean would do better?
... do you have enough money to buy network time? NO.
This is what we have...we have to read between the lines...

Sounds like "we go to the polls with the media we've got." Are you saying Blizer shouldn't be criticised? As you know, it's the role of the free press, in a democracy, to critically examine elected officials and "speak truth to power," on behalf of the citizenry. I would argue that, in the 21st Century, it's very appropriate for political websites to critically question the MSM and hold them to account. TV is a one way medium. They talk; we watch and listen. I would argue too that to the extent they are corporately owned, they are not a "free press." All the more need for bloggers to flush out media bias and expose it, particularly in something as important as presidential debates. I am well able to read between the lines, Seuss, because I have professional training in this. But I'm not sure these distortions are clear to the entire electorate. I think David Swanson performs and important public service in offering a critique of WHOLE debates, including the moderator's role in framing the issues, controlling who gets to speak about what, and shaping outcomes.

this is my case...
but its what we have... the closed mindedness of my post, and the somewhat derissive nature of my post was not, as i recognised it could be read, a shot at your post, it was a pragmatic, pessimistic, response without much thought to the wording.
no offense or discredit intended.

however giving the debate's questioning to the democratic party's leadership seems as if it would leave a lot to the imagination.