Ranting the Dem Prez Debate: Blitzer Glitz

I confess I'm finding these psuedo-debates more and more useless, shallow and boring. I can only imagine how unappealing non-political junkies are finding this fare. I think the CNN version was the worst yet, clearly staged mostly to show off the self-perceived incisiveness and cleverness of Wolf Blitzer. He is, after all, a legend in his own mind. Mostly, he needs a shave and an apprenticeship with a real journalist (or a serious blogger) so he can learn to avoid the vapid questions he poses in his gotcha game-show performances: "Raise your hand if you are for English! Raise your hand if you're for higher gas prices! Raise your hand if you think I'm a pontificating control freak!" And then there's always some variation on "What would you do if Osama bin Laden threw an A-bomb into the middle of Washington DC?" to test whether candidates are "tough enough" on terrorism. Juvenile, juvenile, juvenile.

Every time a candidate veered even slightly towards saying something meaningful, Wolfie shut them down like a sh-shing schoolmarm. It was heartening to witness a few of the "debaters" pounce on him more than once for his silly attempts to elicit a "devisive" or "newsworthy" sound bite from the bunch.

Pickin' and Choosin'
I'm also sick of these mainstream media types deciding for us who should get to be center stage and who should get the most air time. You could barely see or hear Kucinich or Gravel, who were placed at the far edges of the glamour lineup even though, once again, they were the only candidates entirely willing to utter what they really believed instead of canned PR lines. Agree or disagree with their positions, at least they offered them without much window dressing or weasling.

I loved how they called out the others on their pro-attack-Iraq votes, and their insistence that universal, single payer health coverage is the ONLY sensible and practical way to improve our system. If you don't cut out the profit suckers in the middle and the for-profits that waste about 19% of health care spending on administrative costs, you ain't gonna be able to afford to cover everyone. I don't care how much exercise and "preventive care" you require of Americans. The "serious" candidates all know this but prefer to pretend otherwise, trying instead to baffle Americans with BS on this issue. Oh, they're all for universal health care, as we've heard from every Dem candidate for decades now. They're just not prepared to do what it would take to really provide it: confront Big Pharma and Big Insurance in no uncertain terms.

Bill Richardson didn't get to answer a question until almost 20 minutes into the two-hour event, and he was repeatedly shut down throughout. Personally, I thought he gave one of his strongest answers on gay rights:

"I love all this parsing and senatorial courtesy and 'on the one hand, on the other hand.' Here's what I would do. I would do what I did as governor of New Mexico. One, I would move in the Congress for a hate crimes law. I would have domestic partnerships. I would have civil unions. I would initiate laws that practice non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would get rid of 'don't ask, don't tell.' I voted against it as a congressman. A president has to show leadership...and this country should not be asking a person who is giving up their life for this country in the military...they should not be given...a lecture on sexual orientation."

I also liked his proposal to threaten to boycott the Peking Olympics if China doesn't quit coddling Sudan's murderous behavior in Darfur so they keep their oil spigot open to them. I thought his worst answer had to do with providing Presidents with line item veto power on the budget. Can you imagine what Bush would have done with that? And how it would decimate Congress' powers to negotiate?

Wolfie felt perfectly justified in cutting Richardson off in mid-sentence whenever he felt like it, something he rarely, if ever, did with the media's preferred "top three." Biden and Dodd got the same treatment. Wolfie seemed to give the most time by far to Hillary, Barack and Edwards. He is one powerful dude. He gets to pick and choose and shape and sell and to hell with fairness and equal time.

Pre-Fab Bells and Whistles
I really didn't like the contrived and artificial attempt to include "audience questions" in the second hour. Could the CNN producers have selected a more canned and melodrama-enriched group of questioners? There were the obligatory people with relatives serving in Iraq, and the "everyman" and "everywoman" types who own hair salons and teach school. Does anyone really care how many kids they have or what they do for a living when they're posing another milquetoast, generic question?

Did you get a load of that graphically imposing stage set CNN no doubt spent tens of thousands of dollars to create? Too bad they couldn't get the reporters' microphones to work properly. Minor detail, I know. More time wasted on repeating certain questions over and over because a candidate couldn't hear a thing. Hey CNN: less graphics and strobing lights, more basic broadcasting professionalism.

Probing Past Pablum Answers
I note the endless regurgitating of the media over who "won" the debate, which really entails determining which candidate managed to cram the most prepackaged, scripted gotcha quotes into their answers, and do so as fast as possible without any ums or ers. This is how we judge candidates for a job that will require enlightened leadership and out-of-the-box thinking to the nth degree given the emergencies wreaking havoc in almost every area of foreign and domestic affairs?

Just once, I'd like to see the polished talking points of the frontrunners punctured by real followup questions. You know, the kind serious journalists used to ask back when reporting was more than a ratings game. One example: how about probing a little deeper on the (always evolving) excuse used by Hillary to justify voting for unlimited war powers for Bush in Iraq? Her latest tactic is to claim she really thought she was voting merely to give Bush a way to get inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Heaven forbid -- she had no idea Bush Boy would use his open-ended permission slip to rush to war! Who'da thunk it?

Bottom line: I think these fake debates are worthless in every aspect except, perhaps, judging the quality of the candidates' hair and makeup teams. Did you notice that Hillary's face didn't have one wrinkle evident? An amazing feat given her age. Did you dig the latest evolution of Biden's intricate comb over of his balding head? Did you notice the tannish skin tones on so many of the candidates? Pockmarks and pimples begone.

Dream Debates
Wouldn't you like to see someone like Juan Cole asking the quesions about Iraq? Or Paul Krugman pummeling the candidates with questions about health care reform and economic fairness? How about David Sirota stripping the candidates down to their real views on "free" trade? Or Bill Moyers posing pointed questions about media conglomerates and big money in politics? Wouldn't you like to witness Glenn Greenwald pressuring the candidates to explain their views on habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping? Now THAT would be must-see TV....

In case you missed the debate and want to see it, visit the CNN debate page. And Steve Terrell was in New Hampshire for the debate and has blow by blow coverage, as well as lots of photos. Photos: Reuters.