Wolfing Down the Debate

UPDATE: A post by MissLaura at Daily Kos reminds me that even before Hillary objected to the hypotheticals, Barack Obama called Wolfie out on an overly simplistic "show of hands" question on English as the official U.S. language. His statement set the stage for Hillary's, and is in itself another victory in demanding serious consideration of serious issues, which involves using language correctly.

In many ways the debate among Democratic candidates on Monday was heartening. It's a capable group of candidates, substantative and incisive. Several mentioned the climate crisis though there were as usual no questions directly about it. Senator Biden showed real passion on the Darfur genocide and for a moment took the debate out of politics when he insisted that while they debated, people were dying, and it is needless.

Some say Hillary won, some say John Edwards, and except for momentum of the moment, it hardly matters. But there was a moment that might matter: when the candidates revolted against the inquisitor, Wolf Blitzer of CNN.

I've seen comments on several blogs assuming that Blitzer is a Republican advocate, but what certainly was clear by his questions was he is a wolf for the most sensational possible headline he could create from the event. Every chance he got he honed in on some hot button issue or phrase. He often did it with hypothetical scenario questions, like the one in the first debate (if two U.S. cities were attacked simultaneously by terrorists, what would you do? or some such.)

The first such hypothetical I can recall was the most devastating: in 1988, when the Willie Horton ads were honing in on the Crime issue, and specifically the record of Governor Michael Dukakis, the Dem candidate, the first question in the debate was how would he feel if a criminal released from prison raped his wife (or something like that), and he gave a bloodless policy wonk answer. Years later he said he knew immediately that he'd just lost the election.

Well, that only increased the hunger for hypotheticals among "news reporters" eager to make news and their mark on history. Still, the candidates appeared surprised by the one in the first debate this year. Not this time. Wolf asked several, there was general grumbling, and then Hillary said directly, "we're not going to answer hypotheticals." And that's all it took.

I hope this is a trend, and I'd advise the next bugaboo they take on directly is the language that Republicans impose on issues. There has been endless debate and discussion the past few years about framing and memes and branding and Frank Luntz versus George Lakoff. It's about time to bring it out in the open on the presidential debate level.

For example, right now the Republican buzzword is "amnesty" on immigration. Somebody has to step up and say, regarding provisions in the current immigration bill, "It's not amnesty. Amnesty is a general pardon. Nobody's being pardoned--illegal immigrants will pay a fine and go through a process in order to become citizens." Etc. Refusing to let the newsWolf control the debate and distort its purpose with simplistic hypotheticals is the first step. The next is refusing to accede to distorting and simplistic language just because it's endlessly repeated.