Debate in Iraq

Likely Democrat Presidential standard-bearer, Senator Barack Obama, has only been in Iraq on one occasion. And that was nearly two and a half years ago, back in January of 2006. Putative Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, however, has been there on eight separate occasions. Senator Hillary Clinton has also been to Iraq on a few occasions.

Nor, it seems, has Senator Obama been to Afghanistan at all. Both McCain and Clinton have toured Afghanistan. And, as pointed out by Sam Youngman back in early March at The Hill (H.T., Ed Morrissey, below), Obama has skipped two out of three meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held on Afghanistan, since he joined the panel. As the Chair of a Subcommittee covering Afghanistan, he has yet to schedule a meeting.

Early yesterday, Ed Morrissey at HotAir posted a portion of a Wall Street Journal WashingtonWire blog post reporting that, while very recently traveling in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton had noted at one stop that she had been to both Iraq and Afghanistan more often than Senator Barack Obama. And, she further noted that for part of the time, she had traveled with Senator John McCain, which she described favorably. In the midst of making some campaign-related rhetorical comments about the war, she added:

"I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together," she said. "And I honor his service to our country and his patriotism."

Responding to rather intense pressure heaped on him over the past few days, Senator Obama is quoted at the New York Times blog, The Caucus now saying that he is "considering" going to Iraq to see the situation first-hand. He likely did so because, in addition to the challenge put to him by McCain, over the past several days he has been subjected to intense pressure coming from ads being launched by an Iraq veteran's group called "Vets For Freedom."

Here is the link to their webpage with their latest ad, featuring Specialist Kate Norley, an Iraq veteran combat medic, who challenges Obama to revisit Iraq anew to witness first-hand the remarkable progress there, and also to agree to meet "unconditionally" with General Petraeus -- an obvious allusion to his controversially expressed willingness to meet with President Ahmadinejad of Iran (amongst a litany of bad actors). There are other media clips linked at the "Vets For Freedom" website in their Media Center.

Senator John McCain had previously suggested that Obama travel to Iraq with him. While Obama caved in to some of that pressure by giving consideration to a trip, he rejected the idea of traveling with McCain, calling that a "political stunt." His campaign did not explain why they considered it a stunt, but it is pretty obvious they fear political embarrassment.

By no means am I the first to suggest the following idea, but it occurs to me that Senator Obama and John McCain could agree not only to travel to Iraq, but also to hold the first general election debate there, in front of our American troops.

Each man aspires to be the Commander-in-Chief, and this would give to our troops an immediate and well-deserved acknowledgement of the high respect that so many of us feel for them as our defenders, regardless of our, or their, political party preferences or affiliations.

Certainly Senator Obama does not believe that holding and participating in a debate is a "political stunt," having participated in literally scores of them during the primary season, and having thereby persuaded a majority of the voters and caucus participants in his own party to favor his candidacy over that of Hillary Clinton. She was, after all, the overwhelming favorite at the beginning of the primary campaign season.

What greater legacy could we Americans leave to this fledgling democratic state in the Middle East, than to vividly demonstrate how politics can be a rough and tumble, but respectful clash of ideas, which we engage in in order to select our own leaders and choose our own destiny? When this election process is done, we will have selected a new President, House of Representatives, and a number of Senators, and we will move on in accordance with priorities chosen by We the People. The people in the other states in the region would likewise witness such a debate with rapt attention as well, no?

And, what more vivid reminder and demonstration to the American people could there be of the significant role our military, and others, including a new Iraqi security apparatus, have played within Iraq and elsewhere in fighting al-Qaeda terror?

Today, John Hinderaker at Powerline has outlined the increasingly serious dilemma faced by Senator Obama, as it becomes more and more clear to the American public that Obama's assessment of the situation in Iraq one year ago was simply wrong. Moreover, his stated solution -- to immediately begin a phased withdraw -- would most likely have unleashed a painful, and perhaps tragic social disruption in Iraq, and throughout the region, as well as a concomitant major setback in American foreign policy. Senator McCain's position, though bold and seemingly risky at the time, clearly seems to have been the correct prescription.

