by willyloman
TheZoo did some great live blogging during the debate, here. During which, we quickly came to the conclusion that the overall jist of the thing seemed more like a Clinton campaign staff meeting on spinning the debacle of her last outing. We were not alone in that assessment.
It turns out that all the questions from the independent voters, in the last hour of the debate, had been previously approved and selected by CNN. CNN staffers had these people submit a variety of questions on varying topics, prior to the debate, and then CNN writers selected which ones they would allow to be asked. Story, here, at The Atlantic.
The best and most shining example was the young girl, who’s question about Hillary liking ‘diamonds or pearls” wrapped up the national coverage. She had also submitted a question about the future of the Yucca Mountain Facility, but apparently that one didn’t make the cut.
So every single question, for the entire night, was carefully selected or scripted by CNN. But it gets MUCH worse.
And if that wasn’t enough to make sure that everyone watching came away with a happy-joy feeling about Hillary, after the debate, CNN hosted a panel discussion where several “independent” commentators could reflect on the debate and decide who really prevailed.
The panel was made up of James Carville, David Gergen and J.C. Watts. Here’s a little background of the panelists that CNN selected to present the post mortem summery for the debate.
James Carville: Former advisor to the Bill Clinton White House and informal advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign..
- In fact he “gained national attention for his work as the lead strategist of the successful Bill Clinton campaign in 1992“.
- “Carville has since stopped working on domestic campaigns, stating that he would bring unneeded publicity,” Unless, of course, you can find some way to work for the campaign without people knowing you are working for the campaign. Say like, being a commentator for CNN?
- During the post mortem Carville said “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.”
- During the post mortem Carville said about Obama’s 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,”
David Gergen: Former advisor on foreign affairs to President Bill Clinton.
- Member of Council on Foreign Relations
- Member of Bilderberg Group
- Member of Tri-Lateral Commission
- Spoke favorable of Hillary’s performance during the post mortem.
J.C. Watts: Republican Congressman from 1994 to 2002.
- On the Board of Directors for Clear Channel
- On the Board of Directors for Terex Corporation
- Also had a favorable review of Hillary’s performance.
34 Comments
November 17, 2007 at 9:48 am
I think that it’s sickening that the Clinton has called the election for president a ‘mans club’. On one hand she want’s to break thru the barriers to become the first female (at least I believe she’s female) president on one hand, and on another she is still wanting to be treated like a girl. Oh, you can’t do this, or say that cause she’s a girl. Heaven forbid a woman mention that she’s not qualified for this job, or a man mention her looks because that is simply offensive to her female-hood. If she gets elected president, it will be a disaster of Biblical proportions.
November 17, 2007 at 9:49 am
Well, Since John Kerry or Wesly Clark aren’t running, I will not be Voting.
November 17, 2007 at 10:10 am
I’m sick of these debates…The new’s media and other big business has decided to pick Hillery for us and every one else running is set up like stage props.
Some of the boy’s must be hopeing and wondering if she will pick them for VP…If the Dem. party nominate’s her and at the present it appear’s they will, I will write in (essentiely) throwing away my vote..This will be a first for me, ever……
Doe’s any one have the time count’s yet.? Know it was broken down with the top 3 getting the most but sure would like to see it…Blessings
November 17, 2007 at 10:44 am
I think Hillary is trying to be all things to all people, appeal to ALL groups. She is so utterly transparent, artificial, and calculating. I don’t trust her any more than I trust GW Bush. She is being manufactured and shoved down our throats.
November 17, 2007 at 10:59 am
Witch1,
Please don’t ever feel that by not voting for the Democratic or Republican nominee, that you are “throwing away [your] vote.” That is a mindset that the two major political parties have managed to instill in people for a long time. It is not true. It is, in fact, the very point of Democracy. It is YOUR vote to cast, not their vote to expect from you. You decide who gets it, not them. I’ve said it often, but I’ll say it again. The best thing that could happen to this country would be for neither of the two major political parties to have a clear majority in either House of Congress. Then they would actually have to negotiate with the members from other parties to win votes, instead of running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with what they want to pass. The best way to show them who’s in charge is to vote for a third party, at all levels of federal government.
November 17, 2007 at 11:05 am
Yep! nwmuse, your post seems correct thinking to me…
gotfreedumb, I have never missed a vote, know how you feel though and find this entire created mess sickning…
Across the country there must be million’s thinking the same as we do…I wonder if it will be transfered and amount to anything at the convention or if all the delegate’s will be force fed and buy into this garbage…..Blessings
November 17, 2007 at 11:13 am
Good Morning Wayne, good to read you here….Thank’s for the pep write up, realy..
I want Kucenich and he will be a write in if he doe’s not get the nod…I have done a lot of research on some of the other’s including Ron Paul and he and many other’s are hiding behind ugly group’s and terrible past voting record’s that are contrary to my libral thinking..
You are correct in your post, I planned to do what I want this time and not buy into the party or else thinking…..Blessings
November 17, 2007 at 11:18 am
Morning Wayne and witch1! I am here, just sort of monitoring, trying to find a few other things to put up.
Wayne, thanks for what you wrote. My husband accuses me of throwing my vote away sometimes. I feel strongly that I have to stand by my convictions. I will vote for Kucinich, even if I have to write him in. He is the most passionate, genuine, committed to the Constitution and the rule of law candidate out there. He is willing to stand up for what is right, even if he is out there by himself, and he isn’t giving up.
He has earned my respect and admiration.
November 17, 2007 at 11:32 am
That’s the spirit that made this country great! (Not some capitalist’s vision for making himself fabulously wealthy.) When you step up to that voting booth (or table, or whatever they use in your state), no one can tell you for whom to mark your ballot, not even your spouse or significant other (or dog). It is YOUR vote, and you get to decide who gets it. YOU get to decide who has earned your vote, not them.
We need to convince the American people that their vote only means something when it is freely cast and from the heart. And it’s possible we could get some help in this effort from people we might not have thought would go along with us otherwise. (Face it, they wouldn’t otherwise.) And that is the Religious Right. James Dobson and Tony Perkins have said that if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, they will back someone else. If they want that someone else to win, then they will also have to convince the American People that a vote for a non-Democrat or non-Republican is NOT a “wasted vote”. I find it surreal that they (extremely religious) and I (extremely atheist and anti-organized religion) would be arguing for the same thing, but that’s the beauty of American politics.
Anyway, remember to vote for whomever you think best represents your interests, not simply against someone you don’t want to see win. But even more important than that is to actually go out and VOTE. It’s not really a democracy if most of the public stays home and watches the coverage on TV (only to complain about who won.)
November 17, 2007 at 11:50 am
There is a reason why the Dems won’t participate in a debate hosted by Fox. It’s the tough questions.
November 17, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Uh huh, that must be the reason, smrtas1.
It couldn’t be that Fox has no resemblance to a news channel…
November 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm
smrtas1, I don’t agree, but think as you choose. The reason I don’t agree is because I have watched lot’s of fox programs and found them all to be nothing more than sensationalism, made up crap, but like I said, think as you choose.
November 17, 2007 at 12:46 pm
You mean like Dan Rather using fake documents? 60 Minutes rigging explosions on cars? NYT having journalists that have been proven to be faking storys? AP photographers photoshopping attacks to have more smoke and destruction?
You don’t see a difference in the way Dems are asked questions on CNN vs. the way Reps are (which is the exact opposite on fox which is my point)?
All news nets use sensationalism.
But the point remains, the Dems will not participate in a debate in a forum that doesn’t agree with their point of view. Even worse, when they do, the moderator seems to be rooting for a particular candidate.
To another point, I admire the attitude of vote with your convictions. There is an interactive chart on MSNBC that allows you to agree or disagree with a candidates positons on various topics. When viewed in the aggregate, most people more strongly disagree with Hillary and Giuliani, but they remain the front runners. All the while more people agree with the positions of Ron Paul and Richardson, who are well behind (note that the interactive changes from week to week).
Seems like a lot of people are willing to vote for who they think will win vs. who they agree with.
November 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm
**yawn**
What about Sandy Berger? Can you find a way to through him in there too, smrtas?
See ya later, all.
November 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Unfortunately, smrtas1, I think many people are willing to let the MSM tell them what they are supposed to think. I think that is why the media can get away with what they do. Like this last debate. Wayne said it well. Its only a debate if you give all the candidates the SAME questions and the SAME amount of time to answer it, then let the viewers (i.e. voters, Americans) decided for ourselves which candidate is worthy of our respect and our votes.
This wasn’t a debate, it was manipulation, and theater.
November 17, 2007 at 1:03 pm
smrtas1, I’m not going to waste my time and your’s flipping what the right or left is wrong about or what they have presented in the past..Not today any way. My schedules to full and not enough room here to post it…
What I will say is, there is no point in carving up candidates in front of the public and all should have equal time to state their ideas…Of the 4 you listed above, only one, Richardson would even get a glance but not a vote from me… H & G are not my pick and very much alike, RP is worse than what we now have and has an ugly voting record and backed by dreadful hate groups, Richardson would make an outstanding diplomat…Not my pick as pres…Vote as you choose..These are merely my view’s and I will vote for the best man running, Kucenich has all the best qualaties, backed up by year’s of voting…He back’s our constitution and I back him..
November 17, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Sorry all But, **** Free DUMB!(fill in the blank)
November 17, 2007 at 1:09 pm
And **** Demon a cracy.
AND
Re **** li CONS
November 17, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Afternoon, all.
Willy, great story. The latest democratic “debate” was a two-hour campaign ad for Hillary. From the first hour, in which about half of the questions boiled down to “How do you feel about Hillary?”, to the second hour, where, as you pointed out, all the questions were scripted and censored by CNN, to the post-mortem, which was nothing more than all three “pundits” fawning over Hillary in a thoroughly nauseating manner, the fix was most assuredly in.
I don’t expect Kucinich to win the nomination, but I’m voting for him all the same. It’s the only morally responsible course of action, and the fact that it’s doomed to failure does not excuse one from making the attempt.
November 17, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I don’t understand this. What does it Mean?
and the fact that it’s doomed to failure “does not excuse one from making the attempt”.?
Whats the point of Making an Attempt?
I’ve allready told all. America IS Armageddon.
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/revelation_16.html
the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
17 ¶ And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts,
November 17, 2007 at 1:27 pm
nwmuse sez:
EXACTLY, nwmuse…reminds me of when Jon Stewart was on Crossfire.
Do you guys remember that? No? Well, here’s an excerpt (emphasis mine
):
November 17, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I watched it (and taped it) that day. It was stunning. For once, unscripted and real.
November 17, 2007 at 2:17 pm
My points were, you can’t drop a ‘fox isn’t a legit news source because they make everything up and only the CNN and the likes tell the truth’. I actually spend most of my time watching several news outlets, so I get both sides of the story.
My other point was that according to several 100 thousand people on the MSNBC site, they all don’t agree with the front runners for the most part, but with 2nd (or lower) tier candidates. It sort of seemed relevant to nwmuse was saying.
Zooey, I would have used Sandy Burgler, but he is a thief and not an example of the lying that happens in the MSN that everybody seems to trust.
November 17, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Well, smrtas1, we will have to disagree. There are a lot of things wrong with all the media outlets. But, I don’t consider Fox as a legitimate news source. They get their talking points from the White House. There are things that don’t get reported on at all if it reflects badly on the administration. They are just a bullhorn for Bush and Cheney.
I stopped watching Fox at ALL on October 9, 2004, following what happened with their “reporting” of the bombing of the resort in Taba Egypt. It was a month before the 2004 Bush/Kerry election. I don’t watch Fox anyways, but while flipping through the channels I happened onto Fox immediately after the bombing occurred and they were covering it.
I was absolutely stunned to hear the reporter ask the head of the resort questions about the bombing, and then inserting something to the effect of “well, I guess this is what Americans can expect to have happen in the US if Kerry is elected president”. I almost fell out of my chair. He was supposed to be a news reporter, reporting a tragic news incident, and yet, he stood their inserting that kind of propaganda into his report. It was the most vile, irresponsible thing I had ever witnessed on a “news” channel – ever.
I jumped out of my chair and immediately wrote a scathing letter to Fox, and to this day, nobody in our house is allowed to have anything on Fox played on our TV.
November 17, 2007 at 2:53 pm
smrtas1 says “Zooey, I would have used Sandy Burgler, but he is a thief and not an example of the lying that happens in the MSN that everybody seems to trust.”
Apparently you didn’t actually READ the article I wrote. Where in it does it say we trust anything about their coverage of the debate?
“Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions…”
the misperceptions? “public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq…”
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
November 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm
John Gibson of Faux News said this:
“So are doubts about all this good news the reason that Bush’s disapproval numbers are so high? I don’t think so. I think it is instead the tide of bad news turning to better or — dare I say it — good news isn’t discussed in the media. Instead it’s a constant drumbeat of things are bad, we’re losing the war, you’re going to lose your job and your house.
On yet another front, a published report today said that homelessness is virtually over. People may have crushing mortgages, but they have homes.
So all in all, the war is going in our favor. Proof of that is that Democrats have shut up about it. Bush has made sure you have a job, and this economy has insured you have a home.”
WoW! Homelessness is OVER?!? 25% of vets are either homeless or facing homelessness….
