Democrat Debate Last Night In Vegas

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. They claim what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. My reaction to the few minutes I could tolerate of the Democrat debate last night was that the candidates better hope that is true.

    Their plan for America? Surrender to al qaeda, pretend that Iran is not a threat, raise taxes, hand over our security to the UN, give amnesty to illegal aliens under the guise of "comprehensive' immigration reform, raise spending on every conceivable welfare scheme, repeal free trade, force every single item imported from china to be inspected by a third party body(really, they said this), empower unions so they can shut down our economy like they are doing in europe, appoint activist judges and did I mention, raise taxes.

    It was amusing to hear them attack Bush for not "passing" comprehensive immigration reform, without which they just couldn't go along with licenses for illegals. I really don't see how one relates to the other, but the last time I checked, democrats controlled both houses of congress, not Bush. It didn't occur to host Wolf Blitzer to ask them to explain why it was Bush's fault they couldn't pass an immigration bill, particularly since he supported it and would have signed it. I guess Blitzer didn't want to end up in the Clinton doghouse with Tim Russert who wasn't sufficiently supine toward her royal Hillariness.

    I had to turn it off when they started taking audience questions. The first person with a question was some poor woman who struggled to read "her" question, which was a lengthy screed against all things Bush, with her marine son as a prop. Really, you would think CNN would have done a better job in the week that it came out Hillary's staffers were arming people with softball questions to spontaneously ask her. At least get them to prove they can read the entire question you have drafted for them.

    Aside from this bit of uncomfortable humor, the only entertainment value was the amazement that this many politicians could be so uniformly wrong about every conceivable issue.
  2. LT701


    i was not in a great mood to start with, but they really grated on my nerves

    no matter what, i cant stand the idea on listening to hillary's shrill condecending combative voice for 4 years

    bush may be the worst president ever, and a dufus, and i never listen to him speak, but at least he has a soft voice

    we're facing a total of 34 years of 2 family rule


    "Aside from this bit of uncomfortable humor, the only entertainment value was the amazement that this many politicians could be so uniformly wrong about every conceivable issue."

    it really is depressing, isnt it
  3. the democrats are a great example of just how far this country has atrophied. to even entertain these buffoons trying to out communize the other was vomit worthy.
  4. from:
    November 16, 2007, 12:54 pm
    Questions About Carville and CNN
    By Julie Bosman

    There are very few political analysts more closely associated with the Clintons than James Carville, who was a key adviser to Mr. Clinton in the 1992 campaign.
    So it’s no surprise that Mr. Carville’s appearance on a round table after last night’s CNN-sponsored Democratic debate is arousing some morning-after controversy.
    “Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” wrote Daily Kos. “Would it kill James Carville to disclose that he is a partisan Clinton supporter when on the air talking about the presidential race? Apparently so.”

    Last night, Anderson Cooper of CNN introduced Mr. Carville, who appeared alongside panelists David Gergen and J.C. Watts, as a “former presidential adviser.”
    And Mr. Cooper made one attempt at a disclosure: “I should point out David Gergen was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House,” he said. “As, of course, was James Carville.”
    But he didn’t point out that Mr. Carville is also an informal adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
    Last night, Mr. Carville praised Mrs. Clinton’s performance along with the other panelists. “I agree with David and J.C.,” he said at one point. “I think that Senator Clinton’s people have to be — and Senator Clinton — have to be pretty pleased tonight that they certainly reversed a trend. We will see where it goes from there.”
    And he was pointedly critical of Mr. Obama’s debate performance. “I think he might be even slightly intimidated, that he thinks Senator Clinton is more experienced than him, a little more hungry than he is,” Mr. Carville said.
    There is also a fair amount of criticism of CNN’s overall conduct of the debate, especially Wolf Blitzer’s questions.
    We put in a call to CNN and will update this post when they get back to us.
  5. CNN Caves to Hillary, But She’ll Still Struggle in Iowa
    By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

    Under Wolf Blitzer's gentle questioning, Hillary was able to avert another debate meltdown in the Nevada Democratic debate held last night, November 15. Asked about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, a compliant, even subservient, Blitzer accepted Hillary's one word answer, “No,” with no follow up. Had a better journalist been asking the questions — like Tim Russert — he would have followed up the bland negation with probing questions about why she is yet again flip flopping on the issue.

    The Drudge Report today highlights that a “senior adviser to the Hillary campaign” said, earlier today, that Blitzer “was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far.” And Blitzer checked his journalistic instincts at the door.

    The debate also had a pro-Hillary bias in the amount of time allocated to Bill Richardson — who had the third longest face time in the debate. Since Richardson is auditioning for Vice President on Hillary's ticket, using his time to plead for unity among Democrats (i.e. don't bash Hillary), giving him the mike was the same as giving it to Hillary.

    The audience booed when candidates knocked Hillary, likely also a part of her defensive debate strategy.

    The net result was that CNN saved Hillary from yet another embarrassing debate performance.

    Hillary's strategists had prepared the way for Blitzer's cave-in by pre-debate warnings against a repetition of Tim Russert's aggressive — and appropriate — questioning during the Philadelphia debate. Their loud criticisms of the bias of the “all boys club” paved the way for Blitzer's intimidated and pathetic performance during the Nevada debate.

    And, of course, the reason Hillary could give a clipped one word answer to the question of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants was that New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer withdrew the proposal the day before the debate. Spitzer, who is not universally known for his weakness or even flexibility, likely pulled back the proposal to spare Hillary the embarrassment of having to defend it in the Nevada debate.

    Hillary, for her part, couldn't oppose the license proposal as long as Spitzer was backing it. She could not risk a public split with the Democratic governor of her adopted home state. Spitzer takes no prisoners and would probably make Hillary pay dearly for any public criticism of his initiative. But once he pulled it back, the New York Senator was free to say her “no.”

    In the meantime, Hillary used the debate to spin her platitudes. One of them was a peon against unsafe toys. “We shouldn't permit the import of unsafe toys,” she said in the debate. But her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the PR company that represents Aquadots, the company that makes the bead toys with an adhesive coating that turns into the date rape drug when children suck on it. Penn is paid by Burson based on a percentage of their profits, and Aquadots is an important contributor to their bottom line. But neither Blitzer nor any of Hillary's Democratic opponents were alert enough to call the conflict into question.

    But the underlying inability of the New York Senator to take clear positions on issues has not been assuaged and will increasingly become apparent to the savvy voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Her slide in Iowa has reached dangerous proportions. She now holds a bare two-point lead over Edwards and a three-point lead over Obama in that pivotal early state.

    Despite Blitzer's and CNN's assistance, she might have trouble in Iowa.

  6. Thanks AAA for the summary.