CNN In South Carolina Debate, 2008: Democrats Get First Question on Economy, Not Scandal
CNN's John King explained after the final South Carolina debate that he started by asking Newt about his "open marriage" because it seemed like the "elephant in the room." Former Bush aide Ari Fleischer dissented and said the economy is always the number one story, not just the political insider's hot story. So let's ask: when CNN hosted a Democratic debate in South Carolina on January 21, 2008, did they lead with a hot scandal or a personal peccadillo? Nope. They started with the economy.
It was the tenth anniversary of the Monica Lewinsky story breaking, and the debate stood out when Hillary slashed Obama on his relationship with shady financier Tony Rezko. But Monica and Clinton's impeachment never came up. CNN's Joe Johns led off by asking Hillary Clinton about just how generous her "stimulus" would be:
Senator Clinton, good evening. The number-one issue for Americans of both parties is the economy, and today the news is simply not good. Markets around the world are in a tailspin because of fears of a U.S. recession. So far this year, the Dow has lost nearly 9 percent. How much money would your stimulus plan put in the pockets of the average South Carolinian?
Hillary Clinton -- and not the CNN questioners -- raised Tony Rezko (who since then was sentenced to 10 and half years in prison for corruption), and at first Wolf Blitzer changed the subject:
CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.
OBAMA: I agree.
CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago. (Applause)
OBAMA: No, no, no.
BLITZER: Hold on one second. Hold on. Senator Edwards -- Senator Edwards has been remarkably patient during this exchange. And I want him -- I don't know if you want to get involved in this, Senator Edwards.
EDWARDS: What I want to say first is, are there three people in this debate, not two?
A little later, Blitzer calmly and vaguely served up the Rezko question to Obama:
BLITZER: I'm going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.
OBAMA: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.
He then changed the subject to how we needed "truthfulness" in our political speech. CNN hardly distinguished itself for scandal hardballs.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
⇒ In defense of Democrats
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:18am.
The difference is that Democrats have made clear their belief that personal responsibility can be called into question only when speaking of how much rich people should pay to promote the spread of personal irresponsibility.
Happy to help you out there, Tim.
So helped
Submitted by Tim Graham on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:20am.
The difference is also that adultery is a drag on Republican candidates. Democrats believe along with Eleanor Clift that "libido and leadership are linked." which should make Newt cooler on the Left....
⇒ Rush's point, also
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:27am.
Rush made that point also yesterday.
I'm still puzzled as to why Anthony Wiener was forced to step down. Perhaps he could have stayed except his wife was so closely connected to Hillary Clinton, one Democrat who would actually have sympathy for the effect such peccadillos bring to bear on the wronged woman.
Why do we conservatives even listen to CNN
Submitted by ohio granny on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 10:11am.
We know they will never be impartial to any republican. They will LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, whatever it takes to help their democRat buddies. They have zero credibility. I did love the expression on John Kings face however. He looked totally shocked that Newt would go after him like he did.
Keep it up Newt. I don't even know if I will vote for you but I do love it that you keep taking it to the so-called MSM.
Uh-oh
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 1:35pm.
CNN's Joe Johns led off by asking Hillary Clinton about just how generous her "stimulus" would be:
Apparently it's not as generous as Monica's.
With Hillary
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 5:58am.
A cigar is just a cigar.
(And Edwards said, "Can I use that cigar if you don't want it?")
So Gingrich has an affair (of
Submitted by cathartic1 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 2:50pm.
So Gingrich has an affair (of which we just learned some new details) and we shouldn't talk about it, but we should talk about the affair that Hilary didn't have? Pretty it was her husband that had it, not her.
Remember Mike and Bernie?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:04pm.
King didn't initiate the strategy of starting with a BS question.
Remember Bernard Shaw's opening question to Michael Dukakis in the 1988 debate? "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
Dukakis was no Gingrich. He badly blew the answer. He said, "No, I don't...." He should have said, "Well, I would like to strangle the guy with my bare hands, but, you know, I can't. Rule of law, governor, all that stuff. But I'd want to strangle him. I'd put off signing the no death penalty law until after his trial."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9gSyku-fc