For any who missed it and may wish to have a look the streaming video of the debate is still available online to stream only, you can not download and save it.
A Democratic Party bigwig, an antiwar activist, a union official, an Islamic leader, a Harry Reid staffer, and a radical Chicano separatist all walk into a bar and sit down at the counter. The staffer then orders a round, whereupon the Islamic leader pulls out a gun and shoots all the other, finally shooting himself. As they all lie on the floor, the Harry Reid staffer asks the Islamic leader why he did what he just did. The Islamic leader says "I thought you said you wanted a round..."
captained
· 2 years ago
Hey, I was right! It was the start to a bad joke!
Swede
· 2 years ago
I'm also inclined to agree. This wasn't a debate between the Republican and Democrat candidate for president. This was between Democrat candidates trying to get fellow Democrats to choose them to be the party presidential candidate. And, along with the Captain, I don't know which Republican candidate I'll cast my vote for yet, but it will probably be a Republican who gets my vote.
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
Note is being taken that more and more, the campaigns are trying to seed the audience and pre-plant questions during these debates and elsewhere. It's more amusing now to try to figure out who the ringers are than to dissect or understand the pre-recorded answers of the candidates to the pre-ordained questions of tamed moderators.
CNN is in a hole and digging deeper, as are the rest of MSM, and in a dim future we'll be able to blame the demise of debate on Mrs. Bill Clinton and her political machine (yes, that means you, Mr. Carville). Another good footnote for your history, HIllary.
Of course, this seeding of the audience has undoubtedly been going on for years. Why didn't it ever occur to us before to look for it? Because the media wouldn't have reported on it since they had to have been co-conspirators, so it may be another scalp on the belt of the blogosphere that viewers and voters aren't being so cooperative now about swallowing the tasteless gruel the candidates and their biased MSM lackeys are attempting to feed us.
GarandFan
· 2 years ago
Wolf caved. CNN caved. Nothing like abdicating journalistic responsiblity to further your own political agenda. And the funny part is that they then wonder aloud why the public does not trust them!
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
I wonder if Wolf needed the other questioners fill in because he frequently had to duck into the ladies room?
Turn in your man card Blitzer.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Can you even imagine what the drive bys got away with for 50 years before the new media?
It galls me to think of that big phony Walter Cronkite blubbering about Vietnam, and the powerlessness of the real grown-ups to expose his theatrics.
So this is bittersweet to me. Gratified that you conservative bloggers are stopping the drive by bastards in their tracks, but disillusioned and sad over what was done to us before this new medium came along.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
One of the biggest dangers of the drive by media is that many times they chose to NOT report a story in order to promote a political agenda. Nowadays of course it's their trying to ignore the hopeful news from Iraq, but the worst example I can remember in the past 30 years was when they all failed to report the beginning of the economic recovery in the 1990s. As we all know now, that recovery began in March of 1991. But they couldn't report it because then their bow wouldn't have won. And this was before they knew who "their boy" would be!
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Yeah, I remember it well. Who would believe you today, unless they saw it for themselves, if you told them that the democrat field of candidates in 1991 was a laughing stock, and it was a laughing stock due to the fact that all the serious, qualified democrat candidates were loathe to end their careers by running against President Bush 41 after his success in the Gulf War, so only the second-string democrats ran.
We called them the 7 Dwarves to mock their lack of gravity. One of those transparently unfit and unworthy candidates was Bill Clinton.
James Carvile admits that everything changed when the media agreed to go along with the one-note samba that "it's the economy, stupid." Despite the evidence before our very eyes, the economy was not only in a depression, but that it was the worst economy in history! Which any serious economist will tell you is an outright, malicious lie.
I remember even the sitcom Cheers had an episode in the early 90s in which Kelsey Grammar remarked that all you have to do is dance around saying the word "change" and anyone can win an election. I always saw that as a shot at Clinton's unmerited win.
