CNN Democratic Debate Reduced to Hand Raising
Source The Capital Times (Editorial)
Democratic presidential candidates take a sound beating from CNN's arrogant Wolf Blitzer.
Worst of all, Blitzer tried to reduce complex issues 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 Sen. 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.
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 Sen. 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.
The author of the editorial is probably right when he opened with: "Maybe the Democratic presidential candidates should rethink their decision not to debate on the Fox News Channel."
Edit: I failed to mention my debate winner pick. I think Clinton won by a slight margin, with Obama and Biden second. Biden's "no-fly" idea for Dufar is good, but alas before it could be discussed Blitzer put it to a show of hands. Dodd didn't do well, but Blitzer didn't give him much of a chance to speak. I like Bill Richarson's views, but alas, I think he is almost as bad as Bush on immigration reform and border control.