As John notes:

The problem for Obama is that it is hard to see how he can go to Iraq without acknowledging that the surge has succeeded, violence has been reduced, and the Iraqis are making considerable political progress. If he goes to Iraq, he has to meet with generals, soldiers and Marines, and they will tell him these things. But if Obama admits that we are succeeding in Iraq, he is admitting that John McCain was right all along. He can't do that.

and,

Obama's Iraq policy is increasingly at odds with realities on the ground, and more and more voters are becoming aware of that fact. Obama can't stay away from Iraq until November. His advisers must be trying to figure out how to fit such a trip into a narrative that will hold water through the election. For now, they may just be hoping for things to get worse. But when they do finally announce a trip to Iraq, the nature of that visit will likely hold the key to how Obama intends to handle the increasingly dangerous (for him) issue of Iraq in the fall.

Neither engaging in wishful thinking, nor having his surrogates lie about (H.T. Allahpundit, here) his pre-surge position, is any kind of plan. So in a way, he might be better off dealing with the issue and in a bold way right now. Politically, Senator Obama could show some mettle by stepping right into the lion's den" on this critical issue, and agree to a debate with Senator McCain in Iraq, in front of our troops. Otherwise, he will continue being visibly backed against the ropes by John McCain before he's even officially declared the candidate!

And after all, didn't he boldly utter the title quote to David Nason, the New York correspondent to The Australian, less than two weeks ago, in "Obama's Iraq challenge: debate me":

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have anytime, any place." (emphasis added)

A wag at this point might be tempted to say, "Okay. How's the Green Zone sound?"

"I Will Stand Where I Stand . . ."
-- Senator John McCain, Senate floor speech, all-night debate, July 18, 2007

(Update: 03/02/08)
Campaigning down in Tyler, Texas early today (02/27/08), Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, delivered a direct ripost to a comment made by Democrat hopeful, Senator Barack Obama during the final Democrat presidential debate last night. Senator Obama said, in response to a question, that if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and established a base after he, as President withdrew the troops, then he would send military troops back to Iraq.

But as John carefully and pointedly explained today, al-Qaeda is already in Iraq. "It's called al-Qaeda in Iraq!" he said. And he further noted that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) does not want a base; they want to take the country. McCain said, "I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Here is the video*:


Base-tm
Uploaded by luvnews


The words in the title quote (above) of our post today, were taken from a early morning speech delivered by McCain during the debate over a Democrat proposal to force the Administration into a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, way back on July 18, 2007.

It was, in my opinion, one of the great speeches in American history, coming as it did at a pivotal moment in our nation's contentious internal debate and, at that moment, institutional confrontation over the future of our commitment to the struggle in Iraq. Yet, his stirring remarks went utterly unreported by any in our national media, save for a few bloggers who picked up the significance of his speech and shared them.

Most notably, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters quickly turned around a transcription of McCain's remarks, which the Senator actually finished delivering at about 4:10 am, and Ed astonishingly was able to have them posted them on his blog, along with commentary, by 10:46 a.m. that morning!

Ed properly entitled that post, employing John's own words, ones embodying his determination that whatever the ultimate verdict of history, or the shorter term judgment of the people, that "I will stand where I stand." Ed introduced the Senator's remarks thusly:

Harry Reid wanted a debate, and he got one, especially from John McCain, during last night's stunt -- which Reid himself mostly skipped. It didn't change a single vote, and more importantly, Reid didn't get what he wanted -- a Republican refusal to engage. Instead, Republicans made it clear that they had no intention of allowing Congress to usurp the role of the executive, and McCain made it clear why. Here's his entire statement from the debate early this morning:

. . . .

The AP reported on the debate back then in a story that began:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules."
. . . .

Had the Democrats succeeded in forcing a withdraw back then, our nation would now be humiliated and retreating, having opted to abandon an ally whose people we freed, and having, in our cravenness, emboldened al-Qaeda to become a major force, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, freely recruiting future terrorists. And, we would have also clearly signaled our other allies, both there in the region, and throughout the world that we can no longer be relied upon.

One wonders how long would it have been before al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists would have been back on our shores, and at our throats? But because of the surge, which the Democrats opposed -- AQI is quickly becoming a discredited and defeated force, with recruitment down, prospects dimmed and increasingly, a Sunni populace that has rejected their approach.

During that all night debate, at a little after 4 am, John McCain, his campaign for the Presidency on the brink of collapse, nevertheless stood and delivered one of the great speeches in all of American history. Yet no one but a few bloggers such as Ed Morrissey reported his stirring words at that moment.

