Debatable Impressions

[H2O Man]

I enjoyed watching the CNN debate last night. I thought that the democratic candidates showed that our party has the potential to exercise the type of leadership that is going to be necessary to repair the severe damage that the current administration has done, both domestically and internationally..

At this point, I have not decided which candidate I will vote for in the primary. There are some that I like more than others. The debate tended to reinforce that, and I thought a couple candidates did very well. Yet none of them made what I consider any serious blunder, and each candidate’s supporters have reason to believe their favorite did well.

With 100% certainty, I can say that I will support the democratic nominee for president in 2008. My focus today isn’t to advocate for one candidate, or to attack another. Rather, I had a couple of impressions that I thought were important. I’m curious what other DUers think about these things.

First, I thought it was obvious that Wolf Blitzer of CNN favored one candidate, and was looking to discredit and/or marginalize the others. A number of his questions seem to paraphrase a Woody Allen quote, by stating that we are at a crossroads, with one path leading to complete tragedy, the other to unqualified catastrophe ….. could you please give a one-word answer as to which route you would lead the nation on ?

The best questions, by far, came from the audience. CNN felt it necessary to provide journalists’ interpretation, but the strength of the citizens’ concerns came through. At other times, I thought the CNN folks failed to address what appeared to be organized audience interference with a couple of candidate’s responses to questions.

As we move further into the primary season, I think that the debate provided food for thought on a number of important issues. Despite the unpopularity of the Bush-Cheney administration, and the odd cast of characters in the republican primary, I do not think we can afford to take the ’08 election for granted. The Cheneyites are intent upon increasing tensions with Iran, and the possibility of some military strikes on targets within Iran is real. More, the republican machine is going to be working overtime in the next year to attack democrats; this will include any nominee, as well as our candidates for the House and Senate. It will get ugly, and you can count on the "journalists" in the lap dog media to do their best to help their masters.

The republicans do not have the only machine in the business. We see folks from various camps attempting to "spin" the results of the debate. Even on progressive internet discussion forums, you read things about what a wonderful job Wolf Blitzer did, or how the audience reaction to one candidate "proves" his or her lack of popularity. Baloney. Reject such obvious attempts at perception management. Think for yourself.

Our candidates seem to offer differences, from wanting to fine-tune the national machine, to wanting to make large systematic changes. Which candidate best represents your values? Which one seems most likely to be able to win next November? Which candidate do you think would be most capable of getting programs through congress in the next four years? These are the important questions for people to be thinking about.

[madokie]

1. Thank you

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you.

Sometimes I post things on DU, fully aware that they might not be as popular or spark the response of some of the angrier threads of the day. But I think that there are a good many DUers who recognize that this is an important time for all of to step back and take an objective measure of where we are, and where we want to go. That has to include being realistic about what something like strikes on Iran will mean to our country in '08.

[madokie]

11. we must get it right this time cause if we don't the Coup is done, finished

over with, America will be lost. I trully believe that with my whole being

[H2O Man]

17. I agree

100%.

[rodeodance]

2. I think it was Campbell Brown who did a poor job last night-wanted a fight!

.First, I thought it was obvious that Wolf Blitzer of CNN favored one candidate, and was looking to discredit and/or marginalize the others. A number of his questions seem to paraphrase a Woody Allen quote, by stating that we are at a crossroads, with one path leading to complete tragedy, the other to unqualified catastrophe ….. could you please give a one-word answer as to which route you would lead the nation on ?

[H2O Man]

5. I think that

Ms. Brown has far more in common with Lynn Cheney than with me; hence, I had little interest in her approach to the debate. The audience questions, on the other hand, were the type of things I want to hear the candidates answer. I think that the media could increase interest in the political process if they had more of the citizens' questions, and less of the Ms. Bowns'.

[malaise]

10. Bingo

Great thread.

[CTyankee]

37. You could see that Campbell thought her smug "question" was perfectly legit.

Clinton's retort was one of the best moments of political theatre I have seen in a quite a while. Her eyes slightly narrowed, a hint of a smile on her lips and said "Campbell." It dropped like rock, as if she had said, "Why do you say something THAT stupid?". Poor, idiotic Campbell, I kept thinking, "when Hillary gets into the White House, you are so screwed."

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

38. I caught that and thought it was pretty effin fabulous!!!

:bounce: Yes, indeedy!!! It takes a LOT of maturity, class and COUTH to make that work.

It was, ummm,...loverly!!! *giggle*

[CTyankee]

40. If I were Campbell, I'd have sunk under the table!

Man, that Clinton look and tone was harsh! I can see Hillary now in her first meeting with Musharref as she gets that look and says "PERVEZ."

If for no other reason, we should elect Hillary so leaders around the world see that we don't have to have a president who is an idiot. Personally, I liked that she was almost scary. With some people, you have to be!

