I, for one, don't think that John King made a "blunder" last night at all.

[MarianJack]

I think that he knew EXACTLY what he was going to get by opening the debate with that question. I think that he fully intended to throw that soft ball SPECIFICALLY to get the bagger base on their feet.

I don't care about the line of crap that the political "experts" on cable tv dispense to us based on their stellar 2.1 broadcast school GPAs and their almost total lack of knowledge of political/electoral history. They know that this is shaping up to be a very one sided general election. They want this republican circus to go on as long as possible. Now that bain romney is starting to make rick perry look like a silver toned orator and President Obama is showing signs that he is going to be fully in his stride, the last thing the media wants is a general election campaign that begins in January.

John King, IMHO, fully intended for newtie to launch his verbal missles. He, as well as the rest of the media, wants this to go on. They were given a gift by Iowa. They are starting to downplay bain romney's NH win ("after all, it WAS in his backyard&quot . A gingrich win in SC would be the gravy they crave. They'll be only too happy to say that it's "historic", having 3 winners of the first 3 contests.

As we've seen with the media in recent years, they don't want to report the story, they want to either make the story or be the story.

King's question last night reminded me of the 1988 debate where Michael Dukakis was asked about his opinion of the death penalty if Kitty were raped and murdered. THAT question was designed to humiliate. King's question was designed to give the open marriage/family values candidate the wide opening that it apparently did.

How do I, as a Democrat, feel about this prolonged death march of republican candidates? I say BRAVO! The old axiom is that when your opponent is trying to hang himself, let him have as mush rope as possible and make sure that the springs on the trap door are well oiled!

I'll be happy to supply as much help as needed for these teabagger party candidates and their followers to do all the self hanging they can.

Nooses anyone?

PEACE!

[gateley]

1. On MSNBC it was pointed out that that's how Newt has opened the last few debates --

scolding the commentator and receiving applause.

King HAD to ask it. And, as someone else pointed out, Newt sure thought Clinton's personal life was relevant to discuss publicly when he was Speaker. What goes around, Newt.

[MarianJack]

3. Attacking the media certainly has been newtie's bread and butter.

He voted to impeach President Clinton for a BJ while getting one from the second mistress/third wife/perspective first lady.

Wow.

PEACE!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I'm sure Newt actually appreciated the opportunity to launch his missles at the "liberal media"

and feign the traditional conservative victimhood.

[GoCubsGo]

17. That's where King went wrong.

He didn't frame the whole thing in terms of Gingrich's behavior toward Bill Clinton. He should have at least followed up with a question about Newt's assault on Clinton's personal life.

[Rowdyboy]

26. Exactly....the question was poorly framed which allowed Gingrich a cheap shot....

If John King had phrased the question properly, he could have been far more effective.

[CTyankee]

2. I dunno. King's face went white. He looked startled at the audience's response.

I'm not sure how we can use the video of this incident to our advantage. The republicans and right-leaning Independents will accept Newt's hypocrisy, just like that audience did. As for the suburban women who vote for moderates, I think they know enough about Newt already to know what a scumbag hypocrite he is. Marianne's revelation isn't exactly latest breaking news...

It doesn't hurt us, but I'm not sure it helps either.

[MarianJack]

4. Good points.

I think it helps newtie in the primaries.

NOTHING can help any of these dip sticks in a general election against President Obama.

PEACE!

[PRETZEL]

5. Personally, I'd just let the video just lay there

I think you pretty much said what needed to be said.

The rabid right will applaud Newt and say "you show that liberal media who's boss" while everyone else will just chuckle at the hypocrasy in that little screed.

[hlthe2b]

7. I personally think he should have asked it later on in the debate...

I'd have started with Romney's tax release... that would have somewhat neutralized Newt, allowing him to discuss his own release and needle Romney...

Then a bit later, I would have let Newt have it with all guns. It isn't the accusation that should have been the focus but the interviews confirmation that this all went on as he was going after Clinton. That should be the focus. His grotesque hypocrisy. IMO, at least.