Senator McCain concluded his speech as follows:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

"I will stand where I stand . . ." should, and one can only hope will likely become words embodying courage and steadfastness of purpose at a moment of real peril. That, it seems to me, is the very mark of good leadership. Please, go to the post and read the Senator's full remarks.

Finally, as we noted in a comment on that post at Captains Quarters, McCain's remarks were immediately followed by those of Hillary Clinton. Imagine, if you will, being in her position that day. She no doubt figured that, as the putative Democrat candidate, she had been given the advantage of the final word, by being scheduled to speak after him. But as she listened to his remarks, surely it had to cross her mind that something quite extraordinary had just been said. I wonder if, for even one brief second, a thought crossed her mind that she was indeed on the wrong side of history. We'll never know; she would likely never admit to it. And, neither will many likely know or care what she had to say that early morning. The moment had passed her by.


Thank you President Bush and John McCain, and General Petraeus, and thank you to all those brave troops who have put their lives on the line for our nation, and so effectively taken on an implacable enemy of this nation. We must not abandon them.


*A news report, from Brietbart, embedding the video of the Senators remarks today can be found located here. Reader comments are also linked to that post. (No comments were permitted with the original Dailymotion video, posted above.)

** The McCain campaign website indicates that he began speaking at about 3:45 a.m., which may only be slightly inconsistent with the AP report published the 18th that indicated he finished at 4:10 a.m -- it was not a 25 minute speech.

The Newspaper Candidate

John McCain is playing an ad now, exclusively touting newspaper positions, but not just endorsements -- he's also including along with them, published negative positions about his chief opponent at this point, Mitt Romney. The most notable negative in the later category was a polemic published by the Concord Monitor.

Lest anyone have any doubt about bias at that paper, if you are here in New Hampshire and follow the paper's coverage, even briefly, you know which way it leans.

For example, the Monitor's coverage on Saturday morning gave coverage and reaction to the results of Iowa on the front page, but with the bulk of primary election news on their section B State & Local page. The coverage consisted of a few longer stories on how the candidates were reacting to their various placings in the caucuses, and a few postings about events that would be on the schedule of the candidates for the weekend. They call that feature Campaign Watch.

The Monitor stories on that page were almost all about Democrats -- one each about Edwards, Huckabee, Obama, Clinton, and one on the curiosity of the foreign press about the New Hampshire in general, and the war in particular. There were a total of four photos on the page,the largest featuring Barack Obama ot a rally with an enthusiastic crowd as the backdrop, then a friendly shot of Hillary having a good laugh with a 91 year old gal from Goffstown, and, finally, two small head shots, one of John Edwards and one of Dennis Kucinick.

That was it.

The shorter blurbs -- Saturday left side bar stories, which the paper dubs Trail Mix were, in order, about John Edwards, John Edwards (again) and Dennis Kucinich.

In the Campaign Watch feature posting presidential events, the listed the following appearances: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, John McCain, John McCain and finally, a tiny note that Mitt Romney would be holding a post-debate (ABC) rally at Varick's Sports Bar on Depot Street in Manchester.

So, we took a little trip down to Varick's last night, and here are a few shots from the event to share, ones you will not see in the Monitor. They didn't cover the event at all, even shopping for comments as a part of the wrap-up on the debate today, though we do know they knew about it.

They do, however, cover other "light touch" topics, such as: Hillary and Chelsea Clintons' bus ride with four undecided young voters, mostly spent discussing the merits of being a vegetarian; and a lengthy staff-written piece on their blog about how John McCain doesn't drink as much coffee as he used to!

Mitt had his spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom read a statement of initial reaction to the debate by nationally-known political pundit Dick Morris, who reluctantly admitted that Mitt had won last night's debate. Eric was reading the statement from his Blackberry.


In addition to announcing his victory in the Wyoming Primary, where Mitt picked up 8 of 12 delegates, he expressed confidence about his performance in the debate, and said that the focus of the debate played to his strengths. In a sense, it is a shame that Ron Paul will not participate in the Fox News Channel debate at 8 pm tonight, at St. Anselm College. In a way, Paul was the perfect foil for the others, and especially Mitt last night. One of his strongest moments involved explaining to the Congressman the importance of confronting the global jihad.


Ann and Mitt both talked about how during the debate he used the technique of focusing on one person in the audience to speak to. Mitt, of course, said he knew he was doing well during the debate, as kept looking at Ann, and she would smile and give him a big thumbs up.