[demnan]

3. Good post

Our debates are always better than the Republicans, mostly because with all the faults inherent in us, we still have a more populist approach to the issues and desire to solve them.

[H2O Man]

7. Exactly.

I can remember a time when I had respect for Senator McCain. Few things sum up what is wrong with their current crop of candidates as his willingness to humiliate himself by cuddling up to the reactionary right to gain their support.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. You are so right. What it great post!

I have seen many "obviously it proves" posts here lately. My morning improved considerably upon reading your reasoned and articulate post.

K & R, of course! :applause:

:kick:

MKJ

[H2O Man]

9. Yep.

We see an organized attempt in the media and on the internet to "frame the message" for us. I suppose that in many cases, it's their job. And it is part of campaigning.

I thought the audience questions were far superior to the journalists'. That is evidence that we are fully capable of thinking for ourselves.

[crispini]

8. I did think -- judging by the debate time clock

that CNN did a marginally better job of getting all the candidates (except DK) some debate time:

[H2O Man]

15. Good point.

I think that any time there is a public debate that doesn't give one candidate anything approaching equal time, it forces that person to decide between trying to make brief rational points, or tossing out the zingers that make a :10 second sound bite. The sound bite does get more play, but it risks the candidate being defined as something of an Rev. Al Sharpton. And no matter if one supports Dennis Kucinich or not, he is raising serious issues that deserve both respect and attention in the format of a good debate.

The positive thing, in my opinion, is that some of our second-tier candidates prove that they are thoughtful, intelligent leaders. I like both Biden and Dodd. Both have some things that aren't positive, of course, but they are both qualified to be president in 2008.

[hlthe2b]

18. I personally see evidence of serious bias...

when one member of the top tier so exceeds not only the front runner, but the current third place candidate-- not to mention the moderator nearly exceeding the time of the front runner. "Methinks" Wolfie wanted to do a bit of "king-making." Just a pure observation from the distributions....

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

36. .

[antigop]

12. "Reject such obvious attempts at perception management." That's what marketing and PR firms are for

Right? Perception management?

[H2O Man]

16. Right.

It is not something limited to marketing or PR firms. I think that there are people in the media and on the internet who may have undisclosed ties to those firms. But I also think there are individuals who have learned the tactics quite well.

[antigop]

19. I should have added a snarky emoticon to my question...n/t

[H2O Man]

22. Why? n/t

[antigop]

23. See link...

http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Practices_And_Specialties/Specialized_Capabilities/Advertising/Pages/default.aspx

>>
Our process is simple. Understand the current perception of the target audience. Determine what perception is needed to change the target audience's behavior. And then design a campaign that will help create that new perception.
>>

[H2O Man]

24. Sure.

Every campaign is based on a simple formula. There are three groups: (1) Those who support you; (2) Those who oppose you; and (3) The undecided. Every campaign identifies these groups, and then seeks to solidify the support of group 1; avoid doing things to increase group 2 activity; and convince group 3 to join them. This is the same formula for both good and bad politicians. The process now involves politicians with corporations in their group 1, and those include the corporations that own the media, and PR firms.

[hlthe2b]

13. Nice summary...My take having only heard (XM-CNN)

the debate. I too am undecided. The lack of an early primary gives me this luxury, yet I am watching closely.

Since I could not watch the debate (though I've seen a couple of video clips since), my impressions of the moderator, Blitzer were strongly formed from what I heard. His grating interruptions were overwhelming with some candidates and when they were getting into areas he did NOT wish to be discussed (e.g., Kucinich and impeachment-- perhaps the best example). I agree he was either biased toward one candidate, or conversely so strongly biased against the others that his directing of "probing" questions moved from the provocative to nearly insulting. The tenor of many questions seemed without merit for a Presidential campaign, but more appropriate to local or at best, statewide elections. While the candidate may have opinions on these issues, the Presidency would have no purview. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the objective in asking some of these irrelevant questions seemed only to splinter constituencies important to Democrats and thus embarrass the party as a whole. And, I agree with H20Man, those impossible yes/no questions were the worst. Malveaux and Campbell Brown tried hard to override the audience questions with their own "got ya" additions. This largely seemed to backfire in their faces, but I doubt the point was made.

Hearing the interview without video, made the heckling tremendously annoying, but I could not tell with any certainty what they were saying and thus who they were promoting. Perhaps, they were HRC fans, since they broke out most clearly around Barak Obama's time at the mike, but I'm not certain. The audience certainly seemed to love what Kucinich and Biden were saying, especially when the I- word came up (twice). I can only hope the Congressional Leadership were watching.


