Ken Falkenstein says:
"CNN has reinforced its well-deserved reputation for being the Clinton News Network. Prior to this week's Las Vegas debate, Hillary's campaign manager gave moderator Wolf Blitzer his marching orders, warning him not to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions. Wolf Blitzer followed his orders and gave her only softballs. Turns out the fix was also in regarding who was allowed to be in the audience and what questions they were allowed to ask her (e.g. does she prefer pearls or diamonds):
Welcome to 21st-century American prop-journalism."
Well Ken, no one is surprised. Conservatives "knew" it would happen. Liberals "knew" it would happen. CNN has always been somewhat duplicitous since the early 90's, from Peter Arnett's actions (known for funny business in his Vietnam reporting) in the first Gulf War, to Eason Jordan's convenient omission of Saddam's horrors in his reporting; from CNN glossing over Bill Clinton's multiple scandals, to their glossing over Ms Clinton's scandals, missteps and aversion to answering tough questions (or any questions) with more than lip service, often out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.
Since 1999, when she first toyed with the idea of carpetbagging for the NY Senate seat, the inevitability of it all reared its ugly head (or, to be more precise in this case, headed its ugly rear). The ball started rolling then; if she's stepped in no huge piles of crap as Senator, neither has she stood out as having done anything noteworthy.So the ball is picking up speed now. She has received tons of attention for merely being Ms Clinton. During the never-ending, mind-numbing series of debates, all questions before, during and after are all centered around her or how others compare to her. She would have to spit on the pope, a Torah, a praying muslim, burn the Start and Stripes, and kiss Madonna before the Hillary Express (to mix metaphors a bit) would be derailed.
The only drama now is in watching John Edwards and Barack Obama fumble around trying to decide just how much they can play hardball without getting slapped down by the "not playing the gender card" liberals who support Hillary. The other candidates are just window dressing. There is no way in the world they, or anyone else, ever thought they had a snowball's chance to get elected. There just up there to... why are they up there, anyway? Dennis Kucinich is there for comic relief, at least. It scares me that sometimes he answers questions best of them all. At least we know he means what he says. With Biden's record of plagiarism, he means what somebody else says. Dodd talks so fast, I don't know what he's said or means. (I did like his standing up to Hillary two weeks ago though.)
The other question is who is going to bow figuratively in Hillary's direction enough, without appearing to kowtow, to get tapped for the VP spot. Will it be Bill Richardson? Or an Evan Bayh, waiting patiently in the wings? Newly elected Governor Strickland from Ohio? He's a personable enough fellow with no track record of misbehavior, but no track record of accomplishments, either.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the American people stop and think about having another "two for one" presidency. Hillary was responsible for many of the scandals and public relations brouhahas during her husbands presidency. She has very poor political skills and a tin ear to boot. Bill's smooth personal charms get him through tough spots but he's the one who brought disgrace into the oval office; gave away secrets to China; ignored the growing threat of radical Islam, and other ignoble deeds.The Republicans must list these scandals over and over again, and remind the public that he's going to be lurking in the background for 4-8 years. His "wife" can only ship him off to be "ambassador to the world" for so many months before it is obvious she's trying to keep him out of her hair. He "owes" her big time, but he craves the spotlight too much to allow himself to be ignored.