Wolf Blitzer Exposed

[Nbadan]

If it hasn't been clear to the viewer, then it probably will never be clearer to that viewer ... but the overt bias shown by Blitzer in service to his AIPAC and Corporate masters was quite obvious in last night's "debate."


http://chrisdodd.com/nh_debate/chart.jpg

In just the first half of this Korporate Kabuki show ...

CLINTON 9:25, 9 questions
Wolf Blitzer 8:38
OBAMA 8:19, 9 questions
RICHARDSON 7:23, 6 questions
EDWARDS 7:06, 8 questions
BIDEN 4:45, 5 questions
DODD 4:00, 4 questions
GRAVEL 2:59, 5 questions
KUCINICH 2:28, 3 questions

Source: Lou Dobbs (http://chrisdodd.com/node/1377)

Hillary got more than three times as much time as Kucinich - and it wasn't an accident: she got three times the number of questions directed to her.

Who knew Blitzer was running for Prez? He sucked up more face-time than any other candidate but Hitlary and Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

Source: Lou DobbsMore impressive is how you turned Chris Dodd into Lou Dobbs.

[Nbadan]

Whatever, Dobbs is a M$M ambulance-chaser too...

Clinton Beats Blitzer in CNN Debate


Despite the fact that this was a two-hour debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer acted throughout the night as if he was hosting “Beat the Clock.” Of course, a moderator must keep a crowded field under control. But the candidates weren’t the ones who were off the leash. Rather, it was the CNN anchor who repeatedly interrupted contenders who were trying to explain the basics of their positions, cut off thoughful answers in mid-sentence and failed to follow up when significant points of difference – on issues such as trade policy – were thrown into the mix.

Worst of all, Blitzer tried to take complex issues and reduce them to show-of-hand stunts.

At one point, Blitzer tossed a wild hypothetical at the candidates: If they knew where Osama bin Laden would be for 20 minutes, would they move to eliminate him even if that meant killing “innocent civilians”? Blitzer’s question raised fundamental questions: What do we mean by innocent civilians? Are we talking about children? How many would die? Could bin Laden be captured? Would taking him out compromise a flow of intelligence that might provide information that could prevent future attacks on Americans?

Kucinich tried to explore subtleties of international law and common sense, but Blitzer shut him down. Instead of a nuanced discussion on how the U.S. might operate in a post-Bush world, Blitzer simply demanded that candidates raise their hands if they were for getting bin Laden.

Moments later, after Delaware Senator Joe Biden suggested using military force to end the genocide in Darfur, Blitzer was again calling for a show of hands.

No room for a discussion about what sort of force – a no-fly zone or troops on the ground, an international coalition or a U.S.-led expedition, a full-fledged attack on another Muslim state or peacekeeping in the desert – just hands in the air by candidates who were for marching on Africa.

Blitzer was determined to race past anything akin to a serious discussion. And through most of the night, he got away with it.

Finally, as the moderator pressed his “who’s-against-genocide” show and tell, Clinton called him on his antics. While the other candidates grumbled about the host’s absurdly overbearing approach, the New York senator pointedly declared, “We’re not going to engage in these hypotheticals. I mean one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues. And I don’t think it’s useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms.”

She got a deserved round of applause from a crowd that was as annoyed as the candidates were with Blitzer.

The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=201801)