Today, kids are taught to view Clinton as a legendary figure. He was nothing of the kind. He was the first real case of the media shoving a candidate down our throats out of spite. Clinton's faux legacy is now dressed up, propped up and preserved like Lenin's body, by hard left media.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
To the media, he and his wife ARE legends. They're Jack and Jackie Kennedy.
coffee260
· 2 years ago
Here's were your wrong, CQ. First, you assume that anybody who watched the debate was a democrat and that no independent voters watched. You also don't take into account the dishonesty on the part of CNN. Face it. What would be the reaction, even by conservatives, if after watching a debate by Fox News of a republican presidential debate, that you found out the supposedly undecided, ordinary voters who posed the questions turned out to be:
A Republican Party bigwig An pro-war activist A NAFTA official An Evangelical leader A Tom Delay staffer...and... A radical border enforcement immigration activist
At the very least you'd wonder why everything was so scripted. And at worst, you'd feel manipulated.
Ok. Maybe the questioners were picked at random and all just happened to be active in politics, which isn't fare fetched. But to have them all represented as concerned voters is simply misleading.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Yes, that's it. In the illusory world of the democrat party, General Petraus was a transparent fraud, but the democrat debate was an unscripted drama in which Hillary mustered all the courage within her and prevailed to show herself as the strong and principled candidate the whole world knows her to be!
I honest to God can't imagine how messed up in the head you have to be to believe the democrat narrative.
MagicalPat
· 2 years ago
I agree. For the undecided voter who watches both the Republican and Democrat debates, these faux events are intended to sway voters to the left. My other complaint is how pro-Hillary this debacle was. I would be less bothered if they distributed the love evenly amongst all the candidates so you could see just how empty they all are. Instead, they took down everyone but Mrs. Clinton.
Just Me
· 2 years ago
I tend to agree that any of these people could be democratic operatives, would never in their lives consider voting for a republican and be undecided.
I object more to the perception that this stuff isn't "planned" or is "spontaneous" when I am more and more convinced that the majority of questions at these events are likely planned questions-or at least a good majority of them are, and I don't mean it is a one party or the other problem I figure it is the dirty little secret of "town hall" style politics that is finally getting discussed.
Luckybogey
· 2 years ago
An Obama blogger on the NYT Political Blog posted this after the debate: (Shorten for brevity-See Link for entire post):
“.... I have some inside information about what occured just in the last 24 hours that changed the dynamics of this debate.
I was really shocked to see that the audience was yelling and booing and clapping and that the CNN Moderators did not try to prevent it in any way... This format was specifically designed to not allow candidates to answer the questions fully and without interruption. The CNN Moderators did not stop protesters from interupting Sen. Obama, and did not allow several of the candidates to fully answer the question after being interupted by the protesters....
... In additon to the way the Debate was conducted, CNN was not fair in some of the questions it asked of some of the candidates. The moderators made several statements about the candidates positions which were not accurate. These questions often misrepresented the candidates positions, and I felt that it was not an accurate discription and could bias the viewers and audience in favor of or against a candidate based solely on the way the question was asked. ...
... I used to live in Nevada and I have connections to some people in Nevada who told me some interesting information about the audience at the Debate. It is a little odd that Yesterday November 14th, CNN’s Website said the following:
“It [the debate] will be at the Thomas and Mack Center on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. That’s where CNN and the Nevada Democratic Party will host a presidential debate at 5 p.m. (8 p.m. ET).”
Anyone who has been to the Thomas and Mack Center was probably wondering why the audience seemed so small. So where was the debate actually held you ask? It was Held at the Cox Pavilion, which is also on the Campus of UNLV. For those who don’t know, the Thomas and Mack Center is an arena, it holds at least 20,000 people. The Cox Pavilion holds about 2,000 people. So in one day we went from being able to hold 20,000 people, to less than 10% of that. hmm.. .
...There was no issue with security even though as the Democratic Nominee, John Kerry was under Secret Service Protection. We simply moved through metal detectors, and the whole Thomas and Mack Center was PACKED. It was not an issue of security, because there are very easy ways of dealing with that issue.....
...... There were only 2000 available tickets. 1000 of those tickets were given to the Nevada State Democratic Party, of which I was a member in 2005 and 2006. The other 1000 tickets were given to UNLV. Now here is where it gets interesting. The 1000 tickets given to the NSDP were given to people who were in high ranking positions, of which several of my friends are involved with the NSDP...
... According to my sources, not only did they pre-select who went to the Debate, they actually based it on the percentage of the various minorities in the state. So 15% of the people had to be Hispanic, 10% had to be African-American, and there were various other groups which were required to be selected by the Nevada State Democratic Party...
