Questions

As ever, it's really striking to observe the difference between the audience-generated questions and the journalist-generated questions. Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.

The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.

The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn't care about informing the public about the issues -- he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues -- he's just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.

UPDATE: Great example. An audience member makes the sensible observation that the candidates haven't talked about the Supreme Court and asks them to say something about their approach to picking nominees. I'd be interested to hear the answers to these questions. The journalists decide to change this isn't a pointed question about a Roe litmus test -- gotcha! -- do Democrats violate the "no litmus test" taboo, or do they piss off feminists? Good work! Blah.

Comments

Creeping Russertism! Gah!

I wonder if this isn't an indirect argument for Hillary. After all, she is unquestionably the best at handling these kind of gotcha questions. If we're going to see a lot of Democrat-unfriendly gotcha questions from now until next November, then we should nominate the candidate best equipped to respond to them.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 9:48 PM

Actually, I have a second idea. Are these endless debates the slow bleed whereby the Democrats forfeit their advantage as we enter the serious presidential campaign season? Think about it: I've watched a handful of the debates on each side, and as I recall, the more recent Republican debates have been moderated by FOX News, with conservative moderators who are not particularly hostile to the premises of the candidates they are questioning. Meanwhile, the Democrats keep facing hostile professional questioners who make them look awkward etc. Unless one is completely convinced that giving the right-wing freaks more rope to express their batshit views on national TV is bad for Republicans, one would have to conclude that having Brit Hume on the one side and Tim Russert on the other side conducting the debate could be a serious PR problem for the Democrats.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 9:58 PM

Great post, Matt. I'm enjoying this sustained critique.

Posted by Will | November 15, 2007 10:08 PM

Having Malveaux interject her own, DC-insider take on the audience member's questions is really a disservice. It's as though CNN can't trust its plants to ask a proper question, and has to make sure everyone's question plays into already established media frames.

very annoying. (and elitist)

Posted by eli | November 15, 2007 10:23 PM

Having Malveaux interject her own, DC-insider take on the audience member's questions is really a disservice. It's as though CNN can't trust its plants to ask a proper question, and has to make sure everyone's question plays into already established media frames.

very annoying. (and elitist)

Posted by eli | November 15, 2007 10:24 PM

Martin,

Let's keep in mind that for the general election, the Independent voters are critical.

I'm not a big fan of Russert either, but let's look at what he does. He simply recites the opposition's talking points. This provides the person being questioned an opportunity to address the criticism, regardless of its merits. It's lame because this is ALL Russert does and it makes the Democrats appear to always be on the defensive, but I'm not sure it's as bad as you suggest.

The other side has Hume asking questions that seem designed to reinforce what supporters already know about the candidates. Either that, or allow them to make even more ridiculous red meat to the base (e.g. tripling the size of Gitmo).

Perhaps this will change after the primaries, I'm not sure. But for the moment you have to think that Independents are going to be more willing to listen to someone who can successfully address their critics, no?

Posted by ProfD | November 15, 2007 10:26 PM

Yeah, Prof, it's a good point. I also noticed that Anderson Cooper is moderating the next GOP debate on CNN, so ... I mean, it's not all in Brit's control anyway.

Eli also makes a great point, I think, about Malveaux framing the audience questions. I think Wolf was doing the same thing when he would keep speaking over the end of politicians' answers. It was as if the media representative had to restrain the politicians from making their (obviously biased) case. It was very subtle, but at the end, when Hillary and Obama went at it over social security -- rewind the tape. Hillary is giving her rebuttal, staying totally on point, and perhaps straying into the 45-second range, and the entire time you hear Wold saying, "All right, that's --, okay, could..., yes. can we...." Like for God's sake man, be quiet! You are not the font of all that is good and responsible here! And if you were, you would be doing it differently! If she has a minute limit, then let her talk and then cut her off with a flashing light or something. This passive-aggressive directing of rhetorical traffic is obnoxious.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 10:35 PM

Well I only caught some of the debate, but it struck me as fairly painful.

The question of how Clinton might polarize the country is a beachball right in Obama's wheelhouse, and he missed it by a foot. He really should be able to nail that with a very thoughtful response. He seemed off his game tonight.

What amazes me about Clinton is her ability to give answers that sound very good, yet state almost nothing significant. Of course I still can't stand her voice.

Posted by ProfD | November 15, 2007 10:45 PM

a very populist post.

yeah, power to the people.

I hate popularism.

Posted by thehova | November 15, 2007 10:50 PM

Good post, but the update is incomprehensible.

Posted by es | November 15, 2007 10:54 PM

Hillary's greatest enemy is her own party.
The frontrunner - the best chance ever to insure that a Republican or Libertarian will not reign
in the Oval Office for another destructive 4 years - is being torn asunder by "Democrats".
We've reached an emergency situation in the Executive. One that requires fast fixing.
And the one lined up to do just that is being submarined by jealous blabbermouths

Posted by Wil Burns | November 15, 2007 11:04 PM

Damn they made the Youtube debate look brilliant. There should be no 'journalist' moderated debates at all in the future.

