Now that we've more or less cleared up that "illegal immigrants with driver licenses" issue, the line I was pleading for one of the Democrats to throw back last night was, "Wolf, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Do you ever get tired of this 'gotcha' crap?"
Something like that probably would have to come from Joe Biden, whose demeanor these days suggests a guy drifting well into, "Aw, f**k it" mode, since debate moderator after debate moderator has effectively reaffirmed the polls and consigned him, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich to side show acts.
In actual fact it was Kucinich who said to Blitzer, referring to the yes/no driver license bit, "I take exception to the way you framed that question." Thank you, Dennis. But you should have added, "What's with the week-old beard thing, Wolf?"
My beef with Blitzer, who aside from the vaudevillians on Fox News, may be the most implausible "news man" on television, is that the guy not only takes the bait and over-works the meme -- ad nauseum -- but that he does it with such humorless, halting verbosity. Aaron Brown may not have had the Upper West Side pedigree or the promotable cover boy look of Anderson Cooper, but the guy could ask an intelligent question in less than five paragraphs, and maybe even flash a little wit.
Last night's debate in Vegas -- was irresistible viewing after two weeks -- TWO SOLID WEEKS -- of Blitzer, Hannity, O'Reilly et al -- burying their bloody snouts in "Hillary's Flop", the aforementioned immigrant driver license "issue" from the Oct. 28 debate. (And did anyone think of staging this debate in the Mandalay Bay sports book instead of some anonymous field house? I mean, how about a slice of Americana while we ridicule our candidates?)
The real issue of course was Clintonian parsing. Her Bubba-ness. A resumption of that famous, "A little something for everyone" act. The horror! Because, God help us, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is to have more Clinton-style government. You know with balanced budgets, respect for the Constitution, no troops getting shot up in some medieval hellhole and ... oh, christ, don't get me started. So yeah, the point was parsing and the ticking clock on someone else, Obama or (my guy) Edwards, to bust a move with an effective attack on the little lady.
And its not like I don't understand the ratings imperative of getting the blood on the ground early to hold viewer eyeballs. Come on! We're putting on a show here, people! But after the cornball NBA-style introduction bit with the candidates half-trotting out from the wings, (I expected Blitzer to swat Biden on the ass and shout, "go get 'em, Stud."), the potential leaders of the free world had barely settled behind their podiums when Blitzer -- with neither style nor wit -- began angling for someone to lob a grenade Hillary's way.
According to a Google search there are approximately 8,543,907 web sites currently analyzing last night's debare performances. So I'll spare you mine, other than to state the obvious.
1: Clinton learned her lesson from the Oct. 28 "flop" and was not only completely composed, she nailed Campbell Brown's question about "playing with the boys". There isn't a woman over 30 in this country who doesn't understand -- viscerally -- Clinton's point about "impediments".
2. Obama clearly doesn't have a shiv side to his act, and can't really compete with Clinton or Biden on foreign affairs savvy ... not a good sign for "looking into the soul" of Vladimir Putin or the next Chinese trade minister.
3. Bill Richardson seems a likable sap, but he should probably head back to New Mexico before he totally screws a shot at another cabinet job.
4. My guy Edwards is still saying most of the right things -- about the broken, corrupt system and how we get nowhere replacing "corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats" -- but he's getting out on thin ice with his obsessive Hillary-focus. Also John, you really didn't answer the question about voting for all those free trade acts. That bothers me.
Lame and predictable as the driver license bit was, Blitzer jumped the shark completely with his other "gotcha" question, the one demanding to know -- yes or no -- whether candidates would put human rights ahead of the security of the country. Yeah Wolf, there's an on/off dilemma. I mean, you're either with us or against us, right? That act is working pretty well, isn't?
The candidates may be tiring of this debate circus, and with the preening stage craft of Tim Russert last time and the ham-fisted pomposity of Blitzer this time you can understand their frustration, but if you're a media/political junkie I have to concede it is great theater/farce.
