Clinton Beats Blitzer in CNN Debate

[wyldwolf]

Maybe the Democratic presidential candidates should rethink their decision not to debate on the Fox New Channel. It couldn't be worse than the theater of the absurd CNN organized Sunday night at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College – which, it should be noted, was co-sponsored by an even more aggressively conservative media outlet than Fox: the rabidly right-wing Manchester Union-Leader newspaper.

Despite the fact that this was a two-hour debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer acted throughout the night as if he was hosting "Beat the Clock." Of course, a moderator must keep a crowded field under control. But the candidates weren't the ones who were off the leash. Rather, it was the CNN anchor who repeatedly interrupted contenders who were trying to explain the basics of their positions, cut off thoughful answers in mid-sentence and failed to follow up when significant points of difference – on issues such as trade policy – were thrown into the mix.

Worst of all, Blitzer tried to take complex issues and reduce them to show-of-hand stunts.

At one point, Blitzer tossed a wild hypothetical at the candidates: If they knew where Osama bin Laden would be for 20 minutes, would they move to eliminate him even if that meant killing "innocent civilians"? Blitzer's question raised fundamental questions: What do we mean by innocent civilians? Are we talking about children? How many would die? Could bin Laden be captured? Would taking him out compromise a flow of intelligence that might provide information that could prevent future attacks on Americans?

Kucinich tried to explore subtleties of international law and common sense, but Blitzer shut him down. Instead of a nuanced discussion on how the U.S. might operate in a post-Bush world, Blitzer simply demanded that candidates raise their hands if they were for getting bin Laden.

Moments later, after Delaware Senator Joe Biden suggested using military force to end the genocide in Darfur, Blitzer was again calling for a show of hands.

No room for a discussion about what sort of force – a no-fly zone or troops on the ground, an international coalition or a U.S.-led expedition, a full-fledged attack on another Muslim state or peacekeeping in the desert – just hands in the air by candidates who were for marching on Africa.

Blitzer was determined to race past anything akin to a serious discussion. And through most of the night, he got away with it.

Finally, as the moderator pressed his "who's-against-genocide" show and tell, Clinton called him on his antics. While the other candidates grumbled about the host's absurdly overbearing approach, the New York senator pointedly declared, "We're not going to engage in these hypotheticals. I mean one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues. And I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms."

She got a deserved round of applause from a crowd that was as annoyed as the candidates were with Blitzer.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=201801

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. that's why these formats are dumb

we have all this time before the primaries, we can do one topic per debate and have plenty of time to cover everything in detail.

[Sparkly]

2. That was a good response from her.

The post-debate pundits noted that she seemed to "take control" of the debate in saying that, sort of leading the other candidates. (They stated it as a positive.)

I think she's doing very well in the debates. I'm impressed with her skill -- very clear, poised answers.

[DU9598]

4. I agree

I am more in the John Edwards camp, but I will honestly say that of the two debates that I have watched I have been very impressed with Hillary. I was most disappointed in Richardson ... he has such a wonderful record, but his ability to convey a message on TV is near impossible.

[Jim__]

3. I don't get CNN, so I couldn't watch the debate.

But, I'm glad to hear that someone put that asshole blitzer in his place.

The format for these debates sucks. Given that there is such a large number of candidates, having them go from station to station to answer the same questions from different assholes is stupid. You'd think one of the networks would come up with a better approach.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Both Clinton and Obama did something rarely seen

which was to come back at the moderator/questioner/"news" anchor with, "I reject the premise of the question." This is #1 with the Cons in trying to smear the questioner as part of the "Liberal Media".

It's about damned time the Democrats started to stand up against the subtle smearing that comes with the questions!

[Cosmocat]

6. BINGO ...

the MSM, and Wolf Blitzer is a MODEL of it, is the acting arm of the conservative machine ...

Our country is where it is at because the fourth estate sold out, and hacks like Blitzer simply are the acting arms of the propoganda machine ... You can't accept the question as posed by these scumbags, you have to challenge them, put them on their heels and control the flow of the discussion ...

[Egnever]

8. Agreed!

And I personally found that electrifying! I was very proud of our candidates after last night. Many of them seem ready to finally throw off the meek acceptance of ridiculous questions and re frame the questions instead of accepting them at face value.

[Egnever]

7. I didn't see it that way

I thought it was a great debate.

While I agree that at times blitzers questions were preposterous I found the willingness of our candidates to call him to task on that encouraging. I also liked that he asked for the answer to the original question several times. I suppose some could find that offensive but every time he did it they answered the original question directly and did so well I thought.

There was quite a bit of give and take in that debate I thought and while there are likely much better formats out there. I Found this debate very electrifying. The fact that the candidates for the most part were able to field so many republican talking points effectively and confidently gives me a lot of hope for the general when one of them will have to stand up to the MSM spin machine over and over.

As bad as blitzer was I still don't want to see them go on fox news. I am glad they have chosen not to give that farce of a news network any more legitimacy.

[Adelante]

9. I agree with you, Egnever

It was so much better run and as a format. The candidates could really show themselves and interact with each other. I liked it very much and thought Wolf (except for the hands and time allocation) did a good job.

(On the Fox News issue, I will disagree.)

[Egnever]

10. Interesting

Why do you disagree on the fox issue?

I can think of a few reasons why going on fox might be acceptable but I am curious as to yours.

[Adelante]

11. I don't favor the boycott

I think it does make the Dems seem like crybabies and it's what will be taken away from this. Much better for them to do as they did last night and call out the hosts when they're manipulating. Show them up. Argue back with the truth. Let the Fox audience know Democrats by how Democrats communicate themselves. Take their magaphone and use it. But a very important reason (to me). I come from a very large working class family, they all watch Fox News, they all vote Democratic, except for one brother who is starting to doubt, but several only since 2004 and for even more only since 2006. Everywhere they go where there's a television Fox is playing. And they're not right wing freaks (well, maybe my brother, sort of), they're just the common folk. They're the kind of voters we need to be reaching out to and firming up, not turning off. This boycott may be fine for political heads and netroots, make perfect sense and all, but it's not a vote getter for the Dems.

[Egnever]

13. I can definitely see that side of it

Amazing that your family was able to see past the drone of fox to the truth of the issues at least enough to lean Dem.

After last nights performance I could probably bend more to the idea of going on fox. I don't like the idea of a debate filled with nothing but pot shots, but after they way they dealt with blitzer last night they might just stand up and call the fox idiots to the carpet for their nonsense.

Thanks for the answer I can totally see your reasoning.

[Adelante]

14. CarolNYC says about her mother in PA

That she watches Fox religiously and is the staunchest Democrat she knows, lifelong Democrat who votes Democratic every time. So they're out there. But even for the leaners, it's kind of like Dean's 50-state strategy - we're not going to get those voters back unless we go where they are.

Thanks very much :hi:

[question everything]

12. In many cases Blitzer interrupted when candidates -

as politicians are known to be - were trying to give their prepared speech instead of answering the question. And Blitzer said he was going to do so in the beginning.

One thing, though: a question to Obama about his definition of "rich" in terms of taxing the rich to pay for health care and he immediately replied: $250,000. But Blitzer did not get it and pressed him further, confusing him and finally Obama said: as I've said: $250,000. (a wasted minute or so of Biitzer's time, for the ones keeping the tabs..)

And, I'd rather have Blitzer moderating than hyper Chris Matthews who give me head ache when he talks so fast at a loss of breath, or any of the nauseating hosts of Fox.

[Radical Activist]

15. I saw Blitzer interrupt

when candidates were answering the question very well. Sometimes he did it to redirect the conversation to trivial points, like how someone defines rich.