CNN Dem Debate Eight

There will be a time when the democratic nominee is picked-but it shouldn't be now-even if the news media is beginning to act that way. The CNN democratic debate we just witnessed was as weak as it gets. They rolled out Wolf Blitzer again to lead what should have been a charge like we saw last week from Tim Russert but instead he seemed over his head and let Senator Clintons platitudes rule the day. To make matters worse, after the debate, Anderson Cooper let three Cinton friendlies praise her for a come-back-kid performance. James Carville, being practically on her team and David Gergen, a former advisor to President Clinton and Trojan Horse type friendly J.C. Watts decided for the rest of us who's foot work most resembled what it takes to win our affection. I ain't buying it folks, this is not unbiased news coverage and it is why we keep electing the wrong leaders.
Frankly, if you were to gauge performance in this debate based on real substance, Senator Clinton would not be in the top five.
Remember it's not forbidden to be outright critical or suspicious of news organizations or their journalists and just accepting them as credible because they've been around a long time is to be remiss.
Let's face it Wolf Blitzer was lax in his duties. One glaring example was letting Senator Clinton give a one word answer to the question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. This was something that given her previous answers on this issue, should have been ceased upon. It's omission let Senator Clinton off the hook and instantly created suspicion as to whether all candidates were being treated equally.
There was more of the same in the leading question about what is more important, human rights or national security. He was so hell bent on setting up his one word answer wishes that the context of the issue was left behind, confusing everyone. When he finally got to Senator Clinton, having sized up the situation, complied looking decisive, even if the question was like asking which is your favorite child. I never said she wasn't good at politics.
This is the dangerous time in a campaign when the pundits depart from paying attention to a candidates words in favor of less difficult tasks like sizing up "how they come across." You know, their poise, or toughness or the "fire in their belly" and so on. This serves two primary purposes, they get themselves off the hook from doing the tedious job of objectively determining who's best for the country and it allows their personal preferences to seep in more convincingly.
In other words it"s hard for smart people to to align themselves with vague policy such as Senator Clintons "fiscal responsibility" cure for Social Security or her "aggressive negotiation" approach with Iran. So they talk about how she "got back in the game" or "she seems to want it more than the other candidates." Remember, it's supposed to be about how much we want her not the other way around.