On the 28th the Republicans -- at long last, and after first refusing -- will submit to a CNN/YouTube debate, (hosted by Cooper, possibly in a tight t-shirt). This holds the possibility of an average citizen asking any or all of the creationists, I mean candidates, how exactly the Grand Canyon was carved in six days, how far out from California you have to go before you fall off the edge of the Earth and whether they are prepared to protect America by personally strangling each and every suspected jihadi with their bare hands.
Those poor candidates having to answer all those tough questions, hate to get any of them to actually take a stance on something.
Brian I understand you hate O'Reilly, trouble is you are slamming someone you never watch. Last week he said he felt Hillary was the leader and he actually liked her as the lead Democrat. He did rip her for not answering the Driver's License question. I have no problem with O'Reilly having strong feelings on immigration and pushing the candidates to actually answer a question.
Perhaps before the next debate, the moderator can call you and check if you feel the questions are fair. We'd hate to keep pushing people who may be the next leader of the country.
Clinton is getting beat up because she is LEADING the race. The leader is always the target. I actually think that Bill did a decent job running the country, but she will continue to be haunted by a husband who has trouble keeping his pants on.
Not one of your better blogs Brian, it smells like someone just about to fall off the left edge of the planet. Take a deep breath -- there is still a year to go.
Dave: I have no problem with tough questions. By all means. Please do. But this "gotcha" yes/no crap is silly. I'm not a big fan of Hillary's -- for some of the reasons O'Reilly and others were whacking her the last couple weeks, (but mostly because she is a "corporate Democrat" as Edwards likes to say) -- but over on this side of the aisle we get real uncomfortable with the yes/no, black/white thing. Only a rank idiot and the hopelessly naive believe politics works by some means other than artful compromise. Blitzer's shtick is far more about him than it is the candidates, and in the end everyone looks silly.
Help me here. I watched the debate again on CNN last night. Why does the left embrace Hillary Clinton as their answer to the white house. She couldnt answer one question straight on. Every answer some how had to do with how horrible George W Bush is and how many people are begging her to win, but she never answered an answer straight on.
Hey, this is a "local media insider" column!
Ask your national politics questions elsewhere (where the "author" isn't enamored of Pretty Pony and all things loony lefty, anyway).
But you are quite right, she is deplorable.
Based on your response we actually agree on most of this Brian.
I watch O'Reilly fairly often and he was riding Hillary over the driver's license issue. O'Reilly has very strong feelings on immigration and didn't like her dodging the question. Did that deserve a couple of weeks of rants? Probably not.
I still think the candidates bring this upon themselves. When they have all these debates and "reporters" looking for a story, seems to me the grandstanding is bound to happen.
Personally I don't give Edwards a shot in this race. He is too far left (and I agree Clinton is more "corporate")
Well, we certainly got an "up close" and personal taste of the unique "Leinfelderian" pyschology there, didden' we?
You could see the spittle flecks!
Look, as long as Lambert continues to reaffirm "(his) guy" Edwards, we all pretty much can tell he's not able to discern national politics very effectively.
But you can't whine about Avista EVERY day.
I'm just waiting for the "Hottest Under 30 backpack Reporters 2008" column.
Hey, Bertram, Jr, Bud, Jr. or whatever other self-assigned monikers you're skulking around as on line, apparently you failed to apprehend the point of my little tongue-in-cheek postings to your equally cowardly peer, "WilliamHT."
If when you feel the argument isn't going your way and your attenuated forensic skills are flagging and you feel the need fall back on these ad hominem attacks, then grow a pair and post your actual name. Otherwsie, stick to the issues.
Savvy, little man?
Now , now jimmy, finish your milk and sit down.
Let's review WHT's point:
He said he reads this blog for local media and questioned Lambert's,er, qualifications and /or motivations for commenting on national politics.
