November 19, 2007
The Clinton News Network Holds a Vladimir Putin Debate (Brent Budowsky)
Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have close to a hundred years of significant government experience and very significant things to say about the campaign, but have been treated in these debates like the opposition to Vladimir Putin are treated in the state-controlled Russian media.
It is a disgrace and a sham and a disrespect not only to those candidates but to the very idea of an informed citizenry choosing our next leader in a democratic election.
This CNN debate began with a lie.
Matt Drudge reported that the Clinton people were pressuring Wolf Blitzer to go easy on Hillary; Blitzer dutifully denied. Either Drudge, the Clinton people or Blitzer was lying, and obviously it was Wolf.
Why couldn't Blitzer say the truth, that the Clinton people used Drudge to send him a message?
It gets worse. The first 20 minutes of the debate completely excluded a majority of the candidates despite Blitzer's lame and false promises that they would all be heard.
It gets even worse. In the kind of completely unethical practice that has become all too common in this campaign, CNN had the gall to pressure a student to ask a trivial planted question of Hillary Clinton about her relative opinions of diamonds or pearls.
Never mind that in this warped and ridiculous debate format the Bidens, Dodds, Richardsons and Kuciniches are largely closed out by the dictatorship of who decides which candidates are allowed to speak.
Never mind that candidates are interrupted in the most rude and unprofessional way if they dare to take more than a few seconds to discuss World War III, or the threat to the earth from climate change, or how to help the multitudes of the homeless or those without healthcare.
To waste time on questions about diamonds and pearls when candidates do not have the time to intelligently discuss Pakistan is Kafkaesque; to force-feed a question on a student, aimed at the network's favored candidate, on such a stupid and trivial matter is not merely Kafkaesque but Putinesque.
It gets even worse. The so-called analysis of the debate is conducted by a partisan of one of the candidates, who dutifully cites the success of his candidate. This is not merely an issue of disclosure, with the lack of disclosure yet another unethical practice of what passes for journalism. Why was James Carville chosen in the first place? Couldn't CNN find even one objective analyst?
Folks, I don't blame Hillary Clinton or Jim Carville. If I were advising a major candidate, and more than once I have and probably will again, if I had the chance to dominate a debate by rigging the rules: Go for it. That is the way the game is played, let's be honest about it.
This whole affair was a shame and disgrace and the latest in a series of debates that were managed in ways that insult the very notion of an informed electorate choosing our leader in a democratic election at a dangerous time.
My advice if this happens again: Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich should agree in advance to walk off the stage together and find some place to have their own debate, for as long as it takes, to have the kind of serious discussion our country deserves.
Trust me, if they do, it will be a ratings smash.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 35 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
For once, I agree with you.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 19, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Wow. Nice analysis Brent. This was right on and you deserve kudos. I hope this doesn't taint your respect on the left…
Comment by Rich — November 19, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Great post Brent. Here's what I see is going on.
The media collectively (not conspiratorially) have decided that the best ongoing drama for them to run continuously, is a Presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Guiliani. This play will be full of flip flops and scandal, and good old New York rough stuff. There are excellent supporting cast members like the former President, the crook Kerik, and a real live New york City courtesan who kissed and married the toad.
You see it layed out before you. The continuous harping on Hillary Clinton, making her even more of a lightning rod for basic attention and contempt. The total ignoring of Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and others, making it impossible for these candidates to truly compete. You see it also in the absolute avoidance of the bloviating lies and ptetenses of Guiliani. Evedence to this being Brian Williams interview with Guiliani last week, and Chris Matthews never wanting to lay a glove on anything substantative. The sociopath Hannity's drooling all over Guiliani, much less the story surfacing about Judith Regan and Fox are more than telling.
They can just keep this churning and churning. Who knows what dirt and scandals will get churned up, once these two are in the election campaign.
This is what the Presidential election of the world's only and greatest superpower has come to. We should all be very afraid of what the result could be.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 19, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I completely agree. The media outlets are running the Hillary for them, practically.
Even after the debate when the commentators did the post mortem.
Read the article on my site about it. Their backgrounds are very interesting…
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/what-i-learned-about-the-us-from-watching-the-debate/
Comment by willyloman — November 19, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
This is a great post. On top of it all the questioners were Democratic operatives of some importance. And the left is worried that it is the right that's leading us to a dictatorship???
Comment by Igor R. — November 19, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Which brings up the point, what kind of political scum would engage in such tactics?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 19, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
This is another unfair accusation against Hillary Clinton. I guess we are to believe, proof positive, that she is in some cahoots with the odious Blitzer and Time Warner themselves.
Read my post again. This thing is getting away from the candidates, and worse yet, from the American people.
It's our democracy in danger.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 19, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Unfair accusation against Hillary Clinton? No, Brent's accusations did not go far enough. According to the story linked below, the so called undecided voters were all affiliated with the Democratic party and one voter was the political director of the Arkansas Democratic party. It is obvious that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party regard the American public as a group of dopes who don't need the truth, the public just needs the fashioned and shaped idioms of a the phoniest group of candidates ever assembled. Go to the link and read it. It's amazing that Hillary and her 7 dwarves believe the public is a bunch of gullible idiots.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 19, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Here's the link
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 19, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
They should've walked out on this debate from the get-go. Mike Gravel was denied his participation. I guess that's the treatment you get for saying the unspeakable truth…That the Military Industrial Complex has complete control of our government!
Mike Gravel is the Senior Senator and an American hero. What a FARCE!
Comment by Larry from C — November 19, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
How about Dennis Kucinich being denied particpation at the AARP debate on Healthcare!! Could it be because he's the only candidate proposing not-for-profit single payer healthcare for all?? Could it be because AARP has taken BILLIONS of dollars from several health insurance companies that were sponsoring the debate? Good God fascism now has taken over our debates too! Where was the outrage then Brent?
Comment by Larry from C — November 19, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
In three rounds of this "debate" they skipped asking Kucinich a question. And they were questions dealing with Kucinich's strongest issues. To deny Dennis 30 seconds to respond when Hillary, Barack and John boast about their corporate welfare healthcare proposals is just evil. I believe most of the country would choose Kucinich's not for profit healthcare plan if they knew of it. And that's the real reason Wolf passed Dennis over for his response.
Brent, I submit to you that we haven't had one debate yet. In a real debate the candidates can turn and face each other with questions. These debates are choreographed as tightly as professional wrestling. Indeed, the winners are chosen before the night even began.
Comment by Larry from C — November 19, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
And the left is worried that it is the right that’s leading us to a dictatorship???
Comment by Igor R. — November 19, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
No Igor, we're worried about ALL the politicans…right, left and center who've signed on to the fascist game plan. And I have no doubt that Hillary is one of them. I make more angry phone calls to liberal politicans than neo-conservative.
Comment by Larry from C — November 19, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Pathetic and we wonder why a Democrate won't win the Presidency call it a circle firing squad
Comment by David — November 19, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
I am surprised that Karl Rove has once again managed to fool Brent B and Randi Rhodes and others—-and he must be sitting at his compute somewhere rubbing his jewels and SMILING!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Alamar Fernandez — November 19, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Chris, "unfair accusations"??? Give me a break. The following description of reality is mostly shamelessly stole from some other post, but I agree with it:
Let's set the stage. Wolf had just finished raking Obama over the coals on the immigration issue. As an aside, Obama's failure to have a strong answer readied for a question he was certain to be asked exposed shocking incompetence on his part and that of his staff. In any case, after leaving Obama in a heap of equivocating dust, Wolf went down the line, asking each candidate in turn: "Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?"
When it came Hillary's turn, her one-word answer — "no" — was over so quickly that CNN didn't even give a close-up of her as she was pronouncing it. But never mind, surely Blitzer would follow up. Except that the next words out of Wolf's mouth were . . . "Congressman Kucinich?" That's right, Wolf moved on, letting Hillary walk with absolutely no follow-up whatsoever.
Chris, after the prior weeks of controversy of Hillary and the immigration issue this is a failure of democracy, fairness, what have you. I have no proof of anything, but doesn't this look like collusion?
Comment by Igor R. — November 19, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
I get a hunch that it will backfire. Hillary is a dino and is aboout to be exposed
Comment by Cam Carmichael — November 19, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Rosencrats asks a good question; "Which brings up the point, what kind of political scum would engage in such tactics?"
Answer;
(1) FOX News
(2) President Stupid
(3) Hillary
(4) CNN
Comment by Cam Carmichael — November 19, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Mr. Budowsky, the fact is the Senate Democrats couldn't SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER if the fate of the nation depended on it, and as such not one of the Democratic senators campaigning for president is qualified for that job. The Senate Dems couldn't even filibuster the Republican dominated senate when the Repubs, on party lines, shot down the Murray Amendment to fund $2.7 billion for war veteran's health care. This abject, craven cowardice to make a meaningful _fight_ for war veterans abused by Republican leadership amounted to GIVING the Republicans millions of dollars worth of FREE "moral values" PR - the so called "WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS" bumper sticker, when in fact they most certainly did not support the troops.
The Democrats should read John Kennedy's "PROFILES IN COURAGE", and try to STAND UP FOR, and DEFEND, those millions of Americans harmed by Bush administration/Republican loot, plunder, and war policies.
Comment by Verifi — November 19, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
I totally agree with this post.
However, we all (should) know that the reason for ALL those candidates being on those stages is to keep the questions AS FEW AS POSSIBLE to the leading candidates.
The less questions they have to answer the less chance for error.
Besides - it also gives them a little exposure in case they are asked to run as VP or Secretary for something.
