Hillary 2008 Part II--Not a place to discuss "leftist economics"

Oh this is going to be good

 

It wasn't just that. The whole CNN debate was tilted in HRC's favor.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/hmmrealanalysis.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/16/32040/765
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/17/84954/402

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't think there's a story there. You have a young college student who once interned for a Democratic candidate, so it wouldn't be surprising that she would be interested in attending a Democratic presidential debate. She submitted a few questions to CNN, two of which were approved. Her preferred question was substantive; the other one was silly and pointless. The debate was basically over, and the girl's substantive topic (Yucca Mountain) had already been discussed. CNN asked her if she wanted to use her stupid question to end the debate on a light-hearted note. She agreed, and she did it. I'm really not seeing where the controversy is.

 

The Democratic Party in this State is controlled by two people, Rory Reid, who was its past Chairman and Dina Titus, who ran for Governor in '06. The same Dina Titus that lost to the most incompetent politician in Nevada politics, in a year that the Democrats swept into office. This State's Party is in disarray and the '06 election is proof enough for everyone paying attention. All the people seated around me were given tickets by the Party and the ones I talked with said that they worked in Dina Titus' campaign for Governor. Rory Reid and Dina Titus are Hillary's biggest backers in this State and will use their control over this Party to win the caucus for her.

The audience that were around me behaved like they were at a boxing match at Caesar's Palace, cheering for Hillary and booing her two closest opponents, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Real Democrats don't boo Democrats. Obama and Edwards looked like they backed off and just sat this one out, since they were not allowed to contrast themselves against Hillary. The audience members weren't informed, sophisticated Democrats, who could make their own decisions. They were followers who want to be in the lead. Our lousy Party leaders in this State, who could not win an election that the Democrats dominated in '06, are leading them.

 

If they were representative of Nevada Democrats, if tickets wre given out in a lottery, then okay fine there is not story here.

If they represented party operatives then there is a story here.

 

NO ONE knows exactly who Hillary is, and what she stands for.

She's just a calculated political puppet. Part of the same old corrupt political machine.

It was calculated to have her move to New York and become a Senator after having never held office. It was known she'd run for President soon after Bill was out of office.

I can only hope she doesn't get elected as President. She proves how stupid ignorant and manipulated a large portion of American voters can be.

 

Wolf Blitzer is like his fellow CNN mate Larry King.

They both don't have the guts to ask real tough questions. Soft.

Wolf wouldn't allow any ganging up on Hillary-that was very suspicious.

Tim Russert will ask tough questions.

 

You know what's crazy?

If Clinton heads in office, that's a possible 36 years of the same 2 families in power.

Vice Prez Bush
Bush
Clinton
Bush's Kid
Clinton's Wife

How scary is that.

 

I'd like the opportunity to vote for Bill Clinton again, to be honest.

 

And with the Bush family, youi also have the possibilty of Jeb Bush and later on HIS son.

I am a Republican and find that scary. I blame campaign finance reform and a lack of imagination.

 

Tough but stupid is still stupid.

 

Any political debate that encourages cheering from the audience is a joke. Assuming that the major candidates knew this was going to be allowed, they should have just bowed out.

CNN is similarly a joke. Can wolf blitzer and larry king just please, please go away. I don't want them to die, just leave the airwaves. And, can we please get rid of the "audience participation" questions. They aren't real as is demonstrated in this story. They find the participant who is asking the question they want them to ask. Just let wolf do it. It's the same inane content with slightly less stammering and choking. Debates should be run by prepared moderators. Town Hall meetings should be open to un-prepared, un-rehearsed questions.

By association, the Democratic party is also a joke. Get control of your process. I know that campaigning started earlier than usual but the sheer number of debates and the sheer number of debaters is ridiculous. One or two of these near-double digit participant debates is alright to give those second tier candidates a chance to appear on the stage. After 10 months, however, if you haven't gotten traction then why should there be 10 people on stage?

I'm not saying they should be shut out of the process, I'm saying that the process should not include 15-20 or 30 debates. Have one or two pre-Iowa New Hampshire. One early in the process. One during the holidays. Then let's please whittle it down to 3-4 serious candidates.

 

And while we're talking about integrity, what in the world was CNN thinking when it booked its post-debate "analysts" with Anderson Cooper? One was J.C. Watts, the former GOP congressman from Oklahoma. Fine, a token Republican. Another was Gloria Borger, an experienced pro.

Here were the other two "analysts": James Carville and David Gergen. That's right, two former aides of Bill Clinton's are supposed to "analyze" the performance of the candidates opposing their friend's wife.

