CNN/YouTube Debate..Candidates and Controversy (So What’s New?)
Wouldn’t it have been nice to come away from last nights CNN/YouTube debate with a clear winner and strong GOP candidate for the 2008 presidential race?
For what it’s worth, I thought Mike Huckabee ws the only person who acquitted himself well on all questions posed to him.
Mitt Romney is too much of a phony for me (he reminds me of Bill Clinton in his first presidential campaign).
Fred Thompson looked far too old and almost gaunt and while his answers on immigration were to be appreciated, I cannot see him winning in a general election.
John McCain, while I respect his service to this country, shows too much of the my way or the highway mentality (on all issues) to be the CIC, and Rudy, well he was a disappointment to me as he, by now, should be aware that he is being criticized for not expanding beyond his NY mantra.
Hunter, Paul and Tancredo…well they could have stayed home.
But wait. Planted questions, planted Generals in the audience? Why would anyone be surprised by this?
I have not considered CNN a reputable news organization in years. They have shilled for the democrats for so long that nothing they do surprises me any longer. Of course they deny knowledge of the political affiliations of any of these questioners, they spend most of their days in a state of denial in their coverage of issues.
If you read the blogs as I do, you have probably read many pieces on the debate last evening but here are a few that if you missed you might want to check out:
If life were fair and the press unbiased, this would become a huge media scandal – perhaps the biggest in a while. You and I both know that will not happen. So what if Republicans get short changed in a debate by having a shamefully incapable cable news network allow supporters and activists from the other party to ask questions designed not to elicit information from the candidates but to try and trap them and make them look bad?
When you couple this sorry demonstration with the fact that, as Wizbang reminds us, CNN allowed Democratic party operatives to ask questions at the last Democratic debate, CNN has shown how utterly derelict in doing some basic research. Oh, and remember how they pressured that girl in the Democratic debate to ask Hillary if she preferred diamonds or pearls. Yeesh.
Townhall (complete with video):
UPDATE: Uh Oh! Looks like there are more plants. John Edwards and Barack Obama supporters plus a union activist.
and on and on….
We expect answers from those in contention in this race to be honest and straightforward. We should be able to expect the same from those charged with sponsoring these debates.
Update: Linked from Drudge, Joe Scarborough and the reply from the Clinton campaign concerning General Kerr: (Take note of who’s not buying the story)
At 7:51 AM ET, Mika announced that she had received a reply from head Hillary honcho Howard Wolfson. As displayed on screen, Wolfson stated [emphasis added]: “Keith Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign.”
Chris Matthews, a guest during the segment at the time, was unimpressed.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well “employee” could be a weasel word, too. I mean, he’s not being paid? Well that’s not the question that was asked.
Note also what Wolfson didn’t say. He didn’t claim the Clinton campaign was unaware of what Kerr was up to, nor did he say that the campaign hadn’t encouraged him to do this. “Not acting on behalf of the campaign” is a meaningless non-denial denial.
If nothing else I’ll say this. The Clinton campaign manages to turn the focus of any major event towards their campaign. Maybe that’s the plan???
Thanks to the Anchoress for the link and welcome to readers from her site who stop by.
Written by Sue
The Anchoress » Blog Archive » CNN-YouTube Debates: The good, the bad and the ugly Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmVisit The Anchoress » Blog Archive » CNN-YouTube Debates: The good, the bad and the ugly
[...] Sue at J’s Cafenette So, what’s new? [...]