You then immediately launched into (multiple of) your standard loony shirt-rending screeds.
I concur with Wm, as I posited that Lambert's infatuation with The Pretty Pony and his haircut are pretty conclusive evidence that perhaps the Slaughter should stick to hard hitting expose's on Lori and Julia's next ratings book.
All I got from this post of yours is that you apparently drink milk only while standing. What?
Look, coward, it's Lambert's blog. Disgree with him, sure, fine, the boy can handle it. But then, do the rest of us a favor and make an effort to mount a counter argument that isn't either merely personal or so eye-glazing in its unexamined narcissism (here's what WilliamHT and BertramJr want...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ).
Do you and BuckyWannabe actually think the national columnists are all filing THEIR columns from out on the hustings, sales boy? Tuh. Once in great while they'll book a flight for flyover land. But not usually. Stick to critiquing something you know, like, um, I dunno' cold calling, maybe?
The Pundits definitely love to play their game of "Gotcha" with the Democrats, while cooing in the ears of Guiliani and Thompson, manly men who give them goosebumps.
Eric Boehlert has a good article on Brian Williams, who like a good pundit, swoons over Guiliani and shows contempt for Democrats:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200711130005?f=h_column
"Just contrast the Giuliani feel-good interview with Williams' performance moderating the Democratic debate in April, where he routinely asked loaded, buffoonish questions that appeared to come right off GOP oppo research.
For instance, in his first question of the night, Williams linked Democratic leader Sen. Harry Reid to treason:
WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would "wipe his boots" with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?
What kind of presidential debate moderator quotes from a random, hateful letter to the editor that claims Democrats are "treasonous"?
Moments later, Williams regurgitated more GOP talking points by asking Sen. Barack Obama if he was disrespecting U.S. troops by opposing the war in Iraq:
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much?"
And on his treatment of Guliani:
"When Giuliani eventually explained that he rooted for the Red Sox because he always roots for the American League team, Williams never asked Giuliani why he publicly mocked Clinton as a flip-flopper after she offered a somewhat similar rationale for deciding to root for the Yankees as a Cubs fan growing up in Illinois; because she needed a favorite American League team.
And by the way, Williams' second question to Giuliani was whether he'd spoken with Torre recently, and whether the manager would face a "tough transition" to managing on the West Coast.
See, folks, just a couple of guys kicking back and talking baseball.
Williams soon asked Giuliani about his one-time protégé and former New York City Police chief Bernard Kerik who, at the time of the interview, was just days away from being indicted. But Williams never bothered to detail what Kerik's legal troubles were. (Answer: corruption, mail and tax fraud, obstruction of justice, and lying to the government.)
And after Giuliani admitted to not knowing enough about Kerik's allegedly criminal behavior, Williams' follow-up question made no reference to a front-page New York Times article that had run just days earlier, in which the newspaper detailed how Giuliani and his aides were briefed repeatedly about questions surrounding Kerik's behavior but that Giuliani continued to ignore the warnings and promote his close friend."
Makes you wonder if Williams is afraid of running into too many pals of "The Hero of 9/11" as he works Manhattan after dark.
Lost in the cacophony about the drivers license for immigrants imbroglio was Richardson saying that it actually WORKS in New Mexico.
Obama is 4 or 8 years to soon. Great on the stump but a deer in the headlights at these debates.
Biden "wins" every debate and no one cares. His quote about Guliani and 9/11 ("noun, verb, 9/11" or something like that) and Giuliani almost being as unprepared for the gig as Bush was not only the best line of ANY of the debates but also one of the most TRUTHFUL lines to come out of any candidates mouth.
Can't wait for the You Tube GOP debate. What kind of machinations do you think are going on noso the GOP gets idiotic softball questions like they have been in most of the debates so far. And does this mean they might also have a debate in front of Hispanic and Black groups next? And are they going to allow Ron Paul in on this?