I thought Biden was particularly forceful tonight and won some points, given the others repeatedly deferred to him. It seemed to me that Blitzer ran over both Dodd and Kucinich with his ham-handed moderation. It appeared to me that if Wolf had a fav, it must have been Barak Obama, since he seemed to show restraint from a bullying manner of interruption and to show any courtesy only with him--certainly not with Edwards or Clinton. Looking at the time allotments would seem to support that impression. I think they all did well tonight, considering the extremely poor moderation and bias clearly on display. CNN was the loser. If Clinton was the winner, I think it was pretty close. Absent any major faux paux, I'm not surprised the consensus would be that she "took it hands down." That seems, since the debate, to be the case.

[H2O Man]

20. Interesting.

I remember how those who watched Nixon and Kennedy debate on TV thought JFK won, while those who listened on radio believed Nixon won. So I always try to be conscious of what the set up is when I watch any debate. Even little things, such as the camera focusing on a member of the audience while a candidate responses -- is the person smiling and nodding their head? Or are their arms folded tightly across their chest as they frown? Why do they tend to show a black audience member when Senator Obama is answering? A woman when Senator Clinton answers? What is the message the media is trying to communicate?

[Me.]

14. Right Now, It's A Bit Of A Chinese Menu For Me.

I like some aspect of most of the candidates and at the same time all have issues I have trouble with. Still I will vote for the nominee.

As to the republicon spin machine. I am heartened to see that progressives are finally getting it together in a strategical way and fighting back. There were a couple of threads on DU this week with TV ads that were put together and being run in several states about the difference between progressives and the cons (was it freudian that the first 3 letters in conservative speak volumes to the truth). Needless to say, when you tell the story as they have, being for or pro things for the people, rather than against, the cons do not seem very appealing.

There are 2 million progressive blogs (who knew?), word is getting out. The con spin machine can keep spitting out it vile ugliness but the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. This next election won't be a breeze but we now have a better chance to fight back effectively than we ever had before.

[H2O Man]

21. There isn't a

perfect candidate. There never has been, and there never will be. What we have is a group of imperfect candidates, and we have to consider which ones most represent our values, which are most likely to be able to get things accomplished in office, and which are the most likely to win a general election.

We are not ever going to have everyone fully satisfied. That is a difficult part of coalition-building. At this point, I think there are some candidates who are more capable of building a coalition based on democratic values, than others. Certainly, other people see it very differently than me. But John Edwards' point about the dangers of trying to substitute democratic corporate interests for republican corporate interests was valid.

[Me.]

28. It's A Salient Point

A dress style in a different color is still the same style of dress

[porphyrian]

25. Since my primary vote won't count, I hope everyone else elects someone I can support.

If not, I may just sit out the whole fucking process this time.

[H2O Man]

29. Why won't

your primary vote count? Is it because of what state you live in?

I think that a lot of good democrats are feeling frustrated by the way the process marginalizes the individual voter. That is, unfortunately, part of the way that corporations have stacked the deck, and it is a threat to our Constitutional democracy. More, I am convinced it threatens the prospects for the party to win in the presidential and congressional races. The moderate to conservative branch of the party believes they do not need to appeal to the progressives to win. I think that is foolish.

I also think that liberal and progressive democrats should take full advantage of every option to have a say in the process. Voting in the primaries and exercising Amendment #1 grass roots' muscles is important.

[Blue_In_AK]

39. I plan to attend the Alaska caucus in February

even though we poor Democrats in Alaska have virtually no say in the national process. I still think it's important to be involved.

[Blackhatjack]

26. Once Again H2O Man Makes Two Valid Observations.....

You made two valid observations:

"CNN folks failed to address what appeared to be organized audience interference with a couple of candidate’s responses to questions."

AND

"The republicans do not have the only machine in the business. We see folks from various camps attempting to "spin" the results of the debate. Even on progressive internet discussion forums, you read things about what a wonderful job Wolf Blitzer did, or how the audience reaction to one candidate "proves" his or her lack of popularity. Baloney. Reject such obvious attempts at perception management. Think for yourself."


If one candidate can manage to get a majority of her/his supporters to take up available seats in a Debate audience, and they are allowed to respond on command with either riotious applause or booing on demand, then you not only have created a skewed environment in which candidates must operate(and against the rules of the debate) but also a skewed environment in which the audience hears what they have to say.

The blame falls squarely on CNN and Wolf Blitzer for not enforcing the rules.

However, we need to ask this question: 'What if the Kucinich Campaign had produced the same majority of supporters in the audience, and had engaged in the same conduct, would CNN have tolerated that behavior?'

I think we all know the answer to that one.

If the candidates do not have a forum in which to differentiate themselves and their positions from those they are competing with on stage, then it destroys even the pretense of having an impartial debate among the candidates.

Remember folks -- THIS IS NOT WRESTLING.

Nice piece H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

30. Good point.

If Kucinich supporters had behaved rudely, and in violation of the house rules, there would have been a response.