... So what happened to the UNLV tickets? Didn’t they go to students? Not exactly. About 100 or so tickets did go to the students, and they held a lottery which selected certain students for the Debate. The other 900 or so tickets actually went to UNLV staff and professors and their family members...
Teresa
· 2 years ago
I agree with the Captain that this is a silly issue. I would not be at all surprised that you would find activists at the Republican debate as well. Those are the sort of people who show up at these sort of events. Did people think that a bunch of Rudy supporters would be interested in being there?
As far as the crowd being pro-Hillary, Hillary is at 51% in the polls in Nevada amongst likely Dem voters. Should CNN have bussed people in from Iowa?
And -- finally -- of course the questions were pre-approved by CNN. Why on earth would they not do that for a live event? Otherwise you will get some Ron Paul nut or some other moron who wants to get up and talk for half an hour about their pet peeve. I would think that all the networks pre-approve questions from the audience.
Heck, I'm a member of the League of Women Voters in my town and we do the same things at our candidate forums. We have people in the audience write down questions and we screen them before picking some to give to the candidates. This allows us to eliminate duplicate questions, nasty questions and questions with narrow interest to the rest of the audience (i.e. "My neighbor's dog is barking at night. What are you going to do about it.")
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
You avoided the key infraction.
Nobody cares that CNN screened the questions. We care that "Diamonds or Pearls" girl was INSTRUCTED to ask that particular question. She said she was used by Hillary, and was very offended that CNN and the once great democrat party asked her to look so stupid on national television just to help the hapless Hillary. I would be upset too. Her mistake was to trust a democrat.
The democrat party and CNN crossed a pretty clear ethical line last week. But look on the bright side, democrats like you just don't care so it's no big whoop, right?
Teresa
· 2 years ago
How was she used by Hillary? That is idiotic. The girl submitted her questions to CNN. She was not advised by the Clinton campaign on what questions to ask. She wanted to ask a question on Yucca Mountain and CNN told her to ask the diamond question because there was not much time left and Yucca Mountain had been covered. Hillary had nothing to do with the question and would have probably preferred that it not be asked.
On that note, I blame CNN entirely for picking that stupid question. The media has been blaming Hillary for "playing the gender card" and then ask her stupid, gender based questions. She is in a no win situation there. I don't understand why anyone would think the diamond question HELPS Hillary. It only demeans her as a femal candidate to be asked a question like that.
MagicalPat
· 2 years ago
CNN was trying to create a 'Boxers or Briefs' moment for Hillary. I think it would have been hilarious if they did in fact ask her that. It could have made her seem more human, although we would have had to hear that cackle.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Please.... Really? You really think that question helped Hillary? I sure don't.
Stephen Macklin
· 2 years ago
If you were identified as a "Republican and a known conservative/center-right political writer and radio host" at said event that would be entirely appropriate. If those details were omitted (which they were by DNCNN) I would have to say it is problem.
Skip
· 2 years ago
The context is that Wolf Blitzer described them as "ordinary people, undecided voters". And while they certainly might qualify as the latter it's the description as the former which raises eyebrows. I think you'd agree that you shouldn't fall in that category if you were at a Republican debate?
Interestingly this statement doesn't appear in the official debate transcript on CNN.com, but hotair has the video.
It's silly, though, really, because it doesn't make all that much difference. I doubt the questions from any random 6 people there would have been that much different.
captained
· 2 years ago
Well, who else would we expect to find at a Democratic debate than Democrats, and the most motivated of that group? My point is that CNN could have done a better job of explaining who these people were, but (a) they're exactly who I'd expect to be there, and (b) unless they're working for one of the candidates, it's entirely reasonable to believe that they are undecided about the primaries.
Skip
· 2 years ago
I have no real disagreement with that. I do think it would be interesting to compare the questions they selected versus the ones they rejected. But except for the one specific example from the UNLV student/Reid staffer, we're not likely to get that.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Apparently that "UNLV student/Reid staffer" is in the process of applying for US citizenship. In other words, she can't even vote!
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Wrong. A newstory has her being sworn in as a US citizen. She moved here as a child.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
According to her own MySpace page, she's not even old enough to vote.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
So now we've gone from stalking 12 yr olds who get SCHIP to people who ask questions at a debate? You say you want "ordinary citizens" to ask questions, but then stalk these people. What ordinary citizen would want you wingers tearing their life apart trying to find out if -- gasp -- they are a Democrat at a Democratic debate?