Posted by AJ | November 15, 2007 11:06 PM

The journalists decide to change this..

I think it was Biden who caught that, and made a point of answering the audience member's question and then Malveaux's seperately.

This was the first debate I've been able to watch this election cycle. Have they all been this bad?

Posted by grape_crush | November 15, 2007 11:08 PM

"The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues."

Indeed. The concerns of ordinary Americans happen to coincide almost exactly with the concerns of Democratic bloggers.

Pity the misguided chump who might ask about the scourge of illegal immigration, shark attacks, and child kidnappings plaguing the nation (and dutifully reported on the 11 o'clock news).

Posted by Linus | November 15, 2007 11:10 PM

The CNN heads were insufferable. I couldn't stand how they would take the audience members well thought out questions and try to reframe them into some Village shorthand garbage. I like how Wolf at one point tried to mau'mau one audience participant into abanoning her question "Do you want them to answer your question, or Susan's"?
These people need to stop it.

Posted by flounder | November 15, 2007 11:11 PM

MattY is, as always, out to lunch. The candidates should not be asked wimpy MSM-style questions (the ones MattY thinks are tough), nor should they be just a third-party to rants and gripes. I'd really like to see the candidates "cross-examined" (example: youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo), with a series of questions being asked designed to reveal the huge flaws in their policies and their inability to think things through. That would be a public service, but it's probably not going to happen.

However, at least MattY could encourage something like it. Instead, MattY faults Wolf for trying to interrupt a stock speech from Richardson, the same speech he's delivered dozens of times.

Moreover, the audience question about the border contained a lie.

Just because MattY is trying to sell something doesn't mean that anyone else should buy it.

Posted by TLB | November 15, 2007 11:15 PM

TLB | November 15, 2007 11:15 PM:

The candidates should not be asked wimpy MSM-style questions (the ones MattY thinks are tough), nor should they be just a third-party to rants and gripes.

A mom worrying about her son having to go on his fourth tour in Iraq (or Iran) is a 'gripe'?

Nice, Whacko...Aren't you missing a Tancredo rally somewhere?

Posted by grape_crush | November 15, 2007 11:22 PM

Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion

I always thought it was explaining the bleeding obvious in monotonous detail. He really is a fucking gobshite arsehole. Or an arsehole gobshite. You choose.

Moreover, the audience question about the border contained a lie.

Moreover, the Chris Wackjob Kelly comment contained an increasingly-desperate blogwhore. In other news, the sun rises in the east.

And he's not missing a Tancredo rally, since he's been pissing himself under the bed for the past three years, waiting for The Mexicans To Come.

On a less miserable topic, I really can't wait for the GOP YouTube debate, though you just know that CNN will softball the questions.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 15, 2007 11:33 PM

Are these endless debates the slow bleed whereby the Democrats forfeit their advantage as we enter the serious presidential campaign season?

I think that's a very smart and serious point. The debates are the place where the media whorehouse gets to impose its narrative on the campaign, and we already know that it's a narrative directed by very different concerns: i.e. the Village's fear of the Clenis™ and Chris Matthews' pathological misogyny and desperate desire to grab some of the Lou Dobbs nativist fuckhead audience, now that he's competing against CNN's 'I Hate Mexicans Hour' at 7pm.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 15, 2007 11:37 PM

Russert set the standard. His media acolytes follow like sheep. The candidates need to just say no to the nonsense.

Posted by Rich | November 15, 2007 11:38 PM

I just saw the immigration question on the replay. Blitzer was brutal. Obama, however, needs to realize that this is happening and either challenge the nonsense head on or play the game. He was half-hearted at pushing back at Blitzer and it came off poorly. Richardson did a much better job of articulating the reason why to grant licenses.

It would be nice if one of the candidates actually noted that a president doesn't have anything to do with state licenses.

Posted by mhp | November 15, 2007 11:47 PM

Hillary keeps talking about 35 years of experience in public service. I haven't seem a time line, but this seems like a stretch. She's 60 now, so one would expect her public service to more or less go back to when she was ~25. She graduated from law school until she was 26. Is she counting her tenure at Rose Law Firm as public service? Is she counting her service on corporate boards like WalMart?

If she is counting being a corporate lawyer and corporate board member as public service, what does that tell you about who she's going to serve as president.

She's tossing around 35 years and hoping no one will question her experience. Romney has shown a willingness to do so, and we need to determine if she can sustain that attack before she becomes the nominee. We know she was active in the Clinton administration, but we dont know what she was doing there, other than failing on health care. This 35 years comment is a lie to distract us from asking the important questions about her experience.

Posted by Hillary Clinton's 35 years is a lie | November 15, 2007 11:47 PM

The first thing we do, let's kill all the journalists.

Posted by Dick the Butcher | November 15, 2007 11:54 PM

So what's MattY's tally since the last debate?

