Home arrow Commentary arrow Daily arrow Wolf Blitzer Loses Democratic Debate
Nov 15 2007
Wolf Blitzer Loses Democratic Debate | Print |  E-mail
MWC Corner
By MWC NEWS   

Translation

Biden Now for Impeachment if Bush Attacks Iran
By David SwansonImage

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.Image

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. Image

"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]

Them. He did not say Cheney only.

Kucinich was only permitted to speak that one time during the debate's entire second hour.

A few questions later, Biden got applause for refusing to answer a CNN question and insisting that he would answer the question of the audience member.

Biden also said he had a plan to end the war that could begin the day he becomes president, a promise made by most of the candidates on the stage. If an intelligent moderator were asking the questions at these debates, the fact that the Senate now faces a vote on another $50 billion for the occupation would have come up, and the fact that neither Biden nor Obama nor Clinton nor Dodd is willing to filibuster it would have been brought up. Instead, the entire debate included no mention of Wednesday's vote in the House or the upcoming vote in the Senate. A moderator who loves to catch candidates in even the most trivial contradictions had not one word to say about the topic of funding an occupation they all claim to want to end.

Instead, time was found for an audience member to ask Clinton whether she "prefers diamonds or pearls."

Wolf Blitzer lost this one. The ranks of non-voters probably won.

This_Category
Category:: MWC Corner

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 16567

Comments (16)
RSS comments
1. 16-11-2007 04:24
excellent play-by-play. 
i was yelling at the screen in frustration. 
these people have got to get it together & show much more of kucinich-- he is the ONLY candidate who is RIGHT ON, on every single issue.
Guest
eemal@yahoo.comNOSPAM! ">gr8d8
2. 16-11-2007 04:44
What a disappointment.
Great article. I was looking forward to seeing some interesting and substantive discussion between the candidates. How lame. Is this really the best they can do? 
 
-- 
Tim Brown 
http://infiniteworld.wordpress.com/nullInfiniteworld Blog-Debates, a Media failure
Guest
timb@dandelion.orgNOSPAM! ">Tim Brown
3. 16-11-2007 05:19
What a disappointment.
Unbelievable! It was like Wolf had it in for Kucinich. How can this be called a \"debate?\"
Guest
nicky
4. 16-11-2007 09:09
What a disappointment.
Mr. Swanson, you say: "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?'" 
 
First of all, there isn't enough time for all the candidates to answer an open-ended question like, "What would you do as president?" What would they do about WHAT as president? 
 
Second, why the sarcastic swipe at Olbermann? ("even the level of honesty and substance of") From the way your comment is worded, one would conclude that you think NAFTA is trivial!
Guest
hareonfire@aol.comNOSPAM! ">Dorrie Delaney
5. 16-11-2007 15:13
gravel kucinich paul nader
Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist. 
 
The people know too much, 
democracy rising democracy now. 
Rage against the machine. 
 
Honesty compassion intelligence guts. 
 
No more extortion blackmail bribery division. 
Divided we fall.
Guest
6. 16-11-2007 18:14
Advocacy journalism
David Swanson report is advocacy journalism at it's best. 
 
He does not stay neutral, sees and analyzes the event and responds accordingly.
Guest
Shahram
7. 16-11-2007 22:15
Advocacy journalism
It was a better debate but it's obvious that Wolf is very biased against Kucinich by not letting him speak at the first run of the debate... But Kucinich shined at that debate, little time but he said much more substance than the other candidates especially Obama, Clinton & Edwards who are having slam dunking each other. Yet, the three stooges are flip floppers when it comes to issues...
Guest
Jamie
8. 17-11-2007 01:47
Advocacy journalism
Strongly agreed by Shahram
Guest
info@uk-real-estate.co.ukNOSPAM! ">sell house quickly
9. 17-11-2007 15:05
Advocacy journalism
Well based on reading this note ( i don't have cable and I don't care to watch dumb TV) my observations are straight. 
People who watch these debates need to wakeup. 
I will bet that the next President will be yet another Republican. Why? Cuz the democrats are unable to be real and are pretty much all over the place. The people who call themselves Democrats are not unified in a set of 5 major issues and can't articulate that thought. 
All the candidates on stage or rather trying to get the nomination are just shades of gray not distinct vibrant souls. 
Maybe thats the reflection of the people who are holding/propping them up as well. 
Atleast witha Republican we know where they are on everything, and for that I can admire them may not like their policies but can respect it. 
If the nation is going to change it's ways it first needs to ask itself what does it want to be when it grows up and I am not sure any of the candidates have a clue nor those who plan to elect them have an idea. 
Maybe the debate can be more real like a Lincoln Douglas debate pit two at a time 90 mins each and they ask the questions with a timekeeper thats all.
Guest
nahug24@hotmail.comNOSPAM! ">whoindatgarden
10. 17-11-2007 16:42
re=
Quote:
 
Atleast witha Republican we know where they are on everything, and for that I can admire them may not like their policies but can respect it.

 
 
Yes, they are pro-war, anti-choice, anti liberty, fear mongering, big corporate protecting, constitution dismissing, pro torturing, anti human rights and anti-health care, pro-pharmaceutical corporation.... 
 
Well I guess that sums it up. Yes, they stand for everything that is wrong.
Guest
Shahram
11. 17-11-2007 21:46
Sen. Harry Wanker
Looks like CNN bent over for Hitlery Clinton. What else is new?
Guest
medikink@yahoo.comNOSPAM! ">Medikink
12. 20-11-2007 08:58
No big surprise about Wolfie
He's a member of AIPAC and prefers to see somebody from the GOP win the presidency.
Guest
13. 29-11-2007 08:35
No big surprise about Wolfie
There's no way in hell our economy can support what attacking Iran would bring about. We need to get the hell outta there instead of provoking more hatred of the USA.
Guest
14. 29-11-2007 14:47
ryanshaunkelly@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM! ">gravel kucinich paul nader
15. 29-11-2007 14:45
#14
MWC News is for information purposes only, please do not campaign or use comment boxes for advertisement. This is not meant to be used as a billboard
Guest
Shahram
16. 01-04-2008 20:46
sellhouse
Great update and you explained it very well.Selling a house takes longer than most people anticipate. What other options are available.Thanks
Guest
house.sell1@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">sellhouse

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Editor CNN Wolf Blitzer Democratic Debate Kucinich Biden Obama Clinton Edwards
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: