Wow, did Mitt stumble at the debate or what? Analyst Michael Eisenstadt wrote a great piece tonight about the lessons of Annapolis and puts the debate between Rudy vs. Mitt in that context. Pretty provocative stuff that points to Rudy as the obvious candidate for the GOP: http://michaeleisenstadt.com/2007/11/28/a-lesson-learned/

Heh.

Planted CNN questions for Dem debate : "Do you like diamonds or pearls? Tee-hee!" from Dem politcal activists.

Planted CNN question for Repub debate: Hard-hitting politically charged question from Dem political activists.

Nope. No bias at CNN.

Cooper seemed genuinely shocked when Bennett made the comment in post-debate analysis (Bill had been flooded with emails about it).

Cooper may not have known the guy's background, but you can bet someone who screened the questions did.

Still, if this is the worst "ringer" or "gotcha" question that was asked, CNN did pretty well at trying to be objective - given their history.

I dunno Jim.

From commenter Christoph at Captain's Quarters blog:

"You realize the questioner who asked an abortion question is a John Edwards supporter, right? The link is her in a John Edwards T-shirt discussing the question she asked tonight."

and

"ANOTHER ONE -- this time an Obama supporter. Remember the "Log Cabin Republican" questioner? He's got a blog at Obama '08."

Wonder what else will turn up.

Les Nessman ~ I was not aware of those, and stand corrected.

If, indeed, known supporters of the three leading Democratic candidates were able to pass CNN's "screening" to ask questions at a Republican debate, it is impossible to imagine CNN was an innocent "victim" in the process.

Of course, CNN will be more than happy to allow GOP activists time to question Dems at their next debate.

They are not called the Clinton News Network for nothing. Exemplary CNN.

I suppose the problem is that Republicans have gotten so used to the pre-screened, members only audiences that the President allows at his "public" appearances that it comes as a complete shock when someone with a different point of view is actually allowed to ask a question at a forum such as this.

SQ,
This from someone whose candidates were too scared to appear on FOX. Dumbass.

Wow, SQ... Didn't know we get a "Bush's fault!" in an article about a Dem-stacked debate, but you did it. Congratulations!...

...'tard.

SQ,

Can you show us the Republican activists who asked questions at ANY of the Dem debates?

CNN has once again screwed the viewers of the Republican debate. See who was which YouTube videos When clowns like CNN's senior vice president David Bohrman and the rest of the CNN political team are the ones selecting the videos, it is no surprise. Here is why, see this video to see what they have been doing to us.

CNN: The Most Trusted Name In News...if you're a Liberal or a Dictator. The Repubs are a bunch of Charlie Browns if they actually thought Lucy was going to let them kick the ball. The show was all about humiliating the Repubs and making Dems look good by comparison; fooled them once, twice, thrice.... What a bunch of maroons on both sides. Where's a good 3rd Party candidate when we need one?

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/29/2007 A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

"Can you show us the Republican activists who asked questions at ANY of the Dem debates?"

Can you show me any Right wing media who reviewed the *answers* and the substance about those questions instead of their usual M.O. of attacking the messenger?

I also think that audience debates should be *limited* to plants, or openly hostile questions. Then you can't obfuscate the answers with so much crap about the questioner.

Angry follower,

The capacity you people have for rationalizing, when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, never ceases to amaze. The Republican debates are for Republicans to discuss Republican issues so as to narrow the field of Republican candidates - get it? The Republican debates are not for self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious Democrats to deceptively interject their own talking points and grievances. Your comment only serves to reveal your complete lack of integrity.

"The Republican debates are for Republicans to discuss Republican issues so as to narrow the field of Republican candidates - get it?"

OK comrade.

What is the job they're trying to get? And who does that affect?

I think another commenter elsewhere said it best - if you can't handle questions from Democrats, how can you fight terrorists?

"Your comment only serves to reveal your complete lack of integrity."

My comment is about removing the pretenses and veneer of softball questions and putting hard questions at possible presidents. That means I have no integrity?

The answers they gave were horrible, by the way.

Well, at least it gives the wing nuts something to be outraged about!

HILLARY!

"My comment is about removing the pretenses and veneer of softball questions and putting hard questions at possible presidents."

That's not what your comment said. It said:

"I also think that audience debates should be *limited* to plants, or openly hostile questions. Then you can't obfuscate the answers with so much crap about the questioner."

First, no one is obfuscationg the answers. But there has been a concerted attempt to obfuscate by ommission who the questioners are and then feigning ignorance.

Second, it was a comment that said take away the softball questions and turn it into a sniping session for everyone out there with a grievance or a special interest. I can understand that Democrats want their debates to be productive, giving candidates a chance to elaborate on their platforms or philosophies by asking questions conducive to that end. But at least extend the same courtesy to Republicans.

Hard questions are welcome, not hostility.

Good news, it appears that the kid who asked about believing every word of the Bible is a big time Twoofer: http://www.myspace.com/calciumboy

I say "BRING IT ON" and quit whining. However calling this a debate and not a designer press conference is fairly outrageous.

I have some questions I would like to ask Hillary:

What did you remove from Vincent Foster's office on the night of his murder (oops, I mean "suicide")?

If you are elected President, after your term, do you intend to abscond with White House furnishings and other public artifacts again?

If you become president, can we expect more murders of innocent Americans in their homes as at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Who hired Craig Livingstone?

Do you really expect us to believe that the Rose Law firm billing records just magically appeared on a White House table?

Why are the Communist Chinese always so interested in giving you financial support?

Do you believe illegal aliens should have the ability to vote in U.S. elections? How about convicted felons?

I wonder if I could get these in at the next debate?

Angry follower:
"What is the job they're trying to get?"

The Republican Party nomination.

" And who does that affect?"

Republican Party voters.

"I think another commenter elsewhere said it best - if you can't handle questions from Democrats, how can you fight terrorists?"

The Republicans did handle the questions from Democrat plants. Why won't the Dems handle questions from Republicans, or at least not softball questions from Democrat operatives?