 |
Wolf Blitzer Loses the CNN Democratic Debate
Thursday's CNN Democratic debate in California revealed two fundamentals truths. First, Democrats as a whole were very well served by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two candidates who each delivered sterling, civil performances. Their thoughtful exchange stood in sharp contrast to the second inescapable conclusion, the banality of the moderator, CNN's Wolf Blitzer. On a night these Democrats brought credit to their party, Blitzer's incessant efforts to inject conflict into the proceeding brought only embarrassment to himself and his network.
Early in the debate, Blitzer tried to goad Clinton and Obama into a confrontation with his question, asking "What do you see as the most significant policy differences between the two of you?" After Obama failed to provide the fireworks Blitzer was looking for, the Situation Room host chipped in:
BLITZER: Those are three important issues...that you both have defined where there are some differences -- health care, the housing crisis, national security, Iraq, Iran. We're going to go through all of those issues over the course of this debate.
That mild attempt to ignite a blaze of contempt between the candidates was soon followed by other, more aggressive baiting from Blitzer. For example, after Obama made an oblique reference to Hillary Clinton's closed-door meetings during her failed stewardship of the 1993/94 Clinton health care reform package, Blitzer urged him to go for the jugular. Obama, to his great credit, was having none of it:
BLITZER: I just want to be precise, and I'll let Senator Clinton respond. But you say broadcast on C-SPAN these deliberations. Is that a swipe at Senator Clinton because...
OBAMA: No, it's not a swipe. This is something that I've been talking about consistently. What I want to do is increase transparency and accountability to offset the power of the special interests and the lobbyists.
Still unable to produce the desired sparks, Blitzer baited Senator Clinton, also to no effect:
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, we remember in '93, when you were formulating your health care plan, it was done in secret.
Later, Wolf tried - and failed - to introduce the GOP's preferred class warfare talking point into the health care discussion. Again, Clinton ignored his feeble effort to stir up a hornets' nest:
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, your health care plan, it is estimated, will cost $110 billion annually. You want to tax the rich to pay for that, is that what you're saying?
Still not content, Blitzer pushed the class warfare angle further, only to be beaten down by both candidates in unison:
BLITZER: When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That's right.
As the debate switched to immigration, Blitzer tried a different take in prodding the politicians into pugilism. Following up an earlier Obama statement, Blitzer tried witho success a new maneuver, the insult by indirection:
BLITZER: Are you suggesting that Senator Clinton's policy was not, in your words, "humane"?...
BLITZER: Was she lacking on that front?
OBAMA: Wolf, you keep on trying to push on this issue.
Like the instigator in a hockey fight, Blitzer tried yet again to get the players to drop the gloves and slug it out. After both candidates made clear that their tone would be civil and respectful, Blitzer tried to resurrect the bad blood over Bill Clinton's role in South Carolina. Yet again, Barack Obama would have none of it:
BLITZER: Senator Obama, I want you to respond, but also in the context of this. A lot of Democrats remember the eight years of the Clinton administration, a period of relative peace and prosperity, and they remember it fondly.
Are they right? Should they be remembering those eight years with pleasure?
OBAMA: Well, I think there's no doubt that there were good things that happened during those eight years of the Clinton administration. I think that's undeniable.
Look, we're all Democrats. And, particularly, when looked through the lens of the last eight years with George Bush, they look even better.
Ultimately, Wolf Blizter looked to the one issue - Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war - where there was some daylight between the candidates. After Obama calmly and politely made his case for his judgment in opposing the war from the outset, Blitzer cut in:
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you.
CLINTON: Really?
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: We're having -- we're having such a good time.
OBAMA: I wouldn't call it a swipe.
CLINTON: We're having such a good time. We are. We are. We're having a wonderful time.
OBAMA: Yes, absolutely.
In his effort turn politics into entertainment, a debate into theater, Wolf Blitzer illustrated a 21st century media equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where the act of observation changes the phenomenon being observed. Blitzer's was the "Moderator Effect," a craven attempt to create acrimony and conflict where there was none.
—Perrspective
12:05 AM Permalink
Amen! Thanks for putting into words, just what I was thinking!
Maybe he was trying to interject acrimony. His last debate certainly had a lot it - but he really was a non entity there. But the people I have spoken with wonder if Wolf Blitzer has a crush on Hillary - and therefore defensive about her? He kept thinking she had been swiped - when she had not....