[CTyankee]

9. Yes, it would have taken away one of Newt's talking points which was that it was the FIRST

question at the beginning of the debate (as if that really mattered).

But Newt would have flamed King anyway. It's just Newt's way: nasty, demeaning, bullying...

I don't think King was prepared for Newt's response, tho. These moderators go all white in the face when up against someone who doesn't worship them. I saw the same look on David Gregory's face when Debbie Wasserman Schultz confronted him face to face on Morning Joe a few weeks ago. Gregory's usual smiling face turned into an ugly scowl as if to say "how dare you?" Pampered babies...

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

16. You nailed it.

King, or whoever called the first pitch, is why CNN is in last place. Think about it, after Gingrich's response, what else was left to see? A awareness of presentation, would have led a wise broadcaster to hold it, keeping the audience's attention, wondering when it was coming.

As anyone who has studied the media will tell you, the first two priorities are:

1. Keep the license
2. Keep the ratings

[cbayer]

6. Well done.

I also think they played right into Grigrich's hand. The subject was going to come up and having it the first thing on the table allowed him to go on the offensive and essentially shut any further discussion down.

[MarianJack]

20. Basically,...

...it ended the "debate" right then.

PEACE!

[onenote]

8. Yesterday it was claimed here that the interview with Marianne was part of the media plan to help

Romney. Today its the media trying to help Newt.

Maybe one is right and one is wrong. Maybe both are right.
Or maybe both are wrong.

I'm leaning towards the third option -- that the reason for running the story is because its a big story. And the reason for asking the question was because its a big question.

[MarianJack]

21. It is a big story,...

...but that doesn't invalidate my point.

I have no doubt that they'll do ANYTHING to prolong the circus.

PEACE!

[think]

10. This CNN debate might have actually lessened my ability to comprehend the issues

I felt like I was watching a rerun of Big Brother rather than a coherent debate about the important issues facing America.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. To the extent that anybody is talking about anything that actually matters to the public during thes

it seems to be geared towards opening up (false and/or misleading) attacks on President Obama and disseminating right-wing talking points, not really offering any real solutions but then again this IS the GOP primary we are talking about here.

The Republicans are GREAT at offering talking points but NOT "walking points".

[MarianJack]

22. Gor a coherent debate,...

...a 2012 republican/bagger forum is certainly NOT the place to go.

PEACE!

[bigwillq]

13. I do. This might be the bump that Newt needs.

I don't think it was wrong to ask the question, but the way it played out it seems to be helping Newt. We shall see.

[leftynyc]

14. And how does that hurt

the Democrats? The longer this goes on, the better for all Democrats. It was only a mistake if you're a Romney supporter.

[DCBob]

18. Not sure how good this is for us..

The attacks last night by Newt were not aimed at other GOP candidates.. they were aimed at the "liberal" media... which translates into an attack on Democrats. The longer this goes on the more attacks like this will occur and over time it will take its toll on Obama and the Democrats... IMO.

[MarianJack]

23. It wasn't wrong to ask the question.

It would have been irresponsible NOT to ask it.

The effect was that it effectively ended the debate right out of the box. newtie won in the first seconds of the first round.

PEACE!

[bigwillq]

24. That's what I took out of it.

PEACE!

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Of course they want this to drag on.

Guarantee once we are down to 1 nominee from each party, it is going to be a non-stop nasty-fest. Political junkies (like much of DU) love that zing! zip! back and forth, but the general population, well, not so much.

Just like 2008, as long as a party can string out their internecine battle for the base, the media is going to be right there in lock step to squeeze (and encourage) every ounce of airtime out of it that they can get. Think of the dead air they would have had if Hillary had locked it up on Super Tuesday like some thought she would.

This isn't about 'liberal media' or partisan outlets like Fox rooting for one candidate or another, IMO, it is about their profits and who can they get to watch what. Once the R's pick a nominee, it goes from a contest to 24/7 talking points and people will lose interest quickly.

[MarianJack]

19. I think that after Labor Day,...

...the interest would pick up again.

PEACE!

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. There is indeed that

and Lord knows what they will do to fill 24/7 airtime between now and then. LOL!