The Concord Monitor's coverage on Sunday (today) was no better, almost to the point of pettyness. For example, because of the unique circumstances of the two debates being held one after another last night, both the Republican and Democrat candidates all met briefly on the stage and exchanged pleasantries between the two debates. The Monitor managed to find a photo -- no doubt among several they took -- that managed to block out Mitt Romney from the photo all together. On the inside, they selected a shot of the Republican candidates that managed to catch Mitt with his mouth open.

Well, it's their paper. But Senator McCain knows full well what their bias is.

Then too, the polls right at this point are showing an interesting development. If they are to believed (it consisted of a relatively small sampling) Hillary and Obama are now in a dead heat, and McCain with a lead just outside the margin of error. Independents can opt to vote in the primaries either way, with McCain, Obama and even Edwards all plugging hard for those voters. To the extent that McCain is tacking left to try to attract those votes, he may turn off Republican voters.

CNN Meltdown, Part III, "Stonewall !"

Hugh Hewitt highlights more on the CNN "meltdown," drawing from his interview with Tom Brokaw, and linking to the latest from Mark Steyn, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and others (other links in Hugh's original).

Hugh also quoted from our own Update posted last night (thanks, Hugh) about the total disconnect between what CNN senior executives, including David Bohrman, were publicly pitching prior to the debate, and what actually unfolded at the event.

Hugh concludes:

"CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Right to the nub, Hugh.

Except that CNN, unlike CBS, will likely do little if anything in the way of a "self-examination" or investigation of what happened to try to restore their credibility, other than the Anderson Cooper "mea culpa," which was limited to the exposure about General Kerr's connection to the Clinton campaign.

Will CNN just take The New Republic approach to rooting out those serious research and credibility problems? "Moving right along . . ."

So far, their site suggests just that. A quick search of the CNN main website page, or of their politics page, reveals little or no recognition at all of the brewing controversy about their debate.
Elsewhere on the CNN site, CNN Investigates caught our eye for a second, but it's about candidate "attack ads" and who is this year's Willie Horton, not about "ambush questions" and who is this year's Dan Rather!

A post-debate Podcast analysis piece with Lisa DesJardin and John Lisk contains not a single word about the controversy. It's all just a, "he said, he said" recap of the candidates.

The only thing we could find on their entire site was two comments here buried among a total of 28 in what was a quickly closed thread. They were posted by Justin and Michael as reader comment on the post-debate wrap-up. Here are the two comments:

Justin

I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) With what was supposed to be a good sampling of Americans, I found simple web searches of those asking questions bringing up facts that seemed to show these particular individuals were only coming from select political views and caused me to lose faith in the validity of the whole debate. CNN-The Most Trusted Name in News...REALLY?????

. . .

Michael

YouTube either forgot to or chose not to vet their guests last night. Keith Kerr, Leann Anderson, and David McMillan are all *publicly* tied to current Democratic campaigns but were passed off as "civilians" when their questions were aired.

Good for them! But not a very good beginning for CNN!

Finally, the CNN link to their partner communication, Time, Inc. is to a video post grading the candidates' performances.

The CNN/YouTube Debate: Outsourcing Journalism by James Poniewozik, author of Time's Tuned In blog, put up a post-debate analysis on the 29th, also studiously avoided the controversy. The whole piece is about the "refreshing" uniqueness of having "citizens" ask the questions.

In fact, here's a bit of irony for you from James!

But the better questions to come out of YouTube were ones that mainstream journalists wouldn't have asked, for fear of seeming biased (as I said last time, bias produces some of the best questions) or because they strayed from the standard campaign-2008 talking points.

Really? So . . . the only reason certain reporters don't ask certain questions, is to avoid appearing biased? Well, we knew that, James. But, it is nice to hear it coming from you!

Or how about his finisher:

In the end, CNN didn't "give YouTubers a voice." The YouTubers gave CNN one.

Sure did! And a rather distinctly Democrat one at that!

The CNN/YouTube Debate Update

As has been duly noted elsewhere, here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions.

Both claims were utterly and completely untrue.

We now know that a significant number of the few selected questioners, from as many as 5,000 YouTube video submissions, were submitted by out-and-out Democrat plants, and even one aired question was by a former CAIR intern, all with no other purpose than to hurl ambush questions at the candidates, and that a minimum amount of research on the part of the CNN producers and researchers would have quickly revealed those connections to them.