Coonsey's View
Political Blog
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Comment by Coonsey — November 19, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
How am I disappointed? let me count the ways:
Obama — in "Audacity of Hope", Obama talked about economic justice, free vs. fair trade, worker's rights and union support. in the campaign he speaks not just to "change", but to "meaningful change" (I, for one, am so grateful for THAT distinction!)
Clinton — forget that she is the first woman contender, just for one minute (please). she has voted for unfettered world trade, every Bush appointment and money bill she was ever presented with, she voted for this war, for god's sake. focus is on whether she's being attacked because she squats to pee or because she is just ahead.
Comment by rodney — November 20, 2007 @ 10:21 am
To assume collusion is just not merited. I agree that the format and structure were ridiculously flawed, but why is it that Hillary Clinton is in on it.
I believe that the media is viewing this as a play being acted out, and Clinton is an excellent lead because she is a woman and a lightning rod for the opposition.
It is Blitzer who should be ashamed and take the blame, but after all, he's only acting like the rest of his peers.
This is not good for this country!
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 20, 2007 @ 10:47 am
With Iowa coming up in six weeks and Obama ahead, it is going to get interesting. I wonder what the tlaking heads and networks will do if Hillary loses in Iowa and New Hampshire? We'll see.
Comment by Mike Coleman — November 20, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Fair is fair: I agree with you, Brent and I welcome your candor and honesty in your post. I can't explain for the life of me why CNN purported to be fair with this debate - it was a disgraceful performance by Wolf Blitzer, a journalist I admire. For him to let Senator Clinton get away with a simple "no" answer when it came to her current position regarding whether she supported Eliot Spitzer's now disgraced plan to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses - a position she'd waffled on at least four times previously - is beyond me.
Comment by Ron Christie — November 20, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Wolf was so worried that if he upset the Clinton "machine", he would lose access if Hillary makes it to the White House. He used the straight no from Hillary as an escape not to follow up on the controversy. He asked and she responded definitively. He thought it was his out or in, depending on how you look at it. But he mis-calculated…
Comment by Rich — November 20, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
I see that the "undecided voters" list shows Democrats.. but that doesn't mean they have decided whom to vote for! I am a lifelong Democrat and I haven't yet decided whom to vote for.
Do you expect CNN to provide Republicans in the undecided block for a Democratic debate?
Comment by blaze — November 20, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
That's right Chris, Hillary is always clueless: she has no idea her campaign plants questions in the audience, she is amazed to learn about Monica, she had no idea Hsu had any problems. Sure, sure Chris.
Comment by Igor R. — November 20, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Igor, did you take your anti-dumb meds today?
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 20, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Chris, back to kindergarten-type questions? Taking clues from your clueless spiritual leader Hillary will leave you with no clue.
Comment by Igor R. — November 20, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
She's not my leader, as I have told you repeatedly. I am for Chris Dodd.
I am not, however a misogynist, or afraid of successful intelligent people.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 20, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
randi rhodes agrees with you.
how right wing is that?
I agree with her - Fox and CNN have chosen the candidates on both sides with the most money to fuel their ad budgets. We are all sick of having them crammed down our throats. I hope Iowa kicks ass and turns the apple cart over.
Comment by christina — November 20, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Chris, neither am I on both counts. But I think she represents of the worst of America: a shallow, calculating populist with Socialistic leanings, a history of lies and hiring private detectives to intimidate, and not enough achievements to come anywhere close to being Presidential material. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Comment by Igor R. — November 21, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
That's completely disingenuous. How do you feel about George Bush in relation to the Plame affair, noww that McClelland has made his revelation? How do you feel about creating lies that cost this country 4000 lives? How do you feel about letting the man who attacked us get away?
I'll make a deal. you call a spade a spade relating to the moron, and I'll accept your unconstructive outsized Hillary Clinton criticizing.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 21, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Chris I don't need any deals. I also don't understand why you said it's disingenous. I believed what I'm saying and maked it NOT disingenuous.
Bush is as capable of lying as anyone. If McClellan is right, he MAY have lied. On the other hand considere this from an article released a couple of days ago:
"Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/
WASHINGTON - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.
Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."
Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."
I think he honestly believed that Saddam was developing WMDs, and it's also entirely possible that he embellished and improperly framed the evidence.
I think Saddam was a dangerous guy and removing him was worth it when coupled with creating a stable friendly government in the Middle East (no were are not quite there yet, but will be without doubt if your friends in Congress don't stop us).
The bottom line is this: both Bush and Hillary are "the ends justify the means" kind of people. In Bush's case, the ends are prosperity and protection of this country and he is generally quite truthful. In Hillary's case the ends are raw power and she is a very easy lier.
Comment by Igor R. — November 23, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
She's an easy liar. So far, she hasn't led anywhere from 4000 to 750,000 people to their grave.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 26, 2007 @ 4:22 pm