I always remember reading about a Russian TV show that was very popular BEFORE the Soviet collapse. The station would invite the Mayor of Moscow in and stick a microphone and a camera out on a street corner, where anyone -- in pretty much any condition -- could step up and put a question to their government leader.
Of course, I think the idea of "Prime Minister's Question Time", with the President in the well of the Senate taking on all questions is a terrific idea. Televised. Live. Once a week. Almost like democracy.
Scary.
Lambert -
I check out this blog for MN media commentary, not for utterly lame and hackneyed national political commentary. I realize that your unfulfilled ego aspires to the national punditocracy. But at this point in your mostly foiled and aspirational career, you're not only lacking in the rhetorical skills to go toe-to-toe with the punditocracy --- you lack the sources. Why should anybody pay attention to what you have to say about national candidates? Do you have sources in their campaigns? Have you ever covered - as a beat reporter - a national election?
I didn't think so. So shut the f--- up and get back to Tom Barnard. He's your level. And Cindy Brucato, maybe. Tim Pawlenty, well, that's stretching it.
The sad thing is, Ryback is way out of your range. If this were high school, you wouldn't even think of asking her out - much less share a column with her. Stick with the local stuff, man, and don't embarrass yourself by pretending that watching Colbert and too much CNN gives you the credibility to comment on it --- more than the next south Minneapolis loser.
I say, Bucky, old bean, why don't you ring up one of your powerful and influencial frat brothers since you lack the spine to actually sign your own malignant missives with your last name, and have them send some wet ops boys out to give that Lambert what for?
http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/qclub.html
Ha, just kidding, ersatz Bucky. If you had the real Bucky's money and influence born of an accident of birth, Lambert's pimply white butt would already have been renditioned to...oh, I dunno' maybe to a small cabin somewhere in Northern Wisconsin by now where he'd be force fed greasy Hot Dagos, cheap lite beer, and the attentions of dessicated female road house bar flies with single-digit dentition until he took it all back and promised to blog nothing beyond butt-bussing Hallmark blogs to the rich and powerful.
AH, but that hasn't happened, has it, ersatz Buckster, because, well, you're nothing but a deluded and embittered poseur who should've been more careful about choosing your relatives, or at least what you thought was a so, so cleverly oblique nom de blog. Such cowardice.
I say, see you at the next Fence Club reunion, ersatz Bucky (In your dreams, you putz). Say, be a good chap, won't you, and invite your fellow wannabe, Bertram Jr. to pledge Psi Upsilon. Ba, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, in each of your dreams. Now, get back to your rich fantasy life and lay off on the personal attacks until you're ready to sign your real name to these bitter postings.
Gee, "Bucky," is this the way the well-born gentlemen comport themselves at Wolf's Head? SO, so angry. What turns a NE blue blood who made all that filthy lucre from the sale of Engineered Support Systems, a defense contractor working for the Pentagon in Iraq and Afghanistan, into such a small man? All those perks from being W's uncle and 41's youngest brother and yet your angry e-pistle manifests not the patrcian equanimity of a man of your considerable breeding but, rather, the unexamined bitterness of an outsider looking in. How very odd. Life's gone pretty swimmingly for you, old sport. So one is left wonder as to the source of all this undifferentiated vitriole?
Well, obviously your not really W's uncle reading the Saughter in your St. Louis mansion? So, we're left to conclude that, in reality, you're just some sad poseur who finds some comfort for his wounded psyche by using a nom de blog the likes of WilliamHT. Pathetic and slandering people you don't even know.
Listen, old sport, if you want to get up in other people's faces with this sort of unseemly calumny and mount gratuitous ad hominem attacks on other people's characters and professional reputations, then run to your GP and get a prescription for some testosterone gel to rub into into your soft, protruding belly (I'm assuming) to help you work up the courage to sign this acrid missives.
If you can't manage that, Bucky, then stick to discussing the issue(s) in the thread and drop the Bush family pretensions. You can't pull it off.