Either way i do not think he is an effective debate moderator - not in SC - not in CA.
I will give you several reasons why Wolf Blitzer is surprisingly biased towards Obama:
1) During Friday's The Situation Room, Obama, McCain and Romney were all featured in the first half hour. Not ONE image of Hillary. He also mentioned that there was no clear winner in yesterday's debate. But several polls mentioned her as winner, including AOL's unscientific poll, and some of CNN's own analysts.
2) The "naive" question by Wolf during the debate. The audience booed him with good reason.
3) During the Florida primary where she won the vote but no delegates, Wolf kept repeating how it was totally meaningless.
4) CNN in general always mentions Obama in breathless awe, always highlighting the positives, the hope, etc. Whereas Hillary Clinton is constantly stereotyped as the "polarizing" one. Bill Clinton's South Carolina's statements are still mentioned, even though he has not said anything controversial in many days.
5) How about investigating Obama in the same way that both Clintons past was dissected to death?
Objectivity in CNN and Wolf? FORGET about it. They are both in the honeymoon stage with Obama and by the time they realize what his faults are, it might be too late.
Silvio has it dead on!
Blitzer is a Wolf in sheep's clothing. We won't be watching him anymore. Blitzer dissapointed us and his antagonistic approach is divisive and repugnant.
I think Hillary did a Great job deflecting Blitzer's attempts to upset her.. She shined while Obama simply continued every answer using her very words... I found myself Booing at Wolf even before the audience did... Despite Wolf, it was a great debate !
I agree that Wolf Blitzer's behavior Thursday night at the Democratic debates was shameful. I saw Wolf approach Hillary after the debate and say something to her. I hope it was a clear apology to Hillary regarding his horrible behavior. She deserves an outright apology from Wolf, no question. Before this I had assumed that Wolf could conduct himself in an fair manner; I was clearly wrong in my assessment.
But, this comment is written on Sunday, and from what I can see, nothing has changed. I asked the question last week of CNN, in particular Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty, whether they had the guts to admit they have endorsed Obama, and I am still asking the question. Who is pulling your purse strings CNN that you have such difficulty in even uttering an objective comment in regards to Hillary Clinton?
It is true what you are saying about the Democrats and the same is going on concenring the Republicans - they have scorned, ignored, blocked the filming of two primary speeches of John McCain. Tonight they played Obama's speech twice in a row! They loved Romney as well, and the commentators are pretty much all in line, except for Roland Martin once in awhile. Its weird, sometimes they are Neocon, y'know? And then they are favoring Obama over Hillary. The more extreme candidates? They's like the Far Right and the Far Left to lock horns? I mean, not that Obama is far Left, but you know what I mean - they seem to want to be perverse in some way. They invite these perverse people to comment who hate McCain and hate Hillary - People like Bill Bennett, Ralph Reed, Tom Delay, and Glen Beck. CNN is getting creepy!
I support amnesty for illegals. I want these folks made citizens with all the rights and benefits as the rest of us. Think about it. How happy are the rest of us with taxes, regulations, crime and high prices? Make them like us, and there will be a flood to return.
I agree that Wolf had his agenda during the Dem debate, but what was even more shameful to me was watching Anderson Cooper's performance the night before at the Republican debate. It had to have been one of the worst moderated debates ever.
Why don't we hear the people running for presidential election talk about Social Security and ensuring it will be there for people when they need it?
Not connected with the above comments, BUT I am tired of hearing about the controversy about Florida and Michigan.
The states broke the rules. Therefore, the voters should take up their case with the state powers that be. End of story.
There is no need for endless discussion about this. Either the votes were legit. or not. It appears they were not. THEREFORE, they should not count at this stage. The voters will have a chance to vote again inthe real election.
This tendentious nonsense smacks of the ridiculous time when we heard about 'hanging chads', 'pregnant chads', etc. Either a vote is valid or not. OK?
every evening at 4:00 p.m. when wolf blitzer comes on my wife and i have a little bet when wolf introduces jack cafferty if he (jack) will he or will he not start out with quote, if hillary clinton. I always win most of the time because he starts out with hillary.
wamu bank a very bad bank or bank from witch ever. we would like to have justise. we have sent a email to sunnys law anderson cooper lou dobbs nancy grace and you for help with this bad bank we have alot of imformation on.them and things they did to us. thank you roger kimble and tom reiber. could one of you please help us.
|
