More Thoughts on CNN and the Democratic Debate (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
In last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, CNN identified several questioners as “undecided voters” who are Democratic Party members and may also be Democratic officials and activists. In one case, the person might not even be a voter.
I commented on this story here and was roundly criticized for missing the boat. Most of the comments went like this: “It’s a Democratic debate. You don’t have to say the participants were Democrats because everyone knows they are or they wouldn’t be there. They are probably undecided which Democratic candidate they want to vote for.” Those commenters believed CNN was justified in labeling the questioners as undecided voters.
There was support for this view from conservative bloggers Captain Ed and, to a lesser extent, Jim Geraghty.
Let’s set aside the issue of whether the questioners were truly undecided even though there’s some indication that a few are associated with the Clinton campaign. We’ll give them the benefit of the undecided doubt. To those bloggers, commenters and readers who still believe CNN was right, here are some flaws in your logic:
1. “Undecided voter” has a common sense definition. It refers to a person who hasn’t decided for whom they will vote. It doesn’t mean someone who knows they will vote for a Democrat but hasn’t decided which one. As Jim Geraghty pointed out, if you want to say “undecided Democratic voter,” say it.
2. “Undecided voter” doesn’t suddenly have a new meaning because it is used at a Democratic debate. I agree it could have a different meaning if it happened at a Democratic Convention but debates are not exclusively partisan events. Independent voters are expected to and actually attend Democratic and Republican debates because they want information to help them make up their minds. Disenchanted Democrats and Republicans might also attend the other side’s debates.
3. The last time I checked the polls, there are still people who identify themselves as independents. Perhaps CNN knew there were no independents or disenchanted Republicans who might ask questions at this debate (given what we’ve learned about the way tickets were distributed, CNN might very well have known that only Democrats were there), but how would the television audience know that? CNN has no excuse for misleading their viewing audience with vague labels.
4. Finally, I don’t recall anyone who was anxious to defend CNN’s presentation of Maria L. as an undecided voter. It seems Maria may be a foreign exchange intern working in Sen. Harry Reid’s office. If so, she’s not eligible to vote because she isn’t a citizen. Maybe she never mentioned this to CNN but it does make me wonder why she was interested in participating in the debate.
UPDATE: But see comment 2 about Maria L.’s citizenship.
— DRJ
When you reflect this all through a mirror, I don’t remember the ‘Undecided Voters’ at any recent Republican gathering as being particularly representative of R’s. That is, we got quotes like “I don’t know if I can vote for any of these guys!” or “I just dropped in to hear what crazy scheme they have for health care.”
That is, the comments sounded more like they were from independents or even Democrats. It could be selection bias – the reporter just found someone they could grok in both cases. Or it could be deliberate.
Al (b624ac) — 11/19/2007 @ 12:58 pmAn update at
directorblue.blogspot.com
“Commenter wjb states that “Maria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006.” So presumably she really is eligible to vote).”
It might be best to be patient here and wait on the facts.
David Blue (7897fc) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:19 pmThis video is kind of longish but I think it helps illustrate DRJ’s point. đ
nk (09a321) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:21 pmDavid Blue,
Surely it’s not your position that we can’t even talk about a subject unless we “know all the facts?” Isn’t talking about a subject with other people a way to learn more facts?
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:27 pmWhy not? Is it your contention that once a voter has excluded a candidate from consideration that voter is no longer undecided? In October 2004, if a person had decided they were not going to vote for Nader, but was still unsure as to whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, was that person no longer “undecided”?
Moops (444e9b) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:39 pmI agree it could have a different meaning if it happened at a Democratic Convention but debates are not exclusively partisan events.
If one party sponsors a forum and invites the candidates seeking to be their standard-bearer, precisely how inclusive or non-partisan can the debate be?
You’re going âahaaâ when nothing is there.
Were they “real Americans, asking real questions?” Not especially. But in a process to compare primary candidates, the one-time Harry Reid intern hardly forfeits her “undecided” status.
steve (2118f9) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:44 pmAt the very least you get a biased sample of questions. Not every candidate on stage is going to benefit equally.