John
· 2 years ago
Really, part of the problem here is the handlers for Obama, Edwards and the other hopefuls not doing due diligence prior to the debate to make sure either the Clinton campaign didn't stack the table beforehand, or at the very least, voicing some complaint that the believed the questioners and/or the audience balance was unfair, and not wait for a group of bloggers to dig it out. If they haven't figured out that Bill and Hillary have no compunction about doing to them what they did to Bush 41, Bob Dole and Rick Lazio in past elections, they really are too stupid to deserve the nomination.
On the other hand, from CNN's standpoint, the problem isn't that their questioner list included:
A Democratic Party bigwig An antiwar activist A Union official An Islamic leader A Harry Reid staffer A radical Chicano separatist
The problem is that's most likely the same list of questioners they'll line up for their upcoming Republican candidate debate (and if CNN doesn't believe by now there's a wave of bloggers out there ready to Google the names of any "undecided" questioner in a debate, then they're too stupid not to deserve the abuse they're getting).
Jason
· 2 years ago
The problem isn't the "undecided" part Captain. The problem is Blitzer's introduction of the questioners as "ordinary folks". This was clearly deceptive.
directorblue
· 2 years ago
Thanks very much for the link! The reason many of us feel that this is indeed a scandal of major proportions -- especially in light of Hillary's previous planted questions -- is best summarized by my frequent commenter jpm100:
"It isn't that they are Democrats.
It's that their careers are either with the Democratic Party or need a good Relationship with the Democratic Party.
They basically could be counted upon to softball Hillary because their careers depended on it."
Rick
· 2 years ago
After all, I'm a Republican and a known conservative/center-right political writer and radio host -- but if I attended a Republican primary debate, I could also be described as "undecided".
Keep up that wishful thinking, my Captain. If you were in a CNN audience for a GOP debate, you'd be described as an ultra-conservative activist. Who is undecided.
Cordially...
GoDaddy
· 2 years ago
This is the perfect analysis...and quite succinct in pointing out the significant problem with what CNN did and their bias...CNN clearly knew who these people were and should have described them as such.
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
So do we think all the stacking and planting is being done by the Hillary faction, or that everyone does it? In that case, would the audience be made up of planted Obama supporters with Obama-questions and planted Edwards supports with Edwards-oriented questions?
If HIllary was asked soft-ball questions, does that mean that *all* the plants in the audience had been rounded up by the Clinton machine? So that, therefore, CNN is throwing the debate to HIllary in playing along?
If I was Obama/Edwards et al, I'd be mad as hell and screaming bloody blue murder if these "debates" are pre-scripted both by the questioners and the moderators to give Mrs. Bill Clinton an edge.
essucht
· 2 years ago
My question is, are there any moderate Dems left?
A Democratic Party bigwig An antiwar activist A Union official An Islamic leader A Harry Reid staffer A radical Chicano separatist
Where are the blue collar types? And no, a union boss certainly doesn't count. Members of the military? Small businessmen?
I would guess the equivalents for republicans would be;
A Republican Party bigwig A junior officer with combat experience in Iraq, especially in the last few months A small businessman A evangelical leader (and not of the Wallis sort) A Republican staffer A militia member
why do I have a feeling we will not see these sort of guys for the Republican debate?
tacodawn
· 2 years ago
There was a member of the military. The anti-war activist questioner was a mom who had her Marine? son with her that stood up and spoke also. Their question (besides stating he'd done 3 tours) was re: Iran and their fear he would be deployed there what with Bush's saber-rattling currently going on.
(to the best of my recollection)
Etain P
· 2 years ago
Has CNN done a Republican debate yet? It would be interesting to look back at any 'ordinary folks' that they may or may not have had and who they were. My feeling is that the questioners at the Republican debates would be awfully similar to this one, ie, Democrat operatives.
tacodawn
· 2 years ago
Out of the 2000 people attending, those particular six "Undecideds" (IMO) could never claim to be your typical "Undecided Average Joe."
I watched.
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
Ok here are some of the issues with this debate.