At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds correctly calls it "a failure of professionalism," noting, as others have, that YouTube is, after all, owned by Google!

So, what happened, Dave? Who in production and/or research dropped the ball? Who, if anyone, was uhhhh . . . Googling?

Over the years, we have seen CNN in various outrageous iterations, including having experienced the disgusting accusation by the former President of CNN news, Eason Jordan (in Davos) -- who ultimately had to resign -- over falsely accusing the U.S. military of intentionally killing reporters in Iraq out of anger! Now CNN has attempted to skew the nomination process on both sides, within two weeks.

Are they trying to outdo Dan Rather?

The CNN story on Monday ended as follows:

CNN's political unit is keeping the questions a secret, but those selecting them say viewers should be prepared for presentations that are funny, questions that are poignant and a format that is unprecedented for the GOP.

Yep.

Hey, maybe what they really meant to say was "funny" questions, and unprecedented presentations.

(Our original post, here.)

CNN - Another Media Misdemeanor

Let's see -- last week CNN hosted a Presidential debate for the Democrat candidates, and the "public participation portion" was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

This week, CNN, along with YouTube, hosted a Presidential debate, this one for the Republican candidates, and the "public participation portion" (the entire debate) with YouTube video questions, was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

Hmmmmm . . . maybe there is something to that Harvard media bias study that concluded, among other findings, that CNN is the most openly hostile to Republicans.

A video question on gays in the military was asked by a retired military officer, Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, whose solid connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign was popped last night before midnight by Kenneth P. Vogel on Politico. The former General initially lied to Vogel about his connection to the Clinton Campaign, as did the Clinton campaign.

From Politico's report:

. . .
Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign, and CNN
verified before the debate that he had not contributed money to any candidate,
the broadcaster said in a blog post after the debate.

Kerr told CNN he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself, CNN said.

On Thursday, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."

A Nov. 11 press release retrieved from the website of the nonpartisan magazine Campaigns & Elections lists Kerr as one of nearly 50 co-chairs of "Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary."

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an e-mail asking about Kerr’s role
in her campaign or whether he was acting on behalf of the campaign.
. . . .

And today Michelle Malkin has the complete wrap-up on who the various plant questioners were in last night's CNN - YouTube "debate" free-for-all format.

Given the fact that, to some extent, the CNN Cable network had their reputation on the line in terms of allowing plants to misrepresent themselves on their debate programming after the latest Democrat debate they hosted, you would think the producers would have done a little better job of screening those asking the questions.

Nope.

This time, it is clear they did exactly what they intended to do -- give free air time to misleading, and in the case of the former general, lying questioners -- ersatz Republicans -- each of whose sole purpose was to try to embarrass those in the field of Republican candidates, by hitting them with "gotcha" questions. But don't completely fault the questioners for trying -- hey, they're partisans!

Blame CNN for failing miserably to handle it with any sense of fairness at all.

This is an old story with CNN. The pattern probably began a long time ago, with an earlier "innovative" election participation technology that was popular at the time -- the "call-in" show.

In the 1992 Presidential race, CNN's Larry King brazenly allowed known Clinton political operative and Communications Director, George Stephanopolus, to be one of several "just folks" call in questioners on his show, Larry King Live. Stephanoplous then proceeded to harangue the sitting President with a totally misleading and accusatory question about Iran Contra.

Though the senior Bush immediately objected on air to King on the grounds that it was an obvious ambush question by a plant from the other side, King insisted that Stephanopolus had a right like anyone else to "call in," and he allowed the call. The damage was done.

Of course, no doubt the call came from the Clinton "war room" -- the one which Stephanopolus himself set up -- where they had the distinct advantage of using a bank of telephones to be sure at least one call got through. Or, perhaps more likely, the Clinton team simply coordinated with Larry King, a known Democrat partisan, to set up the call in advance.

Either way, however, CNN openly participated in the ambush at some level. And, in that instance they arguably succeeded in helping skew the election process.

Participants in the new media, however, are time after time exposing the partisan nature of the old. The problem has been, and continues to be that the old media partisans still have the advantage of getting in the sucker punch. And they don't do such a hot job of covering one others' media misdemeanors. They tend to ignore or lightly gloss over the stories.