Posts spouting the Clinton talking points and bitching about moderators and gotcha questions: 4 or 5

Posts which were informative about the substance of the debate on immigration: 0

Honestly, is there anyone in the MSM who is acceptable? Not Russert, not Matthews, not Blitzer, not Dobbs, certainly not Hume. Who is left (pun intended)? Where does Stephanopoulos stand? This game of attack the perceived attacker is getting old fast.

I liked the YouTube debate, but I thought the audience questions in this debate were pointless. They were merely a platform for the candidates to pander to the individual and spout the company line. They were not informative at all.

Posted by Just Karl | November 15, 2007 11:55 PM

I was at the debate, just got home....just posting this quickly to say: I agree with Matt's point, and moreover [encouragingly?] there was palpable audience frustration with Blitzer's insistence on extracting yes/no answers to stupid, reductively formulated questions....

Posted by nick | November 15, 2007 11:57 PM

Actually, I'm glad the journalists ask those gotcha questions. Otherwise the politicians just get away with their usual schtick, which is to hew to mealy-mouthed, pandering doubletalk. It's amazing how hard it is for a politician to give a direct answer a straight fucking question. Once they are forced to go off script, they fall apart.

I thought it was perfectly reasonable, for example, for Blitzer to ask the candidates this: if they don't think nuclear waste should be dumped in Yucca Mountain - a position which was conveniently audience-friendly given the venue - then where the hell do they think we should dump it? The pathetic attempts to dodge and waffle that ensued were hilarious.

I understand that now that Matt is well embarked on his budding career of inconsequential partisan hack, these revelatory episodes of candidate squirming and manifest insincerity and ineptitude make him uncomfortable. He would rather have "real" people lobbing softballs, so his heroes can shine. But while those real audience members might ask questions about real things that they really, really care about, their questions tend not to advance our understanding of the candidates, because audience members don't know how to badger and follow-up until they get the candidates to squeeze something like an actual answer to the question out of their oral sphincters. The answer to audience questions of the form "What are you going to do about X?" are always answered in this format:

1. I honor you for your (hard work/service to our nation/amazing courage/commitment to your family/deep faith in our country).

2. That is an excellent question. X is a topic we must all be concerned about.

3. Let me say first that we will never be able to address X until we have addressed Y and Z, which are not quite so irrelevant and tangential to your question as you might think.

4. Let me now tell you my opinions on Y and Z, which are conveyed by some talking points that I actually prepared myself to disgorge tonight.

5. Thank you again for your question. You inspire me!

The hapless questioner nods blankly, overwhelmed by the magnitude of their moment of televised fame. But it's all so real, right?

Instead of these debates, I would like to see candidates forced to submit, one-by one, to a four hour hot light interrogation by a panel of about 30 to 40 genuine experts in their fields, along with a smattering of "real" people, and maybe even some journalists. If they did have to submit to such a procedure, it would quickly be revealed how little they actually know about the world they live in. And perhaps then we would get a whole different kind of candidate.

I agree with the commentator who said it was painful to watch this debate. What a bunch of poseurs.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 12:08 AM

Hillary Clinton's 35 years is a lie,

She's counting from when she worked on the Congressional staff of the Watergate Committee.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your futile attempt to smear her.

Posted by Rich | November 16, 2007 12:13 AM

now that he's competing against CNN's 'I Hate Mexicans Hour' at 7pm.

Have you noticed the graphics and effects? I've never seen anything like it. He had some number that he claimed was the cost of illegal immigrants in public services and it was served up with an Adobe after-effects template, so that it spun and glittered and pulsed in your face a couple times. I'd be afraid that would be too tacky for the intro to a line dancing class recital to do it. I think Lou Dobbs and his crew are some cynical assholes who want to see just how much gold there is to mine in seeing how well dumb sells in his time slot.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 16, 2007 12:16 AM

Ed, it's fairly well known that the Dobbs 60-Minute-Hate is its own fiefdom at CNN: he has his own producers and correspondents who don't work outside that particular hour, and the CNN regulars are visibly uncomfortable when they are dragged in and forced up against one of the Giant Dobbsian Head's 100-word pseudo-questions. I wouldn't be surprised if the regular CNN graphics team doesn't touch it with a shitty stick, either.

Here's my blue-sky idea: get the BBC's Washington bureau to moderate a candidate forum. Not Katty Kay, who's rubbish, but Matt Frei and Justin Webb.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 16, 2007 12:45 AM

Wolf Blitzer is an a-hole and the ONLY thing he's interested in--the only thing he's EVER been interested in--is goading people into saying something they'll wish they hadn't said. Wolf Blitzer is King A-Hole. End of story.

Posted by Mark F. | November 16, 2007 1:16 AM

So, Matt is unhappy when the candidates aren't allowed to ooze focus group-tested generalities and are actually put on the spot about policy specifics for once?

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 16, 2007 1:18 AM

I don't understand the license question. The president has no power over what licenses the states decide to grant the people living inside the state. Why waste time asking about things unrelated to being president?