Specifically CNN via Blitzer opened the audience portion with the characterization of those to be interviewed as undecided voters per their own "informal" transcript on their website. He did not say nonpartisan.
One of the participants LaShannon Spenser who is a Democrat Party operative from Arkansas was purged from the online transcript.
However she still shows up in transcripts of the debate that are posted on other new sites.
There is confusion by many but there are two mothers of Iraq soldiers who were used.
Catherine Jackson is the mother of Christopher Gallagher (called Jackson in their transcript) the three tour Marine.
Jeannie Jackson also has an un named son in Iraq and she talked about military versus civilian contractors security types payscales.
There are also many issues with the remaining audience member to numerous to go into here but many blogs have addressed the issues.
The bottom line is many rate the debate as poorly managed and moderated and having very questionable choices of audience participants.
Other questions have been raised as to the venue change and pressure brought forth by groups such as Media Matters.
Crowd behavior , especially in view of the 1/10th the size venue , influenced what the debate tone was like with applause and booing which have no place in a debate.
Many are pointing to these and other issues which degraded the debate quality and thus appears to have shortchanged any interested supporter of the candidates involved and was less than optimal for real undecided voters to have a fair hearing to help them come to their own conclusions.
Also what many see as the theater put on here was obscuring positions that the opposition will have to address in the campaign ahead.
In short all people of any political persuasion were short changed with the events as they occurred.
Etain P
· 2 years ago
Has CNN done a Republican debate yet? It would be interesting to look back at any 'ordinary folks' that they may or may not have had and who they were. My feeling is that the questioners at the Republican debates would be awfully similar to this one, ie, Democrat operatives.
Jon - Sac town
· 2 years ago
The CNN You-Tube Debate will be the Republicans' first on CNN. Considering how CNN manipulated it's audience and continues to avoid detailing the truth - I encourage the Republicans to NOT participate in the upcoming CNN debate.
Republican candidates should stand for TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
Etain P
· 2 years ago
Has CNN done a Republican debate yet? It would be interesting to look back at any 'ordinary folks' that they may or may not have had and who they were. My feeling is that the questioners at the Republican debates would be awfully similar to this one, ie, Democrat operatives.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
If everything was on the up-and-up, why did they feel the need to have "Maria Luisa" not use her real name, Maria L. Parra-Sandoval? The implication that CNN gave was that these were "just ordinary folks," undecided voters. That was disingenuous, to say the least.
hunter
· 2 years ago
Wasn't CNN a news organization back in the old days, before it sold out to the Clinton wing of the DNC? Wasn't Wolf Blitzer a journalist before he got re-educated? I forget.
essucht
· 2 years ago
Not really. They were selling Saddam's propaganda before Bill and Hill's...remember Peter Arnett?
Eugene P Podrazik
· 2 years ago
The purpose of the debate was to make the Democrats all look good; and Hill in particular. This is more accurately referred to as an infomerical.
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
What's the difference between an infomercial, propaganda, and brainwashing?
Nathan
· 2 years ago
What I wonder about is whether any of these "undecided voters" debate moderators are always trotting out actually get to ask their own questions. Does CNN really have to cojones to let party activists (or anyone else for that matter) ask unscripted, unpredictable questions? Do they filter the questions? Do they provide questions, and just have somebody read them so it doesn't seem like CNN is asking?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think anyone who really believed we were hearing the unvarnished concerns of undecided voters in these debates was drowning in naivety.
sanssoucy
· 2 years ago
The problem, of course, is that when CNN hosts a Republican debate, the undecided slice-of-Americana invited to ask questions will be:
A Democratic Party bigwig An antiwar activist A Union official An Islamic leader A Harry Reid staffer A radical Chicano separatist
...only this time, the questions won't be along the lines of, "How may I serve you, O wise ones?"
Jenny Bea
· 2 years ago
MUCH more information here: 100% irrefutable links, in an easy to read format :-)
Everything on at least three and possibly four of the questioners BIG political ties and HUGE backgrounds.
Luckybogey : "... The moderators made several statements about the candidates positions which were not accurate. These questions often misrepresented the candidates positions, and I felt that it was not an accurate description and could bias the viewers and audience in favor of or against a candidate based solely on the way the question was asked. ..."
If course that is a big problem. One never knows what a Democrat's position really is. It is easy to misrepresent there position, since it depends on the time of day.
