Sunday, June 3, 2007
Blitzer blitzes in CNN Dem debate
And there was Hillary with her back to the wall again about her vote for the War on Iraq. The NY Times today devoted most of its Sunday magazine to a dissection of her moves on the subject, did or did she not read the full briefings on Iraq, and one could have been sure that CNN"s Wolf Blitzer would take it a step further and see if a yet more decisive backdown could be elicited. As, of course, he did.
And thus did Hillary Clinton explain again:
Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the
arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts.
You know, that was a sincere vote based on my assessment that sending inspectors back into Iraq to determine once and for all whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and using coercive diplomacy was not an unreasonable act.
What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job.
CLINTON: Now, we can argue about the past, or we can answer the question you asked about the National Guard. Our troops did the job they were asked to do. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They conducted the search for weapons of mass destruction. They gave the Iraqi people a chance for elections and to have a government. It is
the Iraqis who have failed to take advantage of that opportunity.
BLITZER: So let me just be precise, because the question was:
Do you regret not reading the national intelligence estimate?
CLINTON: I feel like I was totally briefed. I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from all directions. National intelligence estimates have a consensus position and then they have argumentation as to those people who don't agree with it. I thought the best way to find out who was right in the intelligence
community was to send in the inspectors.
If George Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish the job they started, we would have known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD andwe would not have gone and invaded Iraq.
These peerless, perfect quotes do not come of my lightning note-taking skills. They come from CNN's svelt services to the media. Debate transcripts ping into our email as the debate is going along. We are here in the Press Room with our laptops, connected through CNN's whizzy wireless network, and CNN is doing the transcriptions for us - which is just as well since, despite all the technological brilliance of this set-up, the sound quality in the hall is absymal and we have had trouble understanding what the candidates were saying.
Not only do the transcripts arrive by email but also they are delivered as printouts to our desks - literally hot off the printer.
One can't say we are not well looked after.
But, back to the debate.
And a very lively debate it has been - and is. I write as it goes on.
Blitzer sought to establish in what ways the Democrats were divided over assorted issues - hence a lively exchange on Iraq and an even livelier one on whether English should be the official language of the USA.
Blitzer asked for a show of hands on this.
Only Mike Gravel, the delightful renegade former senator from Alaska, raised his hand.
It was an odd moment.
Obama leapt in asserting this was the kind of question that was designed
precisely to divide the candidates.
Quoth he: You know, you're right. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is
not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy? And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.
Turns out he was off the mark. Hillary leapt in like a wise school ma'am to explain what it was all about. She had encountered the issue in the Senate.
I, for one, needed her elucidation:
The problem is that if it becomes official instead of recognized
as national -- which indeed it is, it is our national language -- if it becomes official, that means in a place like New York City you can't print ballots in any other language. That means you can't have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there's nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.
So many of us -- I did, at least -- voted to say that English was our national language, but not the official language because of the legal consequences of that.
It will be interesting to see what angles the assorted reporters take on the debate. For the proletariat, there is the happy agreement that Bill Clinton should be employed by a Democrat president, including Hillary, to be a roaming global envoy, bringing back good spirit towards the USA.
Then there is the who-was-righter-than-right about Iraq....which Obama seems to think he won, turning on poor old John Edwards, who had just apologised yet again for voting for the war, and telling Edwards he was "four and a half years behind in leadership". Obama had better watch that self-righteousness.
But Iraq issue is far from dead but it is descending into nit-picking. When one thinks of how long the campaign has yet to run, one imagines the public will be utterly fatigued by the time it comes to vote.
It was hard to tell in the busy context of that giant media room with its fuzzy acoustics just who it was who came out on top on the night. My bias would give the night to Hillary because she always presents so very well. She was the only one who managed to laugh - and she remained absolutely unruffled by anything, albeit that she was, at times, forceful.
Thus, methinks, the race positions remain unchanged.
More anon....
Bruce was officially accredited photographer on this adventure into political media and was taken off in a bus with other still photographers to get snaps from within the debate hall. Hence, the candidate snaps here are his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, after watching the event I think Richardson would be my choice from that bunch. Based on the polling I think he was running second behind Obama as far as who 'won' the debate.
Hilary, obama and Edwards are not what we need to takes us beyond the Bush years.
great coverage as usual,
Steve
Post a Comment