Posted by mad6798j | November 16, 2007 1:20 AM

National security is about protecting the lives, liberty, and property of American citizens. Those three things are the bedrock of all our rights. You can't have freedom without strength -- the failure to recognize that fact is the key failing of most Lefty & libertarian national defense and foreign policy.

Listening to that numbnuts Richardson stumbling about saying he thought "rights" trumped security - was painful.

As far as the mean Wolf joining Big Bad Moma Bear in picking on the sweet little deer, Obambi...??

Wold asked a very simple question as a follow-up from the Oct 30th debate on driver's licenses for illegals.
Obambi blew it with a long-winded Senatorial bloviation where he was trying to avoid answering the question with his usual crap about and direct question only exposes deeper issues that require a new way of thinking, something he learned in his long experience as a State Senator and something that people should meet and discuss and resolve beyond issues like drivers licenses. Yes to licenses under some circumstances yet to be explored....but in a meta context...

Then the mean Wolf cut off young Obambi and got the answer from the other candidates other than incoherent Richardson and Kuchinich responses...After Hillary! and Biden cave succint answers, Obambi finally said "Yes".

I agree with 11:47PM's post on the WTF? on Hillary's 35 years of public service. She got a Carter Job as a Board member of Legal Services Corp a few years after she failed her DC Bar exam -and a scandal as she used funds for class action lawsuits on children's legal rights and prisoner food instead of providing the criminally accused poor with legal counsel as intended. (Leading to a Reagan Admin cleanup and rules saying the funds were to be used as the Gideon Decision mandated, not taxpayer donations for advancing Lefty activist agenda),

And she was on non-profit boards.

If anything you do for the government or the public starts the clock for "20, 35, 45 years of public service" - Biden has 50 from his 1st Boy Scout public service merit badge job, both Romney and Huckabee at age 16 from missionary and subsequent volunteerism charity works done, Slick John Edwards for his pro bono cases, and Rudy from running his uncles numbers racket up to little old ladies in wheelchairs that couldn't get to his Candy store.

Realistically, we can credit Biden, Dodd, Hunter (military and Congress) with long public service. Hillary if wife of an elected official amounts to public service...otherwise she has 6-8 years.
And realistically, we can credit 4 candidates with successful executive leadership of large organizations. Romney with 25 years at it, Giuliani with 20, Richardson with 9, (gov, UN, Energy Dept) and Huckabee with 8.
5 candidates if Hillary was actually a secret "co-executive" when Bill was governor and President...her executive achievements, such as they were, now under double-secret records privacy that she is "helpless" to break.

Romney, interestingly, has a track record of successful executive leadership in 4 separate areas of attainment: (1)of major corporations directly or as a consultant directing organizational turnarounds on activities spanning 22 countries, (2)He was the director of a 250 person mission force in France at age 20, and served at the level of Bishop in his Church,(3)Elected Governor, (4)Head of several non-profits, including his successful rescue then leading the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics.

Giuliani had his flaws and friction points as mayor and US Attorney for NYC - but he obtained remarkable results and forged competent teams to execute his objectives.

Richardson and Huckabee - much less impressive a track record as execs.

Hillary's! might be more impressive, if we take her word for it.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 16, 2007 1:21 AM

I passed the bar exam the first time, bfd. It means nothing. Much of the material relates to black letter law which isn't an area of concentration at most top law schools.

Posted by RIch | November 16, 2007 2:31 AM

While I can't defend Blitzer, who is without question lame and annoying, I have to agree with Dan Kervick above that the candidates are even worse. Without some kind of attempt to force discipline all we'd get would be endless bullshit in the format Dan accurately describes.

Second, it's a mistake to write off the immigration issue as simple nativism, as some posters here seem to do. There are certainly nativist and bigoted people who are expressing concern about it, but that doesn't define the issue. The fact is, Democrats should be especially concerned that we are allowing the importation of an underclass of illiterate campesinos who are depressing wages for our already-existing working class and putting intolerable strain on already under-funded public services in many areas.

We certainly need immigrants, but the current non-system is exploiting poor people for the benefit of businesses that should be paying decent wages. The problem is not Mexicans, but Mexico. I find it amazing that we can be so concerned about nation-building half a world away while continuing to ignore the failing state next door that's bleeding refugees to the detriment of both nations. Continuing to function as a safety valve for the corrupt and incompetent Mexican government is bad policy.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 16, 2007 3:27 AM

One other thing about the question on Supreme Court justices -- not only did Wolf drag out that old "litmus test" frame, he also framed it not as "would they have to be in favor of Roe v Wade" but rather, "would they have to be in favor of abortion" -- a very questionable frame indeed, and one designed to put Dems on the defensive. Bastid.

Posted by LJMoi | November 16, 2007 3:44 AM

"Hillary's greatest enemy is her own party.
The frontrunner - the best chance ever to insure that a Republican or Libertarian will not reign
in the Oval Office for another destructive 4 years - is being torn asunder by "Democrats".
We've reached an emergency situation in the Executive. One that requires fast fixing.
And the one lined up to do just that is being submarined by jealous blabbermouths"

Posted by Wil Burns |

This attitude is why I will be writing in Kucinich's name and/or voting the straight Republican ticket (depending on how pissed off I am that day). Clinton supporters are the absolute worst.