AUNT SADIE
· 2 years ago
OH, SORRY, WE DIDN'T WATCH. I'M A MOM, GRANDMOTHER AND GREAT-GRANDMOTHER AND WHENEVER IS SEE HILLARY I GET VERY QUEASY, THE HAIR ON MY ARMS STANDS-UP AND MY "WOMAN'S INTUITION IS BLARING NO, NO, NO, I CANNOT LOOK AT HER. SHE IS TOO SCAREY AND THE WORD 'EVIL' ENTERS MY MIND. SORRY.
Jon - Sac town
· 2 years ago
As an independent - conservative leaning voter - I was outraged to learn CNN had scripted these "undecided" voter questions. I feel betrayed by the presumed ethics of CNN and manipulated.
I sent emails to each Republican Candidate - urging they boycott CNN's You-Tube Debate. Until CNN comes clean and fully discloses their participation in this Political "Theater" - Republicans should treat CNN with the same dignity that Dems bestow on FOX.
Archdean
· 2 years ago
I read and UNDERSTOOD your piece ED but I can't buy it!! Integrity does matter and yes I watched it!! CNN had/has and no doubt WILL never have any. It was cheap and tawdry, be thankful that you didn't see it, as a rewrite would be in order on the above!! It smelled to high hell...
All Comments
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.debat...
CNN is in a hole and digging deeper, as are the rest of MSM, and in a dim future we'll be able to blame the demise of debate on Mrs. Bill Clinton and her political machine (yes, that means you, Mr. Carville). Another good footnote for your history, HIllary.
Of course, this seeding of the audience has undoubtedly been going on for years. Why didn't it ever occur to us before to look for it? Because the media wouldn't have reported on it since they had to have been co-conspirators, so it may be another scalp on the belt of the blogosphere that viewers and voters aren't being so cooperative now about swallowing the tasteless gruel the candidates and their biased MSM lackeys are attempting to feed us.
Turn in your man card Blitzer.
It galls me to think of that big phony Walter Cronkite blubbering about Vietnam, and the powerlessness of the real grown-ups to expose his theatrics.
So this is bittersweet to me. Gratified that you conservative bloggers are stopping the drive by bastards in their tracks, but disillusioned and sad over what was done to us before this new medium came along.
We called them the 7 Dwarves to mock their lack of gravity. One of those transparently unfit and unworthy candidates was Bill Clinton.
James Carvile admits that everything changed when the media agreed to go along with the one-note samba that "it's the economy, stupid." Despite the evidence before our very eyes, the economy was not only in a depression, but that it was the worst economy in history! Which any serious economist will tell you is an outright, malicious lie.
I remember even the sitcom Cheers had an episode in the early 90s in which Kelsey Grammar remarked that all you have to do is dance around saying the word "change" and anyone can win an election. I always saw that as a shot at Clinton's unmerited win.
Today, kids are taught to view Clinton as a legendary figure. He was nothing of the kind. He was the first real case of the media shoving a candidate down our throats out of spite. Clinton's faux legacy is now dressed up, propped up and preserved like Lenin's body, by hard left media.
A Republican Party bigwig
An pro-war activist
A NAFTA official
An Evangelical leader
A Tom Delay staffer...and...
A radical border enforcement immigration activist
At the very least you'd wonder why everything was so scripted. And at worst, you'd feel manipulated.
Ok. Maybe the questioners were picked at random and all just happened to be active in politics, which isn't fare fetched. But to have them all represented as concerned voters is simply misleading.
I honest to God can't imagine how messed up in the head you have to be to believe the democrat narrative.
I object more to the perception that this stuff isn't "planned" or is "spontaneous" when I am more and more convinced that the majority of questions at these events are likely planned questions-or at least a good majority of them are, and I don't mean it is a one party or the other problem I figure it is the dirty little secret of "town hall" style politics that is finally getting discussed.
An Obama blogger on the NYT Political Blog posted this after the debate: (Shorten for brevity-See Link for entire post):
“.... I have some inside information about what occured just in the last 24 hours that changed the dynamics of this debate.
I was really shocked to see that the audience was yelling and booing and clapping and that the CNN Moderators did not try to prevent it in any way... This format was specifically designed to not allow candidates to answer the questions fully and without interruption. The CNN Moderators did not stop protesters from interupting Sen. Obama, and did not allow several of the candidates to fully answer the question after being interupted by the protesters....