Here is something else I forgot to mention. I actually taped the debate (yes, I am a geek) and ended up watching the post-debate show first. As an Obama supporter, I braced myself for a horrible Obama performance and a masterful oratory presentation by Hillary.

Of course when I watched the debate, that was not even close. Take out the ridiculous crowd applause/booing and I thought that both Obama and Edwards did quite well. Hillary did well as well although I don't think she did anything to dispell the questions raised in Philadelphia.

The "experts" went on and on about how Obama was tripped up by the same question as Hillary on driver's licenses and how could that be possible as they KNEW that question would be coming. They said that he refused to answer a yes or no question.

Then I watched, and he DID. Immediately. Blitzer asked him the question and Obama immediately said that he already has addressed this. As a state senator he voted YES on an immigration package in Illinois that included driver's licenses. Then, he had the audacity to try to address immigration reform and blitzed accused him of not answering the question.

It really was ridiculous all the way around.

 

I only saw bits of the debates. But my favorite comment was by blogger Stephen Green (aka "Vodka Pundit"), who live blogs debates while getting drunk:

And Chirs M -- I agree with you on the whole CNN post debate thing. Especially Carville, how can anyone consider him a neutral observer?

Granted, you can state that everyone has their biases, which is true. And pundits are piad to have political biases. But Carville was Bill Clinton's attack dog and if he is on, you need to have someone who is an attack dog for Obama and Edwards at least.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGNlNTA5NDRkYmZmNTE2YWYxZTVkZDUyODA1ZWFlZGQ=

'A couple bloggers have looked into the questioners at last week's Democratic debate, and found more than a few of them have formal, professional ties to the Democratic party. One, in fact, was political director of the Arkansas Democratic Party.

It would help if instead of calling these folks, "ordinary people, undecided voters," Wolf Blitzer and crew noted that they were undecided Democrats. I'm not quite up in arms - candidates want to reach the folks who will actually show up on caucus day, so naturally the audience will be diehard Democrats - but in the aftermath of the controversy over "planted" questions at Hillary events, one might think CNN would want to keep an eye on this sort of thing.

On a related note, I find James Carville a pretty entertaining and smart Democratic strategist, but if I were an Obama or Edwards guy, I'd be pretty livid that a guy who worked for the Clintons is providing post-debate analysis. Sure, he never worked for her campaigns, separately, but this is one area where the "two for one" label applies.

You wouldn't find that kind of thing at ABC News, where they keep the former Clinton staffers in their proper role... as debate moderator.'

the whole things is pretty sad, unless you're a Dem of course...

 

This whole debate format is designed to be a forum for Hillary. If she were to step in it big time, Obama & Edward might have a chance but absent that, the others don't have a prayer. Hillary doesn't take tough interviews. Tim Russert asked her some difficult questions and was critizied big time as if he were a republican operative. Some on this board have called him stupid. Kool Aid drinkers. The man was an aide to Mario Como for God's sake; hardly a Reagan conservitive. Edwards & Obama went after her and the "boys club" attacked the fragile woman. Sorry people, we are being sold a bill of goods. She is the experienced one? Eight years in the senate with zero important legislation. Obama has been an elected public servant longer then she has. At least he has some ideas. He has worked the streets. Even Edwrads (not my favorite at all), has some ideas & has accomplished things (legal extortion but even that is something). What has Hillary accomplished. She married Bill. Really, what does Hillary stand for? Yea, all the tripe about "the children", "working class familys", "health care" & all the buzz words but what is her core? More importantly, does she have a core?

 

Nobody did. Least of all me. If you read what I wrote I said "as if".

 

Yoss has hit a bit of it, but the most trenchant criticism of Russert isn't of his politics, it's of his self-aggrandizing style, of which his reputed "toughness" is the keystone. But it's a toughness designed not to inform the public about anything vital, but to glorify Russert himself and his role in the larger trend of politics not as policy but as theater. I could say more, but I'd just be repeating a lot of what Matt Yglesias has written, and I'm lazy, so here...

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/journalism_as_sadism.php

 

Cute.
What considerable amount of space? A simply comment? Defending Russert's street cred?
What are you babbling on about?
Your silly comments are a Catch 22. Responding to them simply gives you something else to intentionaly distort. Shouldn't you spend your time moderating rather then trolling?

 

Good evaluation of Russert. My point wasn't to praise Russert but to criticise Hillary. She got some questions she didn't like & suddenly he's the bad guy? Contrary to what I think is her belief, she is not annointed.

 

Uh-oh, a woman with ambition. And a real chance at becoming POTUS. It must be a conspiracy.

 

A conspiracy. C-o-n-spiracy.

And a VAST one too.