Kucinich, for instance, was the only Democrat who was lashing out at the rest of the Democrats for refusing to appear at the FOX debate. He certainly felt he had some sort of advantage in a debate where the questions would be tough or at least not controlled and fixed by the Democrat establishment.
Have we looked into the question of who was selected to ask questions in the Republican debates? That might be fun also.
j curtis (8bcca6) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:45 pmI think after the last Dem debate, after the spectacle of the video questions, the campaigns and CNN decided to stage the questions. That’s fine, I guess, if you state something like, “a sampling of questions from the Democrats and activists in the audience…”
Patricia (aaa977) — 11/19/2007 @ 1:54 pmI feel I knew this would have been a rigged audience, BUT I’m really offended that the questions appear to have been known in advance and designated for a specific candidate. That is what really shows the low bar CNN’s has set for itself.
Tregg Wright (8cb5a9) — 11/19/2007 @ 2:01 pmThe issue is that in almost all cases the introduction of the participants identified them as something that would obscure their agenda they were putting forward and by not being fully aware of their perspective even democrat supporters watching the debate did not get to see how the candidates would react to the questions if they were aware of the real backgrounds of the people asking the questions.
daytrader (ea6549) — 11/19/2007 @ 2:43 pmIt seems Maria may be a foreign exchange intern working in Sen. Harry Reidâs office.
Who says she was “an exchange intern?” She arrived here in 1985 and now attends UNLV. She was an intern in the 2006 class.
If so, sheâs not eligible to vote because she isnât a citizen.
The Doug Ross website you consider an authority points to a commenter clarification: “Maria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006.”
That would make her eligible to vote.
steve (2118f9) — 11/19/2007 @ 2:49 pmDavid Blue beat you to it, Steve. See comment 2. I’ll update the post since not everyone reads the comments.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 11/19/2007 @ 3:04 pmI am sorry but it seems Ms Sandoval has been in many stories and her age seems to flip around all over the place
From this story
In April 2006 the story date said she was 20 at the time. It also claimed she was brought across the border at age 6 in 1992 .
Born in 85 maybe but not arrived in 85 at age 6.
daytrader (ea6549) — 11/19/2007 @ 3:11 pmDuly noted.
What’s “a foreign exchange intern” and who says she ever was (or still is) one?
steve (2118f9) — 11/19/2007 @ 3:13 pmHeck of a job David.
daytrader (ea6549) — 11/19/2007 @ 3:56 pmBoy that sure worked out well didn’t it.
daytrader (ea6549) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:00 pmIf Maria was snuck into the country at age six, how is she a foreign exchange intern? When I was in high school we had an exchange student from Denmark and one from Sweden. They were here for a semester. They hadn’t been here since they were six.
kimsch (2ce939) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:10 pmDRJ – I think you were right the first time around. Just change the party affiliation and see how they would react.
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:17 pmforeign exchange intern – Is this a new euphemism for former illegal alien ? Like undocumented worker.
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:18 pmDRJ: “David Blue,
Surely itâs not your position that we canât even talk about a subject unless we âknow all the facts?â Isnât talking about a subject with other people a way to learn more facts?”
That’s not my position.
Yes, talking with other people is a way to learn more facts.
David Blue (4656e0) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:32 pmApparently CNN and the dhimmierats hoped what went on in Las Vegas stayed in Las Vegas. I’m sure that those who broke this story will get a courtesy Ron Brown courtesy flight or a guided tour of Ft Marcy Park.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:34 pmI loved the HotAir bit that labels each questioner by affiliation. I loved how Obama thanked that woman for work with people that weren’t even mentioned in her intro.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 4:39 pmi think the worse part of this is the “diamonds or pearls” question. the young lady had a question of substance to ask and instead CNN had her ask a fluff question. that, to me, hurts CNN’s credibility more than the other “plants” in the audience. a supposed serious news station and they push that garbage out there. at least the “boxers or briefs” was at an MTV event, sure dont expect anything hard hitting from them.
chas (98fe7b) — 11/19/2007 @ 6:40 pmI think the phrase “undecided voter” is valid usage, as I said in a comment to the first post–but that’s a matter of semantics, and a relatively trivial matter. Given all the rest of the garbage that’s come out about this debate since your first post, however, I think the rest of the criticism you aimed at CNN and the debate organizers is perfectly valid.
kishnevi (2e0ef8) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:17 pmchas: “i think the worse part of this is the âdiamonds or pearlsâ question.”