... In additon to the way the Debate was conducted, CNN was not fair in some of the questions it asked of some of the candidates. The moderators made several statements about the candidates positions which were not accurate. These questions often misrepresented the candidates positions, and I felt that it was not an accurate discription and could bias the viewers and audience in favor of or against a candidate based solely on the way the question was asked. ...
... I used to live in Nevada and I have connections to some people in Nevada who told me some interesting information about the audience at the Debate. It is a little odd that Yesterday November 14th, CNN’s Website said the following:
“It [the debate] will be at the Thomas and Mack Center on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. That’s where CNN and the Nevada Democratic Party will host a presidential debate at 5 p.m. (8 p.m. ET).”
Anyone who has been to the Thomas and Mack Center was probably wondering why the audience seemed so small. So where was the debate actually held you ask? It was Held at the Cox Pavilion, which is also on the Campus of UNLV. For those who don’t know, the Thomas and Mack Center is an arena, it holds at least 20,000 people. The Cox Pavilion holds about 2,000 people. So in one day we went from being able to hold 20,000 people, to less than 10% of that. hmm.. .
...There was no issue with security even though as the Democratic Nominee, John Kerry was under Secret Service Protection. We simply moved through metal detectors, and the whole Thomas and Mack Center was PACKED. It was not an issue of security, because there are very easy ways of dealing with that issue.....
...... There were only 2000 available tickets. 1000 of those tickets were given to the Nevada State Democratic Party, of which I was a member in 2005 and 2006. The other 1000 tickets were given to UNLV. Now here is where it gets interesting. The 1000 tickets given to the NSDP were given to people who were in high ranking positions, of which several of my friends are involved with the NSDP...
... According to my sources, not only did they pre-select who went to the Debate, they actually based it on the percentage of the various minorities in the state. So 15% of the people had to be Hispanic, 10% had to be African-American, and there were various other groups which were required to be selected by the Nevada State Democratic Party...
... So what happened to the UNLV tickets? Didn’t they go to students? Not exactly. About 100 or so tickets did go to the students, and they held a lottery which selected certain students for the Debate. The other 900 or so tickets actually went to UNLV staff and professors and their family members...
As far as the crowd being pro-Hillary, Hillary is at 51% in the polls in Nevada amongst likely Dem voters. Should CNN have bussed people in from Iowa?
And -- finally -- of course the questions were pre-approved by CNN. Why on earth would they not do that for a live event? Otherwise you will get some Ron Paul nut or some other moron who wants to get up and talk for half an hour about their pet peeve. I would think that all the networks pre-approve questions from the audience.
Heck, I'm a member of the League of Women Voters in my town and we do the same things at our candidate forums. We have people in the audience write down questions and we screen them before picking some to give to the candidates. This allows us to eliminate duplicate questions, nasty questions and questions with narrow interest to the rest of the audience (i.e. "My neighbor's dog is barking at night. What are you going to do about it.")
Nobody cares that CNN screened the questions. We care that "Diamonds or Pearls" girl was INSTRUCTED to ask that particular question. She said she was used by Hillary, and was very offended that CNN and the once great democrat party asked her to look so stupid on national television just to help the hapless Hillary. I would be upset too. Her mistake was to trust a democrat.
The democrat party and CNN crossed a pretty clear ethical line last week. But look on the bright side, democrats like you just don't care so it's no big whoop, right?
ask a question on Yucca Mountain and CNN told her to ask the diamond question
because there was not much time left and Yucca Mountain had been covered.
Hillary had nothing to do with the question and would have probably preferred that it not
be asked.
On that note, I blame CNN entirely for picking that stupid question. The media has been
blaming Hillary for "playing the gender card" and then ask her stupid, gender based
questions. She is in a no win situation there. I don't understand why anyone would
think the diamond question HELPS Hillary. It only demeans her as a femal candidate
to be asked a question like that.
Interestingly this statement doesn't appear in the official debate transcript on CNN.com, but hotair has the video.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/16/random-qu...
It's silly, though, really, because it doesn't make all that much difference. I doubt the questions from any random 6 people there would have been that much different.
a child.
people who ask questions at a debate? You say you want
"ordinary citizens" to ask questions, but then stalk these people.