Its always the most angry and agitated who are the most short on facts and rely personal attacks masquerading as commentary. We all know the line about opinions, right?
Plus, they can't spell. R-Y-B-A-K. It's been in all the papers. Even at the top of this page (in a manner of speaking).
Well, is somebody a little bitter? A little too in touch with their inner Bill O'Reilly?
In my long experience with correspondence like yours it is always the most angry and agitated who are the most emphatic that those who don't share their views "shut up" and devote their time to the deeper meaning of Tom Barnard.
Please feel free to click on by.
Yeah, I'm with you, Brian. Give me good ol' Bill Buckley and his attenuated liberal sidekick, Michael Kinsley, back when they would stage traditional debates on a single proposition back in the fusty old days of PBS. Or even better, the debates between Gore Vidal and Buckley, or, Minneapolis's own, Robert Vaughn and Buckley on the Vietnam War.
The thing is, you can't really have robust debate between such careful, careful people who are simultaneously courting the outer fringes of their party where the caucus-goers live while trying not to alienate the general electorate for the inter party conflict to come. There's the pre-convention version of candidates and the post-convention version.
Plus, as Sens. Clinton and Edwards inadvertently argued in the presence of hot mics early on, there are just too many candidates for this sort of "debate" format. But, as someone who spends a lot of time out on the hustings with these people, it's refreshing to see them submit to a question from any journalist. The "events" out on the trail are so controleld and managed, reporters are the ones who are going to have to resort to planted questions with the assembled citizenry in order to get a questions answered by the candidates.
But here's what I really want to know: How many gratuitous cutaway shots did the director take of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's wife? They were so frequent during the ABC debate at Drake in Des Moines I think she got more air time than her husband.
Didn't see the stunning Mrs. Kucinich at all last night. Maybe she was over at Caesar's.
I was only kidding when I wrote earlier that maybe journalists would have to start planting questions with audience members to get the candidates to answer questions. But it seems I was behind the curve. CNN was already doing it at the Vegas debate. Not to get more substance out of the aspirants to the Oval Office, but, rather to goose the entertainment value of the debates. Sheesh. Let's hope what happened in Vegas stays in Vegas..
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111707Y.shtml
Oh No!!! The democrats were challenged on their flip flopping views! Lets boycott CNN! (oh wait, check out the ratings, everyone has already).
The liberals get challenged, and the left is insulted. The problem with this debate (and to be fair the republican debates also),is that no one likes to answer straight questions. That is why Hillary did flop on the drivers license issue, and continues on her VOTE to send soliders to the hell you spoke of.
So a Clinton Presidency?
"You know with balanced budgets,...
Do you actually think the budget would have been balanced without the Republican congress? Does anyone remember the first two years of the Clinton era? Why did the Republicans take control of congress?
"Respect for the Constitution,
I didnt know Perjury was legal during the Clinton years.
"no troops getting shot up in some medieval hellhole and"
Hillary obviously likes the medieval hellhole, She voted for it and does not regret her vote. HELLO ANTI WAR ACTIVISTS: Hillary is PRO WAR!
I will give you a little fig leaf though...the fair and balanced pundits on the right better start talking about why it is in the better interest of the country to vote for one of our canidates on the right instead of Anti-Hillary all the time. The left found that a light weight candiate and a Hate Bush agenda does not win elections.
Tom O: Are we talking about the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ... that EVERY Republican voted against?
This one ...
Legislative history
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed 219-213.[1] President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
The entire bill was very controversial. Many Republicans warned that many of the bills provisions would result in economic catastrophe and that deficit would actually increase. The recently elected President Bill Clinton was criticized by many for what was perceived as a reversal of his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes although in actuality taxes increased on only the top 2% of taxpayers. Many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time). Nonetheless, by the mid-term elections of 1994, many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes, though Republican warnings of a recession never materialized.