I think the same. So does Hugh Hewitt.
Hugh Hewitt: Monday, November 19, 2007
The CNN Debate: How Television Producers Are Killing Poltical Debate
Here’s an interesting but unconfirmed comment on what happened, at:
CNN Spokesman Confirms Network Chose “Diamonds And Pearls” Question
By Greg Sargent – November 16, 2007, 2:14PM
Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval wrote on November 17, 2007 1:15 AM:
I never said I was “forced” by CNN to ask the question. I was asked to memorize those two questions that were finally approved by CNN. I was asked to write both serious and “light-hearted questions” by CNN editorial producer. Since I was asked to have both of my questions memorized, my impression was that I would have the opportunity to ask both. I was supposed to ask the fun question first, then the serious question. But Suzanne and Wolf ended it there. That was it. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Maria Parra-Sandoval
–
CNN deserves to come off badly for being manipulative and over-controlling, and for going for fluff when substance was on offer.
I don’t see how Maria Parra-Sandoval did anything wrong.
David Blue (16da75) — 11/20/2007 @ 2:47 am“As Jim Geraghty pointed out, if you want to say âundecided Democratic voter,â say it.”
If they’re not democrats, they’re not ‘voters’ in a democratic primary. There may be places where that is the case, but that is also common sense. Just think about it before you become scandalized.
“Finally, I donât recall anyone who was anxious to defend CNNâs presentation of Maria L. as an undecided voter. It seems Maria may be a foreign exchange intern working in Sen. Harry Reidâs office.
What makes you say she’s foreign exchange? because she’s foreign born?
“âCommenter wjb states that âMaria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006.â So presumably she really is eligible to vote).â”
Amazing nobody thought about this.
whitd (10527e) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:38 amAmazing, aparantly the Democrats don’t care if they stuff a ballotbox or an audience, just so long as they get their result.
PCD (b7be44) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:05 amIs it not important to know that the Democratic Party either cannot or does not believe its supporters can think for themselves? That they feel it necessary to stage the entire event? Wow!
Sue (f6252c) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:00 amI knew that the left was stuck on very old and tired lines, but this “debate” shows quite clearly that this show is in its third or fourth rerun. Why even bother with this staged event? What are they afraid of? Better yet, “who” do they fear, their own hard left? Hmmmm
#27 – what’s astonishing is the Dems clearly do get their desired results and that says far more about their non-thinking sheep party members who are easily led by the nose than it does about slick politicos in the business of finessing…
The more debates held, the more opportunity to fine tune the dog and pony show.
Dana (a158ef) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:19 amThe Clinton Library- Built on Bribes?
I recall a time either in the last days of the Clinton Administration or shortly afterward when Bill Clinton was being interviewed. (I don’t remember who the interviewer was.) Mr Clinton was asked how he envisioned the Clinton Library (not yet built). His answer was (I am paraphrasing) that he envisioned the library as a “beacon of hope” for the poor and dispossessed of the world. My immediate, sarcastic reaction was to imagine a poor homeless beggar on the streets of Calcutta looking into the sky, seeing the shining beacon of the Clinton Library and thinking that a better day was coming. Yeah, right. Now that the (165 million dollar) library has been built, and certain information has leaked out, the question begs to be asked: How was this library built and on whose money? Consider the following.
The Marc Rich Pardon
In the last days of the Clinton presidency, one of the beneficiaries of a Clinton pardon was the fugitive finncier, Marc Rich, subject of an international arrest warrant, but living in Switzerland. The pardon was arranged by Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, a comely lady who dropped some $450,000 dollars for the Clinton Library into Bill’s lap (and who knows what else).
The pardon was especially controversial since the Justice Department (which was actively trying to capture Rich) had not signed on to the pardon, as is normal procedure. In fact, the pardon caught them completely by surprise. According to an article by the BBC dated 2-10-01, Mrs Rich made 3 donations from July 1998 to May 2000. Mr Rich was pardoned on Clinton’s last day in office. Mrs Rich subsequently took the 5th Amendment before Congress. Also taking the 5th was the finance chair of the Democratic Party, Beth Dozoretz, who was involved in brokering the pardon.