Posted by tired | November 16, 2007 3:56 AM

Blitzer is the most horrible interviewer on television. Hannity's second because he's openly partisan and not particularly intelligent, but Blitzer is just so irrelevant that he makes Hannity seem lucid.

Wolf: we already know the candidates are pro-choice, what does it matter how pro-choice they are? Also, the federal government doesn't grant state driver's licenses. I understand why Russert brought it up the first time, but why does you harp on this Presidential irrelevancy weeks later?

Why doesn't Blitzer (or anyone) ask the candidates just where the endpoint (or lack thereof) of executive power lies? Why didn't Blitzer ask about privacy (as it relates to tracking and data mining--not as it relates to abortion)? The first is the most important question that can be asked of the future executive of any Republic and the second is a specific way of asking if the Bill of Rights is to be maintained. Those are my #1 and #2.

Posted by Shinyk | November 16, 2007 4:09 AM

Matt et al, Clinton's reviews of Wolf's debate are in and posted over at Drudge:

CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer did an 'outstanding' job in Vegas, a senior adviser to the Hillary campaign said early Friday. 'He was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided the personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far. Voters were the big winners last night.'

It's official: up is now down.

Posted by Keith | November 16, 2007 5:03 AM

"the Village's fear of the Clenis"

Can somebody tell what this means, please?

Posted by racetoinfinity | November 16, 2007 5:16 AM

"I don't understand the license question. The president has no power over what licenses the states decide to grant the people living inside the state. Why waste time asking about things unrelated to being president?"

I really don't understand Matt's remark about drivers' licenses and merit pay for teachers being beyond federal purview.

I mean, sure, I agree that's so, but I'm an originalist who holds to a strong version of enumerated powers doctrine. What I don't understand is what conceivable basis a Democrat, part of the cheering section for the Leviathan, who holds that the interstate commerce clause and "necessary and proper" clause grant the federal government to do pretty much anything the Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly forbid, could have for stating that.

I mean, even as an originalist I wouldn't have much trouble creating a BS rationale for the federal government having authority over the way states facilitate violations of federal immigration laws. I wouldn't honestly believe it, but coming up with it wouldn't be a strain.

It must really be mind bending to believe in the degree of federal power Matt does, and still rationalize that the federal government can't reach these subjects.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 16, 2007 6:43 AM

Blitzer was awful but more of the Democrats should have pulled a Cheney "I resent the question".

Kucinich did in regards to the illegal immigration driving license "Yes or No" question. But he resented the use of the word 'illegal' instead of Wolf's idiotic simplification of the issue.

In fact, Kucinich was the only candidate to blast NAFTA in his response. None of the other candidates did which indicates this problem will persist in spite of their "comprehensive" solutions.

In either event, posing this as a "Yes or No" question was the insult. Moreso than the answers.

Posted by starwheel | November 16, 2007 7:02 AM

And the one lined up to do just that is being submarined by jealous blabbermouths

Posted by Wil Burns | November 15, 2007 11:04 PM

Perhaps somebody can explain democracy to Mr. Burns? Hillary Clinton has no inherited right to my vote. Calling opposition "jealous blabbermouths" is childish and unproductive. If you're trying to win people to the Clinton cause, perhaps some approach other than open contempt would be in order?

Posted by Whispers | November 16, 2007 7:11 AM

But, in fairness, the Republicans were asked if they "believed" in evolution.

The question was actually voted as a top question by Politico.com readers (i.e. 'real people'), not a pundit or an anchor.

Unfortunately, "gotcha" politics is the norm in our society.

Which makes the Democratic responses to the questions about education very, very relevant and important.

Posted by starwheel | November 16, 2007 7:24 AM

Nice post. I remember Obama making a point that reducing the immigration question down to one about drivers licenses does everyone a disserve, then right after that, Wolf hectors everyone into a yes or no on that very question.

Everyone sees this ridiculousness too. After the Supreme court question got reframed into a yes or no on being pro-choice, the audience started laughing.

Posted by musa | November 16, 2007 7:59 AM

This debate was poorly produced, poorly conducted, and poorly analyzed by CNN.

In short, CNN should do a better job of balancing out who gets to speak and for how long, giving each candidate fair treatment regarding how vigorously they are followed up on, focusing on the field in general instead of ClintonClintonObamaClintonObamaClintonClinton, and asserting more control over the debate instead of letting the candidates talk over the moderators. You would expect more from "the most trusted name in news."

I wrote more about CNN's problems here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/nevada-debate-analysis-cnn-critique.html

Posted by The 7:10: Anthony Palmer | November 16, 2007 8:03 AM

"the Village's fear of the Clenis"
Can somebody tell what this means, please?

Sure, I'll take this one on. Clenis = Bill Clintons penis, which has so upset the Washington press lo these many years.

