cross posted @ One Million Strong
When you own the media, call in favors, plant questions, what else can you conclude?
CNN was looked at as the real fair and balanced network.
After this debate, not so, any longer.
For Wolf Blizter to not give Obama and Edwards a chance for follow up questions, and give Clinton all the time in the world, what would you call it?
Then planted questions. Again?
And of course, first hand account of what really happened in Las Vegas, what do you come away with?
Questions of how that debate was handled. How CNN and moderator let those boos go, like business as usual. And the boos were only directed to Edwards and Obama.
And the post debate debacle.
CNN have lowered their credentials to those of Fox News.
Meaning? Fake, unfactual, bogus, lousy, critique, at the expense of six candidates to protect and keep Hillary Clinton, the "front runner".
Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.
Mr. Carville’s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.
"Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?" Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.
Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: "What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection."
Remember, David Gergin was also on the scene, a former Clinton adviser. And then of course, Carville, Clinton's close friend adviser. Now can someone tell me how anyone can get a fair and balanced shake, with these analysts? They can not. And then, Anderson Cooper, followed the script and did very little to disclose anything, but continued to give Clinton glowing rhetorical platitudes, while calling Edwards campaign over and stating Obama did nothing in the debate.
Now the outrage is warranted and the handling of the whole debate questionable, since we have another planted question story, surrounding Clinton. One can only really ask, "Was this debate rigged?"
The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas that ran nearly 15 minutes late. Viewers criticized segments like the opening, when candidates bounded onto the stage in a style reminiscent of a sports event.
Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions.
Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, a student who asked Mrs. Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls (Mrs. Clinton answered "both"), said she had prepared a list of more serious questions but had been directed by CNN to ask her trivial question.
CNN said the debate was the most watched in this campaign, drawing more than four million viewers.
Viewers directed most of their criticism at the commentary. The channel has been ridiculed by conservative groups as the Clinton News Network, partly because its commentators include Mr. Carville and Paul Begala, an adviser to President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Carville said in a phone interview that he did not have a role in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and that he had "never been paid a nickel by her."
He also said he considered her a close personal friend, had contributed to her presidential effort, had friends working for her campaign, planned to vote for her in the Virginia primary and spoke to Mr. Clinton regularly.
He also sent a fund-raising e-mail message last spring on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf, Newsday reported in February.
Why is James Carville on CNN doing ANY ANALYSIS of his close personal friend?
To stop the bleeding, of course. To skew the debate win, Clinton's way. To try to make CNN look as they monitored an above board debate, vs. the real debate that took place in Philadelphia, by NBC and Tim Russert.
But, to let the public know, that Clinton is back, she is the inevitable candidate, and we must accept it.
If the point was to elicit illumination, the transcript shows more interruptions than anything else. The low point--and it's a very revealing low point--came right at the end when Maria Luisa, a UNLV student, asked Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls. Talk about a softball question. It's not exactly "boxers or briefs," but it's close.
True to form, Clinton straddled the answer, saying she likes them both. We sure don't want to offend the pearl crowd, do we? But what the heck does that have to do with picking a president? The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing.
And the truth came out today when CNN, which is widely believed among Clinton opponents and others to favor the New York senator's candidacy, admitted that a producer allegedly seeking to end the "debate" on a light note gave the question to the student. (Does giving a question to a student to ask Hillary Clinton ring a bell for anyone?)
oh, but it continues:
So it's not too shocking that Politico.com today reported that these former Clinton employees had this to say about Hillary: "David Gergen had opened the coverage by declaring: 'The fire seemed to go out of Obama, and she regained her stride.' James Carville, a Clinton supporter, added: 'Senator Clinton's people ... have to be pretty pleased tonight that they certainly reversed a trend.'"
Good news for the Clinton people from some other Clinton people.
My call: Bullshit.
My call: Debate, rigged.
My call: Wolf Blizter, worst moderator ever.
My call: Analysts, all friends of Clinton's except J.C.Watts.
My call: The public is not stupid.
My call: The winner everyone else, but Clinton and CNN.
Now. Attack if you will. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Update [2007-11-17 10:32:13 by icebergslim]: