I plan to watch the Democrat debate on CNN this Thursday.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has thrown down the gauntlet.
I want to see if Wolf Blitzer wimps out or displays the courage of Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff.
From Drudge:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux.
Hillary's Chicago roots are showing.
She's dipping into dirty Chicago-style political methods, using intimidation to control the press.
Where does her campaign get off warning a member of the press not to pull "a Russert"?
Where does her campaign get off talking about "a Russert"?
Americans, take note.
Do you want this sort of crap back in the White House?
Do you want to deal with the way the Clintons operate AGAIN?
I don't.
5 comments:
I would have thought you'd welcome the chance to hear something substantive come out of the debate, rather than a group of candidates try to pull down a poll leader
I certainly do want to hear the candidates ANSWER questions of concern to the voters.
The debate forum isn't designed to be a campaign commercial for Hillary. It's not a photo-op for her presidential coronation.
The only thing Hillary really has to fear is the truth, not Blitzer or Russert or her Dem opponents.
I'm still trying to figure out what was so horrible about the way Russert conducted the debate? Clinton could NOT give a straight forward answer and everyone called her out on it. It was refreshing. It's doubtful, but I really hope she goes with the same strategy on Thursday because it's been really fun watching her squirm since the debate.
I absolutely agree that nobody should be seeking to control the press, but I also believe that the press should be looking at issues and not focusing on haircuts or cleavage or trying to spin any one candidate in any particular way.
A debate moderator is supposed to be neutral in questioning the participants. Half of Russert's questions were apparently either directed at Clinton or were about Clinton. I didn't see that debate, but on the face of it, that hardly seems neutral.
But speaking of controlling the press - are you equally outraged by President Bush's refusal to be interviewed by NPR unless he could choose which reporter was running the interview; or that only carefully selected supporters of the president are ever allowed to attend his carefully controlled Town Meetings; or that for several of his question and answer sessions in Iraq, the questions from "regular soldiers" were carefully scripted by White House and Pentagon staff; or that the Department of Homeland Security held a "press conference" where the "press" were actually government employees?
Of all the things that Bill Clinton (or George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or Ford before him) did, I don't recall any of that sort of crap ever happening in the White House.
What was that about the Democrat candidates refusing to debate on a cable network?
Was it FOX? Yes, I believe it was.
They boycotted the FOX debate.
What courage!
Post a Comment