I have been blowing in the wind between Hillary and Obama, and while I liked most of Hillary's answers better last night, she lost me with her 'national security, of course' answer to Wolf's stupid question about security vs human rights. She should have refused to accept the premise, like most of the others did.

In fact I wish the front runners had more of Biden's devil may care attitude toward Blitzer and Malveaux. Maybe then these debates would get to the heart of the matter - the MSM's malign affect on our public discourse.

Posted by DML | November 16, 2007 8:06 AM

Immigration is going to be a huge issue in the general election, very possibly the most important issue. It's going to be an especially huge issue in some battleground states of the west and southwest. Democrats who have a half-baked position on the issue now had better get their acts together in a hurry, because even though it is still primary season, general election voters are already beginning to pay attention to what the leading Dems are saying on this issue.

Only partisan Democrats are going to be sympathetic to defensive whining about mean reporters playing "gotcha", and the media's unfair trampling on a politician's inalienable right to waffle and dodge and position himself on the "right side of public opinion".

Nor are voters going to be satisfied with "I'm not running for governor, so that's not my department." They are looking for national leadership on the issue, and want to know what the candidate thinks and where he or she stands, even about matters that the president will not directly control.

Nor are they going to be satisfied with "I resent that question", or "I will not dignify that question with an answer" or other of the other lame dodges politicians are wont to attempt.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 8:16 AM

Brett Bellmore-- please be aware that states, not the federal government, issue drivers' licenses.

Originalists, are those the folks who believe that the EPA is unconstitutional, and that the president has the right to detain citizens indefinitely without charge, and to torture people in violation of federal law?

Posted by constitutional scholar | November 16, 2007 8:24 AM

I have been blowing in the wind between Hillary and Obama, and while I liked most of Hillary's answers better last night, she lost me with her 'national security, of course' answer to Wolf's stupid question about security vs human rights.

The fact that her answer had an impact on your opinion seems to indicate that it was not such a stupid question after all, doesn't it?

The questioner's job in these debates or interviews is not to comply lamely with the candidate's desire to glide along on their own preferred playing field, a playing field specially manufactured of ambivalence and deception, dressed up to look like strength. Their job is to produce a few brief moments of rubber actually meeting the road.

The human rights question was a perfectly good question. The only reason to "reject the premise" is that politicians would prefer not to answer it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 8:30 AM

We knew ahead of time what was coming. Wolf Blitzer went out his way recently to heap high praise on Tim Russert.

With the media it is all about attracting viewers as that drives revenue. Their fear is that viewers will go away unless a horse race is going on and right now Hillary is gaining such a big lead that viewers will tune out. Well, I've got news for them. Viewers will tune out unless the commentators wise up and start asking the questions the viewers want. Russertization is clearly not the way to go for Blitzer or anybody else. The viewer is the customer and Blitzer/Russert are telling them to go to hell. That approach will backfire big time.

Posted by DallasNE | November 16, 2007 8:38 AM

"Nor are voters going to be satisfied with "I'm not running for governor, so that's not my department." They are looking for national leadership on the issue, and want to know what the candidate thinks and where he or she stands, even about matters that the president will not directly control.

Nor are they going to be satisfied with "I resent that question", or "I will not dignify that question with an answer" or other of the other lame dodges politicians are wont to attempt.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 8:16 AM"

The problem here is that beyond the margins, a candidate for president can only offer some rhetoric. The only real solution that will make a real dent in the number of low-skilled workers crossing the border is if Mexicans en masse become more well off. That means a decades-long project of working with Mexico to help it develop. If authoritarian China (which even hires bounty hunters to track down North Korean illegals, which our Congress has criticized) can't close down the small border with totalitarian North Korea, what chance do we have to really see a long-term decrease in the number of illegal workers in this country? Even if someone is elected on a platform of "fuck the Mexicans," they won't make a dent, people will notice and that will hurt their re-election challenge while Latino voters run away from that party (which brings up the question of whether the Democrats would be smart to do more outreach to unregistered Latinos in the South to get them to vote). Giuliani's record on this can easily bite him, going to the Supreme Court and all to avoid enforcing federal anti-illegals laws. McCain, Huckabee and Romney don't have the best records from the point of view of the base. Tancredo has no shot.

"The human rights question was a perfectly good question. The only reason to "reject the premise" is that politicians would prefer not to answer it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 16, 2007 8:30 AM"

However, I would argue that the US's respect for human rights compared to our major adversaries (the English, the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, etc.) made us safer by making us more popular. We weren't fighting an insurgency in West Germany and Japan in 1949, after all. The Nazis were definitely on the security over human rights side of the equation and they lost the war. So were the Soviets and they lost the Cold War. The premise is only enlightening if we see a politician, like Clinton, embrace the premise, which only makes a false premise seem like a mainstream respectable opinion.

Posted by Reality Man | November 16, 2007 8:54 AM

We would be better served if CNN devoted time to serious subjects, and serious debates, instead of the Osmonds and Dobbs' ramblings and so forth. The same goes for all the networks.