[Blackhatjack]

32. It could have had unintended consequences for the candidate they supported.

If people realize that a candidates supporters are trying to interfere with or 'shout down' the candidate's rival who is trying to make a valid point, it could reflect badly on the candidate herself/himself --even though they had nothing to do with the booing.

[spanone]

27. Great synopsis...

recommended

[H2O Man]

31. Thank you.

It is interesting to watch the news on tv, and read the papers/ internet, and see how different groups report on the debate.

[mmonk]

33. Good post though I can't answer all the questions you pose at the end.

As far as values, I would have to say Kucinich, Edwards, and Dodd. The rest of the questions are debatable and I can't answer.

[H2O Man]

42. Right.

I do not think I can answer those questions fully, at this point, either.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. It was the 1st debate I was able to catch in its entirety.

I actually felt quite comforted, afterwards. Every single one of the candidates are well-qualified to be the next POTUS. I was inspired by Edwards' passion and in awe of Kucinich's courageous honesty and impressed by both Obama's and Clinton's intelligence, charmed by Richardson's humbleness and confident in Dodd's competence. But, I was surprised that I was seriously blown away by Biden. To me, he came off as the one with the wisdom and a combined strength of experience and intelligence and passion to be an exceptional leader.

I still find myself drawn to Kucinich and Edwards because they show so much courage and passion about challenging and changing the establishment. I also have serious reservations about Clinton. Nevertheless, I would vote for any one of these candidates over ANY of the Republicans, HANDS DOWN!!!

[H2O Man]

44. I try to watch

all of the debates, even the republicans'. As strange as the republican debates are, I do not take it for granted that a democratic victory is a sure thing. (My brother says that he thinks the republicans might be willing to let a democratic administration have four years, so that the blame for the war in Iraq and the resulting mess will be blamed on our party. I don't think that's what they would prefer; it might be a fall-back position.)

[Me.]

35. Spinning Jimmy

‘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.’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/questions-about-carville-begala-and-cnn/

[H2O Man]

45. In and of itself,

a highly organized political operation can be a thing of beauty. I have always thought the Kennedy machine was mighty impressive. I'm not saying the Clinton machine is the same thing, but they clearly learned some lessons.

Mr. Carville learned some tactics from other sources, and they are not ones that I am favorably impressed with. I understand that it's a tough game, but I do not think Mr. Carville is loyal to democratic values.

[Time for change]

41. I agree that it is important to support the Democratic nominee, since the alternative is much worse.

I prefer Kucinich, Edwards and Dodd.

The two frontrunners are, in my opinion, trying too hard to position themselves towards the center, and I don't like that. I understand the politics of it, but still, it makes me suspicious of them.

I think that Edwards has the best chance of winning in the general election, as I explain here, although what I said in this post is less true now than it was then, following months of protracted cheap attacks on Edwards:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1583928

[H2O Man]

46. I like those three, also.

Dodd earned my respect when he was part of the House committee that studied the assassinations. He told the truth, and went further that many of the others dared to.

[tekisui]

43. Think for yourself, indeed.

I like all of our candidates at various times for various reasons. I like some much more than others, but I know that next November I will be pulling the lever for a Democrat.

Once the primary season is over, and we have a Nominee with a running mate, we will have the combined force and effort of those from the different primary camps.

The candidates on stage last night have brought people from all walks to the show. And we should be proud of the ideas that are being put up for consideration. We have a lot of cleaning up to do and then a lot of progressive work. The nominee will need to be ready to get the job done through real legislation, not just rhetoric.

Thanks for the level head H2O Man.

[Dems Will Win]

47. Did CNN show the questions beforehand to the candidates as at the YouTube Debate?

http://digg.com /

CNN Caught Planting Questions and Reporting on Debate Events Before They Happen

This screen capture was taken less 5 minutes after the candidates had stopped answering the "abortion" question.

For those who didn't see the debate, an audience member asked a question of the candidates amounting to "What will you look for in a Supreme Court appointee?" Before the first candidate was able to answer, a CNN moderator interrupted to ask the candidate to include his stance on abortion in his answer.

Video of the question is here on CNN's site for now. (You can hear Biden laughing in background at the absurdity of asking for an audience question and then changing it when it wasn't what CNN wanted)

This obvious manipulation of the audience member's question was made more understandable when I looked at the CNN front page and saw their lead story, updated before the question had been asked.

This could, of course, be the result of CNN having agreed with the audience member beforehand on what her question would be, and the questioner accidentally or purposefully modifying her question into what turned out to be a more interesting query. As all of the candidates' stances on Roe v. Wade are well known, CNN might not be going out on a limb by stating they all agreed ahead of time, but if that's the case, it still doesn't seem to meet journalistic standards. Regardless, it's a very revealing peek into the workings behind CNN's debates and reporting, and puts into doubt the value of audience-sourced questions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20912413@N05/2036715666