Hill Shill Debate Fraud

The most striking performance during the November 15 Democratic Presidential debate was not given by any of the candidates. Audience participation was the dominant factor, and it was heavily tilted in Hillary Clinton's favor.

I'm a political independent, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But what happened in Las Vegas last week was downright un-American. The oratorical playing field was heavily skewed in the front-runner's favor, leaving several candidates with little face time.

The debate, moderated by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, was held at the University of Las Vegas. The seven candidates were introduced in the following order: Senator John Edwards; Senator Chris Dodd; Senator Barack Obama; Senator Hillary Clinton; Congressman Dennis Kucinich; New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson; and Senator Joe Biden. Hillary got the loudest applause during the introduction.

In fairness, Obama and Edwards badly fumbled several answers. The debate ran two hours, and during most of it, all the candidates presented themselves competently. But in a few five- or ten-second sound bites, Obama and Edwards performed poorly, and those excerpts, which were repeatedly played in news reports, are the ones people will remember. The entire debate can be downloaded at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.debate.video/index.html .

Obama inexplicably stepped in the same quicksand as did Hillary a couple of weeks ago: he equivocated on whether illegal aliens should receive driver's licenses. Senator Obama should be held accountable for his evasiveness, but the audience reaction was unacceptable. For several seconds, Senator Obama was shouted down with heckling, hoots, and catcalls. Obama suffered this fate several other times during the evening, especially when he made the valid point that his proposal to lift the cap on income subject to Social Security tax would affect a small percentage of Americans.

I couldn't believe my ears. The scene was reminiscent of Nazis in the Reichstag shouting down opposition parties in the early 1930s shortly before Hitler came to power. Obama was applauded later in the evening, but the damage was done.

John Edwards fared even worse. He made the mistake of speaking in a petulant, angry tone, but did not deserve to be heckled any more than did Obama. No candidate should have to endure that. Viewers watched this event to hear the candidates, not the audience. As moderator, Blitzer had a duty to control the crowd. His inability to do so was deeply disturbing.

Not only did the audience beat up on Obama and Edwards, it reacted vociferously to everyone, both positively and negatively. At times, I thought I was watching a spectacle at the Roman colliseum rather than an American Presidential debate. Under these circumstances, the non-Clinton candidates couldn't possibly have had a good night. To ensure orderliness and fairness, Blitzer should have forbidden unsolicited audience participation.

Additional pro-Hillary bias occurred when Senator Edwards made a statement that is obvious to anyone who isn't brain dead: Mrs. Clinton has flipped-flopped on a host of issues. The woman waffles enough to run for office in Belgium. Not only was Edwards heckled, Hillary was loudly applauded when she accused the North Carolina Senator of "throwing mud."

Edwards wasn't throwing mud; he was pointing out inconsistent statements that Senator Clinton had made on several topics within a short period of time. Edwards was booed for making an appropriate point, and Hillary was lauded for mislabeling a valid criticism as mud slinging. She probably could have gotten a standing ovation for sneezing or scratching her head.

Another disturbing incident occurred when audience members were permitted to ask questions of the candidates. A female student asked Mrs. Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls. An innocent, friendly query? Maybe. But it comes on the heels of allegations of question planting at two separate Clinton campaign events in Iowa within the past week.

A post-debate focus group unanimously said Hillary won the debate. Their decision was unremarkable, but it was noteworthy that each person in the group used similar language to describe her (e.g., "concise", "direct", and "to the point"). Were they planted, too? I can't say for certain, but an offensive odor is in the air. An edited version of the focus group, in which participants give somewhat more varied answers than those heard in the original broadcast, can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmcyfRK3SqI.

The biggest losers were the so-called second tier candidates. They were rarely called upon. Richardson made a joke about it, saying, "Hi, I'm Bill Richardson." The New Mexico governor raised an important topic that nobody discusses: how to deal with crushing burdens of student loans. I would have liked to have heard more.

Similarly, Joe Biden, possibly the most thoughtful candidate, tweaked Blitzer by exclaiming, "Don't make me speak!" Biden was particularly good on Pakistan, but Blitzer cut him off just when the Delaware senator was on a roll. In fact, Blitzer had a tendency to cut off all candidates except Clinton. When he did try to cut off Hillary, she rolled right over him, continuing to talk for about another minute.

I'm not a fan of Dennis Kucinich, but, geez, CNN could have at least put the guy's name up on the screen. I felt sorry for the Congressman. He had to wait nearly an hour before someone asked him a question, plaintively shouting "Hello!" in an attempt to get noticed.

Was the debate rigged? Like Hillary's position on almost anything, the answer is unclear. However, enough suspicions have been raised to warrant an investigation of both the Clinton campaign and CNN.