Posted by Sally | November 16, 2007 9:43 AM

Equivalent question for Republicans:

If you had to abort a fetus to prevent Islamic nuclear attack, would you do it? YES or NO!!!

Posted by BUSTER | November 16, 2007 9:52 AM

My letter to CNN:

Once again, CNN demonstrates its role as hand maiden to the Right Wing, the kinder gentler FOX. Initial questions were aimed at Sen. Clinton rather then any issues. Will you lead your Republican debate the same way? Will the first question in the debate be poised at Giuliani in the same manner? Will you ask him if why he keeps changing his positions on abortion? Will you then ask McCain and Romney, what they make of Giulini changing his position? That is what essentially happened in this debate. Why do you deem Democrats as "flip-floppers" when they change a position, but you will never use this same term when discussing a contradiction made one of front runners, especially Giulin? Until I hear a rationale as to why you treat Democratic politicians differently then Republicans, I will operate on the obvious observation; CNN tilts right, badly.

Posted by Sheik Arbusto | November 16, 2007 10:30 AM

It will be interesting to see if our little closet case Anderson has the guts to address any issues related to the rights of the LGBT community in the midst of a Republican-friendly crowd. By the way, his post-debate show was awful. I've never seen so many technical glitches.

Posted by wideawakeinamerica | November 16, 2007 10:36 AM

How long has Blitzer been with CNN? What is his real name- Wolf, an oxymoron (stress on moron) if there ever was one!

Bring on the policy wonks to question the candidates- how about a 3 hour roundtable discussion on foreign policy moderated by Henry (the barely audible mumbler) Kissinger. Or a session on the economy moderated by Allen (mumbo-jumbo) Greenspan. On social security bring in a panel of 10 questioners from the Washington think tanks- left, right and center.

Better yet, forget about having the candidates "debate" and instead send out the legions of candidate advisors to flesh out the nuanced differences among the candidates on topics such as American policy toward antarctic exploration and a warning system for pacific Tsunamis.

Posted by Bogart | November 16, 2007 10:54 AM

I agree with Dan Kervick's first comment, and in fact I posted this proposal a while back: petitiononline.com/debateit

And, to make it more like the real world, the candidates can bring along their policy advisors.

Obviously, the Feds have a role to play in DLs, for instance when those are used to board planes. Not to mention the fed legislation concerning those, not to mention the DHS's role in the Spitzerrr affair.

Not to mention that, in addition to being wrong about DLs for IAs, there were at least five other things wrong with Obama's answer.

Posted by TLB | November 16, 2007 11:39 AM

My favorite moment was when John Roberts referred to the senior Senator from Connecticut as "Senator Dada."

Posted by Ara | November 16, 2007 11:40 AM

Have a look at cnn.com: There is a prominently-displayed video section "Debate Zingers." That's right; it's not about real issues that affect Americans and those around the world, it's about the game, the political bloodsport.

The weary cynicism of the mainstream media is disgusting.

Posted by Matthew | November 16, 2007 1:07 PM

Giuliani had his flaws and friction points as mayor and US Attorney for NYC - but he obtained remarkable results and forged competent teams to execute his objectives.

That Bernard Kerick was a competent gem.

Judith Regan is a nut. She is a rich, smart, viscious, ruthless nut. She is also mad as hell. Rudy may want to ignore this "gossip" story but he will rue the day Judith Regan even got near the fringe of his life.

The secret bank accounts, sexual affairs in apartments for 9/11 resue workers, sleazy business deals . . . man, I hope they hurry up and nominate Rudy. He will make Bill Clinton's life look as wholesome as a Little House on the Prairie episode.

Posted by Pug | November 16, 2007 1:52 PM

States issue drivers' licenses (except for federal exceptions like military drivers' licenses), but the Feds have influence over state policy in this (and plenty of other areas) by making federal aid contingent on certain state policies. I believe the Real ID drivers' licenses in many states were the result of federal legislation.

Posted by Fred | November 16, 2007 3:03 PM

It's a setback for Yglesias to get taken in by voices from the barnyard.
The audience debate questions were stupid, especially the imbalanced budget diatribe from a woman who obviously didn't have a clue and wouldn't know Hamilton from chicken fried steak.
As for her general savvy, economics aside, I bet she couldn't give you fifty words on Bugsy Siegel.
Anyway, to swoon over this kind of irrelevance, the grassroots as anecdotal apotheosis, is kid stuff.

Posted by Sammy Glick | November 17, 2007 8:12 AM

maybe it's the last resort of the underdog--and if so, it's really sad that the presidential election process has become so canned that candidate at the bottom is the only one who can move beyond the talking points--but i found it interesting that the only candidate to stand up to numb-nuts Blitzer was little ol' Kucinich.

Posted by Simon Pineda | November 17, 2007 6:39 PM

I'm not opposed to yes-or-no questions that prevent candidates from delivering stock stump speeches. The issue is the substance-free nature of the questions that were asked.

"Would you reduce aid to Pakistan if Musharraf doesn't restore the constitution" is a good yes or no question.