The real money earnings for 80% of this country are down…
“This economy has insured you have a home…”? Morgage foreclosures are higher than at any time in this countries history….
Yeah, Fox great. Very truthful.
November 17, 2007 at 3:41 pm
We could debate all day on how each news outlet colors all storys to tilt toward their agendas, fox included.
Take swift boat vets. Fox presented their story as credible, CNN as a pack of lies. The problem is that I don’t think either had it all correct.
The problem is that many people don’t seem to have an issue with a moderator asking a question of a rep and then taking issue with the answer (ala Chris Matthews) on MSNBC. However, the debate on CNN to be a little too pro-hillary. Does that make CNN illegit?
Anybody know what the news network ratings are?
November 17, 2007 at 4:14 pm
smrtas1 asks “Does that make CNN illegit?”
Well, yes… it does.
You see, the problem is that we are begining to expect a certain amount of “slant” from news agencies. All News Agencies.
That is not acceptable. Because that means will only concider into the equation, what we know about or what is exposed as slant.
And what is the difference between “slant” and “spin” and ‘bias” and outright lies?
When do we start to notice they are just lying to us outright?
How many outright lies does your minister or accountant get to tell you, in the name of political bias or spin?
Your police officer? Your General? Your judge? Your child? Your wife?
Since this administration lied us into an illegal war for profit margins, we must DEMAND a “no tolerence policy” of our candidates as well as our MEDIA!
Because, remember Smrtas1, the media’s lied to us about Iraq as well. I mean, if I knew these stories were crap, and I don’t have the resources or the time the media outlets have, how did they not see it as well?
The answer is, they did see it. They just chose not to report it. That was their BIAS. And people died and are still dying for it.
November 17, 2007 at 4:19 pm
My bad on the 25% number…. should read “25% of the homeless are vets!”
big difference. However, if you consider the rate of suicides amoung vets these days (I think I read 100+ per month? week?) there would surely be alot more of them homeless…..
Thank you muse, for pointing out the stats slip.
November 17, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Anybody know what the news network ratings are?
If the implication here is that Fox is in the lead, then that only demonstrates the sad state of affairs in this country. It just makes me sad.
Take swift boat vets. Fox presented their story as credible, CNN as a pack of lies. The problem is that I don’t think either had it all correct.
I think the better example would have been how Fox went after Dan Rather’s story on Bush’s going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. And, it wasn’t just Fox, it was most of the MSM. That substance of the story by Rather WAS entirely correct, he just got nailed on the document he used. (I still wonder how much of an accident that was). That story first aired on the BBC in a piece by Greg Palast. That story has NEVER been challenged and BBC has never retracted a word of it. Why? Because it was true.
Americans don’t know that because of the Fox spin/smear campaign.
http://www.gregpalast.com/dan-rather-tased-and-confused/
If you are interested in truth as opposed to accepting propaganda, try reading more sources and learn for yourself, instead of needed to have it spoon fed to you by Roger Ailes and Fox News.
November 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm
No problem Willy.
The number on the suicides was 125/week (in 2005 alone)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/15/cbs-news-investigates-shocking-rate-of-veteran-suicides/
November 17, 2007 at 4:38 pm
As far as the news goes, I think just about ALL of them are now geared as info-news-tainment. They are not interested in substance any more. It is about entertaining and ratings. They depend too much on investors and advertising. They are owned by too few very wealthy powerful individuals. It is almost as bad as reality shows. Whatever grabs people. I will mention MSNBC here. I love listening to Keith Olbermann every night, but the last 5 minutes it goes off. I can’t bear to listen to another word about Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or Paris Hilton. Enough already. Then that is always followed up with an American pervert show. What is that about???
Sensationalize everything, milking it for all its worth. They also want the scoop, and the WH made it clear early on, ‘you’re either with or or you’re against us’ mentality. You ask probing or difficult questions, you get squeezed out or excluded. You want access to the WH, you play along by their rules.
Its not news any more – not the way news is supposed to be. Nobody investigates any more – they take dictation, add graphics, video and sound.
November 17, 2007 at 4:40 pm
And one last important point. I listened to someone (Greg Palast I think) talking about how so much news now comes ‘canned’, prepackaged and ready to go. It comes from the WH and the military. It looks like the other news. You have no way of knowing what is real and what is false, plain old-fashioned propaganda. That is just the way they want it. I know this isn’t new, but it has been perfected.
I am not interested in the presentation, I am interested in the truth. It has gotten lost in the process.
November 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm
One last little shot by the witch.Note the new post above regarding FOX snooze…Blessings