The Clinton News Network Holds a Vladimir Putin Debate

November 19, 2007
The Clinton News Network Holds a Vladimir Putin Debate (Brent Budowsky)
@ 10:30 am
Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have close to a hundred years of significant government experience and very significant things to say about the campaign, but have been treated in these debates like the opposition to Vladimir Putin are treated in the state-controlled Russian media.

It is a disgrace and a sham and a disrespect not only to those candidates but to the very idea of an informed citizenry choosing our next leader in a democratic election.

This CNN debate began with a lie.

Matt Drudge reported that the Clinton people were pressuring Wolf Blitzer to go easy on Hillary; Blitzer dutifully denied. Either Drudge, the Clinton people or Blitzer was lying, and obviously it was Wolf.

Why couldn’t Blitzer say the truth, that the Clinton people used Drudge to send him a message?

It gets worse. The first 20 minutes of the debate completely excluded a majority of the candidates despite Blitzer’s lame and false promises that they would all be heard.

It gets even worse. In the kind of completely unethical practice that has become all too common in this campaign, CNN had the gall to pressure a student to ask a trivial planted question of Hillary Clinton about her relative opinions of diamonds or pearls.

Never mind that in this warped and ridiculous debate format the Bidens, Dodds, Richardsons and Kuciniches are largely closed out by the dictatorship of who decides which candidates are allowed to speak.

Never mind that candidates are interrupted in the most rude and unprofessional way if they dare to take more than a few seconds to discuss World War III, or the threat to the earth from climate change, or how to help the multitudes of the homeless or those without healthcare.

To waste time on questions about diamonds and pearls when candidates do not have the time to intelligently discuss Pakistan is Kafkaesque; to force-feed a question on a student, aimed at the network’s favored candidate, on such a stupid and trivial matter is not merely Kafkaesque but Putinesque.

It gets even worse. The so-called analysis of the debate is conducted by a partisan of one of the candidates, who dutifully cites the success of his candidate. This is not merely an issue of disclosure, with the lack of disclosure yet another unethical practice of what passes for journalism. Why was James Carville chosen in the first place? Couldn’t CNN find even one objective analyst?

Folks, I don’t blame Hillary Clinton or Jim Carville. If I were advising a major candidate, and more than once I have and probably will again, if I had the chance to dominate a debate by rigging the rules: Go for it. That is the way the game is played, let’s be honest about it.

This whole affair was a shame and disgrace and the latest in a series of debates that were managed in ways that insult the very notion of an informed electorate choosing our leader in a democratic election at a dangerous time.

My advice if this happens again: Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich should agree in advance to walk off the stage together and find some place to have their own debate, for as long as it takes, to have the kind of serious discussion our country deserves.

Trust me, if they do, it will be a ratings smash.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/11/19/the-clinton-news-network-holds-a-vladimir-putin-debate/

Funny, i got this link from Randi Rhodes. Don't think she is a freeper. Budowsky is a guest on her program continually. He is no freeper.

What is it? If something is said that the Hillary supporters don't agree with or can't accept you are automatically a freeper?

You should be a bit more informed before making inflammatory statements!

Oh and Cat Girl.. you may want to read the entire article before commenting...

Any DUer that uses the freeper talk of "Clinton News Network" or posts such articles using it is freeperish.

he makes valid points. the actions of CNN during and after the debate really didn't aid clinton in the long run and certainly were an affront to the democratic process.

There's nothing to disagree with anything he said there except the "not blaming Clinton or Carville" part; I don't blame them for wanting to win either, but someone who feels they're qualified to be POTUS shouldn't have to rely on disqualifying the notion of democracy from democratic debates. There's absolutely no need to hold a debate if the purpose is to amend, ameliorate or manipulate the standings of one, two, maximum three, candidates, in a field of eight (the last of which, reportedly, wasn't even invited), at the expense of real issues that any successful nominee would have to tackle in a general election, and which any eventual President would have to address once in office. If the coronation of one candidate were as inevitable as they would have people believe, there'd be little reason to enjoin or cajole networks to stack the deck so obviously in their favor. I don't have a problem with ambition or the smarts and wherewithal to pull it off, but I do have a problem with power-mongers claiming to be victims. If anything, THAT's a GOP thing to do, as opposed to having the guts to hold your own in a level playing field.

I used to admire the hell out of Carville, and, for that matter, the Clintons. But there's no point in having or being in a party if that party doesn't stand for what it claims to stand for. Thank God (or whoever) that the democratic party has many faces, even if they're not acknowledged, for that's the only thing that still gives any meaning to being a democrat.