"Are Human rights more important than national security" is an a bad question.

This isn't rocket science.

Posted by mhp | November 17, 2007 7:02 PM

Okay, I'm not claiming to be the smartest or most informed person in this conversation, but how is it nobody's said this yet in regard to all the "What does a president have to do with a state issue like licenses" stuff going on here: The reason that the states are even considering such a thing as legal documentation for "illegal" immigrants is because the federal government has not funded or enforced immigration and border security laws that are already on the books, much less brawnier ones recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The question (while not properly posed, but what can we expect from Wolf, CNN's variation on Fox) goes to the heart of the issue if the candidates would be savvy enough to connect the dots, and some are. The problem with those candidates who are savvy enough is, either their 45 seconds runs out or people like some in this discussion tune out because they can't process anything not in the form of a yes-or-no answer. Sound bites are supposed to be edited down by the media, not what the media forces everyone to reduce any public expression on a topic to. Obama did a miserable job stumbling around answering the question, but it's only because he learned since the last debate that Hillary had it right, despite the fact that Hillary's lesson was that she got it wrong. So how does he hold fast to his new understanding when in the midst of being given the credit for forcing Hillary to backpedal?

The answer to the question of should states give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is this:

"The 9/11 commission said three years ago we need to pull undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and devise an ID system to determine who they are, where they are, and what they are doing here. This has not been done and we're fooling ourselves if we see this as a social issue or as a business issue. Requiring undocumented immigrants to become documented immigrants under the 9/11 proposal does not mean amnesty. That issue can be decided separately. The ID we would design for these people would be fundamentally different from any state ID and instantly recognizable as what it is. Be it color, wording, imbedded digital chips, these cards would never be confused with the ID of a United States citizen here or abroad.

"From the driver's license standpoint, studies show that otherwise undocumented immigrants who come forth, take the test, and get a driver's license, are not only better prepared to follow the rules of the road, but the vast majority of them get car insurance as well, which pays money into the system and protects you, if they get into an accident with you.

"But this goes beyond driver's licenses. What happens when a citizen is stopped in this country for some infraction? Their ID is run through a database to see whether this person has a prior record. If they do, they might be in more trouble than they otherwise would be. When undocumented workers are stopped—even jailed temporarily—in many precincts for breaking federal law, the federal government's lack of leadership on the issue of what to do with them often results in their being released back onto the streets. This is how state licenses becomes a federal issue. The reason the question is before the states is because the federal government has dropped the ball on upholding its own laws. It is state and local officials who are the front lines in many respects, but they can't do their job if the federal government sends the message the law of the land is not to be enforced. No, Wolf, this is important, dock my time from the next round of questions but this is something the American people have been asking for years, it's something they deserve an answer of more than 45 seconds to, and it's something there is an answer for. The Bush Administration, since 9/11, has sent the message loud and clear in every direction that it intends to break certain important laws, and to neglect other important laws. This must be stopped. In my administration we will enforce these important laws, we will enact and fund all of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and when a law comes to light that is not working for both the security and the freedoms of the United States, we will open the issue up to the senate and to the American people to the degree is appropriate given any sensitive security issues, in the interests of creating a better law, one that is in keeping with American values, and one that can and will be enforced."

Grape_crush noted that it was Biden as well, not simply Kucinich, who was not going to stand for CNN twisting the questions. Interesting that this is the first debate he's seen. I've never seen a debate audience more spiritedly and openly on the side of reason and having appropriate questions asked and those questions answered, and I applaud them for their various expressions. Are the rest of you sated with the media Kool-Aid that Clinton/Obama/Edwards is the whole story, or the counterculture Kool-Aid that Kucinich is the only voice of reason? Next time you all watch one of these debates, act like an American citizen and not a media tool and listen to what everybody on the stage has to say as if they were all created equal. For once, ironically, that means look past the minorities. When I saw that speech by Obama, I said out loud, "I'm going to vote for that man for president some day!" Well, I meant 2012 or 2016 or 2020 when he's had a few years' seasoning, it's not going to be in 2008. And I don't cotton to the idea that Hillary Clinton is some evil, shrill manipulator. I find her quite presidential (and you could negate the records of Bush and even Clinton before him to remove any shred of irony and that would still hold true). I also find it absurd, after the argument in 2000 that we shouldn't just coronate Al Gore, hey, let's give Bush's son a try (and the way the Supreme Court essentially participated in a coup), that people put forth the idea that since two Bushes have screwed things up, we shouldn't give Hillary Clinton a shot just because her husband came in between there. How about we get real and acknowledge our problem is not Bill Clinton or even George Bush I, but the current administration.

After watching the election be stolen twice as a first cynical and then scared media stood by and played into neo-con and libertarian hands alike, I don't want to watch them scare or trash us into limiting our options and then blaming us (or the candidates) for them once again. I happen to think Joe Biden is the most experienced, most straight-talking, most independent, and most electable of all the Dems (much less the Republicans) in this or the past couple elections.

Posted by Brandon | November 21, 2007 9:15 PM