»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf?
| The Alley |
|
Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
"CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux..."...The Drudge Report Seems like trouble in paradise here. The press, even the lefties, is finding out that asking specific questions and requesting answers is going on to dangerous ground in the Clinton campground. Tim Russert, whose car can only make left turns, felt the wrath last week for daring to ask for answers and now Wolf is getting warnings before the fact not to make the same mistake. Hillary speaking against character assassination? Hold the belly laughs, please  Guess she only feels comfortable with planted questioners in the audience...  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
So Wolf is being told that he is not allowed to have freedom of expression? Whatever in the world are we coming to? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand, what is a debate? And why would an impartial moderator of that debate focus on one debater more than the others? On the face of it, I think it's a reasonable request. On the other hand, why would any politician want to avoid that kind of exposure? Hilary should tell everyone else to stay home and let them turn the debate into an interview. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
why do you have to pick on a woman?  Attacking Hillary's charactor will win her sympathy, and somehow make her shine errily. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And why would an impartial moderator of that debate focus on one debater more than the others? The question is, Ron, what is the definition of "picking on"? Would it constitute asking rational questions and requiring an answer? That's all Tim Russert did and he has been villified ever since....Tim Russert, who can't possibly have an evil bone in his body and is certainly not part of any "right wing conspiracy". Journalists as well as the audience and rival debaters caught Mrs. Clinton being “evasive on at least five different issues,” observed MSNBC reporter David Shuster. She afterwards tried to cover these embarrassing gaffs by unleashing what Shuster called “the Clinton fog machine,” whose apparatchiks used tactics of distraction that included “trashing the [debate] moderators” by accusing NBC’s Tim Russert and Brian Williams of unfairness to their candidate. During a conference call after the debate led by Clinton operatives Mark Penn and Jonathan Mantz, one zealous Clinton supporter said the journalists’ questions “were designed to incite a brawl.” Russert became a target because he asked questions that took the former first lady off balance. He pressed her to say whether she supported New York Democratic Gov. Elliot Spitzer’s plan to give state driver's licenses to illegal aliens. As with several other questions, Mrs. Clinton avoided a clear yes or no answer. Her aim, not uncommon among politicians, was to give an answer that would make those on both sides of this thorny issue believe she was on their side. http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/hillary_russert/2007/11/02/46174.html Hands off Hillary must mean don't ask anything that could make her uncomfortable or put her in an unfavorable light if she either chooses not to answer or doesn't have one. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hillary Clinton has evidently hit some sort of snag in her campaign, even if her Democratic rivals have failed thus far to stand out as alternatives to Hillary with real ideas in the eyes of most Americans. Look, these last two weeks have easily been two of the most forgettable weeks of her campaign thus far, from their own point of view. After consecutive months of upward momentum, she has slided in the polls this month, with Obama gaining 13 percentage points on Clinton in a new New Hampshire poll (although Obama is pretty much exactly where he was since the previous poll, and it's because of Edwards and Richardson gaining in the latest poll that Obama's deficit to her has been cut dramatically) Obviously that one poll was released BEFORE the question-plating, and I actually don't expect that will really hurt Clinton's campaign since most Americans recognize question-planting is hardly new in politics. However, this will feed into a wider narrative about Clinton being calculating and opportunistic as it is already in the minds of roughly half of Americans, and this just serves as another coating of sinew to that negative perception. Actually, I think two things explain that loss of continuing upwards momentum in the polls. First, she had a rough moment during a recent MSNBC debate, where she advocated a move to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants kind of like what New York's governor Eliot Spitzer is currently doing, which puts her on the wrong side of a major populist issue. Secondly, she has angered many anti-war constituents in particular with her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which basically would begin to set the rhetorical stage for a potential war with Iran. It was looking like, for a while, many in the anti-war community were in a forgiving mood toward her for her original vote on the Iraq war and coming to her senses, believing she had learned her lesson, but now after seeing her vote in favor of that amendment (which presidnetial candidates Dodd and Biden opposed) that anger is back in full swing more or less. * So why is Clinton suddenly choosing both to play the "Don't pick on me, I'm a woman!" card, more or less? Because she realizes that, arguably for the first time in her entire campaign, she's on the defensive, and the pressure is on her, where she now appears more vulnerable than many had thought for months before. So, she's opportunistically dodging debate bullets out of belief that her Achilles' heel will be further touched upon, as both Obama and Edwards go increasingly on the offensive. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm not too sure WHY that would be the question, Mike, since it's the first time in this thread the phrase has even surfaced, but okay, let's start with that for now. There's a big difference between an answer and a soundbite, and an even bigger difference between asking for clarification and requiring an answer. I didn't watch the debate, so I honestly don't know what happened. I'm not going to blindly accept anyone's characterization of the event, however, especially when I've seen so much blatant mischaracterization. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Some questions don't have easy answers that lend themselves to the limitations of a formal debate. "Please answer yes or no, and oh by the way, you have thirty seconds, so please explain your answer in depth." You can't both require an answer AND impose restrictions or conditions. I'll even give you a for-instance. If someone pressed ME to say whether I supported Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, I would likely run into exactly the same problems, because any yes or no answer would necessarily be inaccurate. Such questions conflate the tactic and the strategy, attempting to tie a single answer to both. It would be like asking me if I support Bush's plan to save America. Hell, no! (Actually, I would probably ask what plan?) But the implication that I don't want to save America is, obviously, wrong. I can disagree with the tactics being proposed while still finding value in the strategic goals. When you ask two different questions at the same time, with potentially different answers, I think you're pretty much setting someone up to look evasive. I don't know if that's what happened, and if it did happen, I don't know if it was intentional. I do recognize the possibility, though. I'm not sure what the big deal is, though. The last time I remember any politician, Republican or Democrat, not being evasive during a campaign was the famous "Read my lips" incident. And, as we all know, that turned out to be a lie. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Your examples are pertinent in some situations, ron. This is not one of them. It's not a question of having two different opinions or loaded questions like wife-beating. There were several examples but the main one that seemed to incense the Clinton group was the release of the White House records. Hillary claims her qualifications consist of her time spent in the White House, most of all. Bill Clinton has demanded that those records not be made public until 2012. Hillary was asked why that was. Her answer was that the Bureau of records had their own schedule and she had nothing to do with it. Bill Clinton says it was a lie that he demanded the records be kept private. The Bureau says the files are all ready to be released, pending the go ahead from Clinton's lawyers. Hillary says she doesn't know anything about it. When these facts were brought up and questioned, russert and Williams were accused of browbeating and ganging up on her. As I say, your examples don't fit here...and there is a difference between requesting and warning. Blitzer has been warned. I feel certain that warning follows the lines of "If you ask her a question and she chooses not to give a direct answer, don't push it". Let's see how it goes..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Folks, My understanding is that the Drudge Report has not proved historically to be a reliable source for information (though these are getting more difficult to find in general these days). Am I incorrect here? If anybody would like do do some digging, I'd be interested to learn more, but I understand that he's been know to fabricate stories. Is this true? Have the folks that Matt Drudge says told him about the information he's passing on to us here got any names he's willing to share? And who are these people that are proportedly trying to limit the type of questions Mr Russert is able to ask? Those are some names I'd really like to see, because I'll bet the FCC would come down on them like a ton of bricks, wouldn't they? Perhaps somebody might help me here? because I didn't see any names mentioned in the posting here. I haven't had much time to check with the news the last few days, but given this situation, Mr. Russert must be absolutely furious. Not being a man known to be happy with brooking curtailments of freedom of press, not to mention freedom of speech, he must have raised quite a fuss. Would someone be kind enough to let me know where I might read about his reactions? I'm sure I simply must have missed them. I've been spending time writing and collecting rejection slips, so my attention's been elsewhere, and I've only mastered a few functions on the computer. Best to all, and I hope all is well, BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My mistake, I thought that the journalist in question had been Tim Russert. I'm very sorry, my bad! On the other hand, I didn't see anybody suggest, in the posting above, that Wolf Blitzer's car only took left turns. So I imagine his indignation at being pressured by—I think the suggestion was left wing pressure groups—is even more outlandish than the thought of Mr. Russert's acceptance of such stuff. Can anybody direct me to news reports of Mr. Blitzer's justifiable outrage at such treatment? I would be willing to add an e-mail of outrage myself at the people responsible for such tactics. Yours, BobK |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