Pardon of Rick Hendrick
An article in the Charlotte Observer dated 2-27-2001 by Peter Wallsten reported on Rick Hendrick, a Charlotte car dealer, who had pleaded guilty in a bribery case and was later pardoned by Clinton and the possible connection to a donation made to the Clinton Library by Hendrick. In his pardon application, Hendrick reportedly included a reference from his longtime friend and Bank of America CEO, Hugh McCall Jr., also a political ally of Clinton. Hendrick’s pardon was issued on December 22, less than 3 weeks after the Bank of America Foundation made a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Library. According to the story, Hendrick’s lawyer denied any connection between the donation and the pardon.
Global Crossing
This venture group was founded by Gary Winnick and three other associates in 1997. In spite of its rapid rise worldwide, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankrupcy in January, 2002, one of the biggest bankruptcies in American history (see Wikipedia). In the aftermath, Winnick’s profligate spending habits came under scrutiny. It has been reported that Winnick was instrumental in helping former DNC chairman and Clinton crony, Terry McAuliffe of turning a $100,000 investment into a $18,000,000 profit. McAuliffe sold his shares of Globing Crossing shortly before the company went bankrupt. Along the way, Winnick reportedly contributed $1,000,000 to the Clinton Library.
Bill Lerach
Lerach was involved with an unscrupulous securities firm called Milberg Weiss, which has been indicted as a “racketeering enterprise”, and which engaged in perjury, bribery, fraud and obstruction of justice while representing phony clients who claimed to have been cheated as investors (see syndicated column by George Will dated 11-19 07). Lerach has recently pleaded guilty and is facing jail time, according to Will’s column. (He was, until his plea, a fundraiser for John Edwards.) More importantly to this article, Lerach was another one of those famous Lincoln Bedroom guests during the Clinton Administration and contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Library fund. According to Will’s article, shortly after Lerach’s visit to a White House dinner, Clinton vetoed a bill that would have restricted class action lawsuits.
In spite of all the questions (or perhaps because of the questions), the Clinton Library has, to this point, not opened its records as to the contributors who helped build the library. (Presidential libraries are built by private donations, not public funds, and there is no legal requirement to identify donors.) According to the above-mentioned BBC article, Congress, in its investigation of the pardons, wanted to obtain a donor list for the library, which Clinton attorney lawyer, David Kendall resisted. A compromise was eventually reached, by which a partial donor list was provided.
In an article in the Chicago Tribune by Mike Dorning dated 11-12-07, almost 3 years after its opening, only a few records have been opened for the public’s inspection at the Clinton Library. This, of course, also includes any records pertaining to Mrs Clinton’s involvement in the Administration that she continually quotes as qualifying experience in her quest for the presidency. According to the article, only 23 requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act have been granted (out of a total of 397 requests). These requests would also help clear up questions of monies paid to Hillary’s brothers, Hugh and Tony Rodham by recipients of Clinton pardons.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t much care for the idea of presidential libraries to begin with. The idea is good, to be a source of valuable historical research, but it seems that many of these places exist for the primary reason of immortalizing and glorifying the particular president in question. That they would also be a method of accepting money for political favors and pardons is really troubling. I don’t doubt that many of the contributions came from people of good intentions. The Clinton Library, however, reminds me of so many of those luxury hotels built in Mexico on drug money.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (f02356) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:48 pmfousesquawk
Try to keep up people! Have you forgotten the MSM rules that were handed down by our intellectual superiors in the media for our own protection?!
Rule 1. On any charge of misbehavior, Dems skate.
Rule 2. In situations where Rule 1 seems inapplicable, facts will be interpreted, and generated if need be, to explain why Rule 1 applies.
Rule 3. On any charge of misbehavior, Republicans are guilty.
Rule 4. In situations where Rule 3 seems inapplicable, facts will be interpreted, and generated if need be, to explain why Rule 3 applies.
Don’t make us keep repeating ourselves, please.
sherlock (b4bbcc) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:56 pm