What ordinary citizen would want you wingers tearing their life
apart trying to find out if -- gasp -- they are a Democrat at a
Democratic debate?
On the other hand, from CNN's standpoint, the problem isn't that their questioner list included:
A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist
The problem is that's most likely the same list of questioners they'll line up for their upcoming Republican candidate debate (and if CNN doesn't believe by now there's a wave of bloggers out there ready to Google the names of any "undecided" questioner in a debate, then they're too stupid not to deserve the abuse they're getting).
"It isn't that they are Democrats.
It's that their careers are either with the Democratic Party or need a good Relationship with the Democratic Party.
They basically could be counted upon to softball Hillary because their careers depended on it."
Keep up that wishful thinking, my Captain. If you were in a CNN audience for a GOP debate, you'd be described as an ultra-conservative activist. Who is undecided.
Cordially...
If HIllary was asked soft-ball questions, does that mean that *all* the plants in the audience had been rounded up by the Clinton machine? So that, therefore, CNN is throwing the debate to HIllary in playing along?
If I was Obama/Edwards et al, I'd be mad as hell and screaming bloody blue murder if these "debates" are pre-scripted both by the questioners and the moderators to give Mrs. Bill Clinton an edge.
A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist
Where are the blue collar types? And no, a union boss certainly doesn't count. Members of the military? Small businessmen?
I would guess the equivalents for republicans would be;
A Republican Party bigwig
A junior officer with combat experience in Iraq, especially in the last few months
A small businessman
A evangelical leader (and not of the Wallis sort)
A Republican staffer
A militia member
why do I have a feeling we will not see these sort of guys for the Republican debate?
(to the best of my recollection)
I watched.
Specifically CNN via Blitzer opened the audience portion with the characterization of those to be interviewed as undecided voters per their own "informal" transcript on their website. He did not say nonpartisan.
One of the participants LaShannon Spenser who is a Democrat Party operative from Arkansas was purged from the online transcript.
However she still shows up in transcripts of the debate that are posted on other new sites.
There is confusion by many but there are two mothers of Iraq soldiers who were used.
Catherine Jackson is the mother of Christopher Gallagher (called Jackson in their transcript) the three tour Marine.
Jeannie Jackson also has an un named son in Iraq and she talked about military versus civilian contractors security types payscales.
There are also many issues with the remaining audience member to numerous to go into here but many blogs have addressed the issues.
The bottom line is many rate the debate as poorly managed and moderated and having very questionable choices of audience participants.
Other questions have been raised as to the venue change and pressure brought forth by groups such as Media Matters.
Crowd behavior , especially in view of the 1/10th the size venue , influenced what the debate tone was like with applause and booing which have no place in a debate.
Many are pointing to these and other issues which degraded the debate quality and thus appears to have shortchanged any interested supporter of the candidates involved and was less than optimal for real undecided voters to have a fair hearing to help them come to their own conclusions.
Also what many see as the theater put on here was obscuring positions that the opposition will have to address in the campaign ahead.
In short all people of any political persuasion were short changed with the events as they occurred.
Republican candidates should stand for TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think anyone who really believed we were hearing the unvarnished concerns of undecided voters in these debates was drowning in naivety.
A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist
...only this time, the questions won't be along the lines of, "How may I serve you, O wise ones?"
Everything on at least three and possibly four of the questioners BIG political ties and HUGE backgrounds.
http://pcexposed.blogspot.com
If course that is a big problem. One never knows what a Democrat's position really is. It is easy to misrepresent there position, since it depends on the time of day.
STANDS-UP AND MY "WOMAN'S INTUITION IS BLARING NO, NO, NO, I CANNOT
LOOK AT HER. SHE IS TOO SCAREY AND THE WORD 'EVIL' ENTERS MY MIND. SORRY.
I sent emails to each Republican Candidate - urging they boycott CNN's You-Tube Debate. Until CNN comes clean and fully discloses their participation in this Political "Theater" - Republicans should treat CNN with the same dignity that Dems bestow on FOX.
Integrity does matter and yes I watched it!! CNN had/has and no doubt WILL never have any.
It was cheap and tawdry, be thankful that you didn't see it, as a rewrite would be in order on the above!! It smelled to high hell...