Only Fox News Channel covered it as an actual news story, although CNN contributor, Bill Bennett interjected the exposure of Clinton team's military questioner, and Anderson Cooper later weighed in with an apology, acknowledging Bennet's role.

Oh, don't expect too much coverage of the CNN story from ABC News, whose President is George Stephanopolous.

Today's ABC Good Morning America video recap on the debate by Jake Tapper still up on the ABC site in the late afternoon of November 29th, makes no mention at all of the controversy over the series of Democrat plants. And there is not even one word of mention about the Clinton Campaign's intrusion with General Kerr's question, which, as we noted, was exposed last night.

Jake's entire take was that the Republican debate was about "personal attacks," and that the campaign was "only going to get nastier."

Wolf Blitzer Bombed

As you no doubt already know, Wolf Blitzer threw in the CNN-monogrammed towel in the Democrat "debate" in Las Vegas.

What happened there didn't stay there! And it's all over the internet, on both the left and the right.

Having been rather openly warned not to focus the debate on Hillary, Wolf personally backed off asking her an obvious follow-up question on licenses for illegal immigrants, though he did closely query Barack Obama on the same issue. As noted on the NRO Media Blog, Hillary front group Media Matters, even issued a list of prior warnings to Wolf and CNN, regarding what questions they could and could not ask! Wolf ended up spending much of the debate interrupting the candidates, giving Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace an opening to critique the CNN coverage the next day, as reported on "alternative news" blog, The Raw Story.

Thus, in spite of Wolfy's prior pledge to ask tough questions, the CNN towel hit the canvas within a few minutes, just as it had apparently been planned all along.

Newsbusters notes that the lefty blog, Daily Kos jumped all over the CNN coverage as pro-Hillary. Likewise Gateway Pundit. Strange bedfellows, huh?

Our prior post, suggesting some tough questions for him to ask Hillary, was of course only half in jest. We knew Wolf would never have asked anything like the questions we listed. Nor will anyone in the media.

But little did we suspect that the entire network would completely cave, by scripting the public portion of the debate, and openly toss in with the Democrats to promote their agenda! Michelle Malkin accurately calls it the "Politics of Planting" in this video replay of that portion of the debate. Contrary to his pledge, he actually stated in the lead-in that the public questioners were "undecided," openly suggesting that they were independents, though as we know now, they were nothing of the kind.

Here is exactly how he put it:

Wolf Blitzer: "White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux is here with us and, Suzanne, you have some, uhh, undecided voters who are ready to ask these Presidential candidates some specific questions. Let's begin right now!"

Suzanne Malveaux: "Sure Wolf, they are all very excited . . . about a hundred folks here. I've had a chance to actually meet at least, uhh, some of you here. Katherine Jackson . . . I want to start off with you . . .

And off they went! The implication of the introduction was that they had selected a few questioners from a group of about 100 or more undecided voters who showed up for the debate.
But one of the questioners -- the girl, Maria Luisa, who got stuck at the end having to ask her "fun" question to Hillary, "Diamonds or pearls?" -- made it quite clear that the entire matter was scripted well prior to the "debate." Mark Ambinder at the Atlantic laid out the details of Maria's next day "blurt" on MySpace.

Many other questioners were previously known Democrat activists, as detailed by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, some of them with direct connections of loyalty to supporters of Hillary Clinton, including a former intern to Harry Reid!

So let's face it, as was reported about the Harvard media study, CNN is not only the most hostile to Republicans of all the networks, it also appears more than willing to ensure that the Democrat candidates are not confronted with anything like the tough questions Wolf had promised.

Where she saw an opening CNN's Suzanne Malveaux even "amended" one girl's question in order to further drive the agenda.

Regarding Mark Ambinder's Atlantic piece, above, you'll note that well over 500 comments have since been posted. The most persistent theme among the commenters is, if debate questioner Maria Luisa was so smart, why did she not just go ahead and ask her question about Yucca anyway, once they handed her the microphone? In other words, Why did she cave in and ask her "diamonds or pearls" question? She herself addressed it in the comment section.

The comments on the article thread range in quality from quite insightful to utterly abusive.

But having read through them, our vote for the best comment posted on the entire thread was this one:

(Heard in the wings: "Say, what time did you say we put the dog up on the pony?")
Posted by Billy Beck November 17, 2007 12:39 AM

Here is the original comment as posted on Billy's blog, where, incidentally, you can pick up a ton of information on guitars.

Funny. That said it all!