Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Copperfield ·
Oct 18, 2011 at 7:44pm
Cooper probably just loved the infighting on the stage and let it go on to try to diminish the entire republican field. The moderator should facilitate discussion, but should also ensure the participants abide by the rules. On the second count, Cooper failed utterly, but succeeded in making the field look unprofessional. Am I reading too much into this?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I don't think you are reading too much into it. I liked how Gingrich called him on it at the end.
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
At the start, Anderson Cooper seemed to be leading everyone to go after Herman Cain, and I don't recall that he invited Romney to join in the pile on (or called on Romney last). That seemed calculated to get everyone to fight and allow Romney to appear above it all. Unfortunately for Anderson Cooper (and Mitt) he lost control, and it wasn't long before everyone began piling on Romney. (Notably Rick Perry.) And suddenly it was Herman Cain rising above it all.
Naturally, at the end of the debate, the CNN talking heads decided that Romney had done very, very well. But they had probably determined that was going to be their line before the debate even started.
Had Jon Huntsman been there, I suspect they would have swooned over him as well.
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I thought Cooper did a fine job. He was the least offensive debate moderator I've seen in a long, long time.
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
You're probably right. Though did I understand that the crowd was booing the "Governor Perry Will You Apologize To Mitt Romney" question? That was pretty awkward.
Dec '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
All of the crowd responses were awkward.
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Actually, I think it's a good thing for self-regarding politicians to hear the booing of the mob.
May '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Interesting John Nolte tip of the cap to AC over at Big Journalism. That surprised me.
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
By the way, did Herman Cain's poodle poop on Jennifer Rubin's lawn? Man, her Twitter feed was vicious. Thanks to Blue Yeti for flipping the switch.
Aug '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Eh, but is that saying much?
Aug '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Eh, but is that saying much? · Oct 18 at 8:27pm
Perhaps not. And that's why it's long, long past time that Republicans found another way to stage these events. I had hopes that Fox would revolutionize the format, but even they have kept to the old, stale paradigm.
Dec '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Copperfield, yes you have gone past the real point here. Anderson Cooper was playing provocateur and trying to accomplish exactly what you think. Two things stopped him. The strength & integrity ot the Republican candidates and the desire of the American people for a leader with a backbone. Cooper in the end came off as the little weasel that he is. We need to be more concerned about this kind of thing in the future but for now they tried but they lost.
Nov '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
OK, perhaps I read a bit too much into this one, but I'm still not convinced it was the attacks that rattled Romney a bit or his exasperation at Cooper's refusal to enforce the debate format. Romney is nothing if not self-possessed and it was a little disconcerting seeing him brought down to having to try to enforce the format on his own because Cooper wouldn't. The whole thing was a bit unseemly and made the field seem a little raucous and out of control... not a good image if one wants to be seen as sober and serious enough to be the next President. But again, I may have overreacted a bit by blaming CNN.. Blame Cooper, yes, but probably not fair to impune the entire network.
Dec '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
This is why the GOP establishment has selected the game show format for these contests and has found a way to hire agents provocateurs for its moderators. It’s their way of culling the competition and paving the way for their designee.
Having only one moderator is a mistake they won’t repeat because it leaves the most time to the candidates to develop their own narratives, which made this contest the least light-weight so far.
We want our next president not to flinch when invited onto the devil’s fire and brimstone grounds, so using the stage of CNN and MSNBC shouldn't be avoided.
This time, for once, a candidate stood up to the media Nurse Ratcheds when Perry said “It’s your question, I’ll give the answer I want to.” After a minute ended, it was the first time Anderson Cooper’s “time over” was audible to the audience. The expression on Cooper's face spoke even louder: Who was that next POTUS thinking he was speaking to, anyway?
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 9:48pmOct '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I think the only reason Cooper wasn't as terrible as other moderators is because he's preoccupied throughout the program with maintaining his appearance for the cameras. He can't really devote his undivided attention to the candidates and make sure he still looks good.
Dec '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
Ahhh Copperfield, you have discovered that even Presidential candidates are only human. The Pillsbury Doe Boy (Cooper) and Wolfy the Poo (Blitzer) should be dumped down the nearest well. As far as CNN, well son to be honest Ted Turner was just as liberal as he needed to be to bag Jane Fonda. CNN has about that much integrity.
Oct '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I can't get too fired up about AC -or any of the other moderators, for that matter - given the zoo-like atmosphere of all of these debates. There seems to be no easy way to facilitate a meaningful policy debate between so many candidates, all of whom have divergent gameplans, attack targets, and canned lines that they're dying to unleash. Frankly, even the one-on-one debates in the general election typically devolve into focus-grouped, talking-point table tennis. All things considered, AC was fairly palatable. Newt's challenge to BHO - true, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas style debates - had me giddy, though the suggestion was as Newtian as it gets (equal parts brilliant, impractical, and self-indulgent).
Oct '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
It was a good debate. Perry did well except for the part where he went personal on Mitt re the hiring of illegals. At least, let the man speak and defend himself, Rick! Stop interrupting him.
May '11
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
It's our own fault for letting Democratic Party hacks "moderate" our debates. I'll wait with baited breath for the Democrats to show up at a debate moderated by Hannity.
Sep '10
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I think you are correct the winner may have been Obama. Romney came across as more condescending than usual and if he is capable of giving a reply that has not been rehearsed and focus group tested he failed to demonstrate this once again. When he gets the nod perhaps a debate between his and Obama’s teleprompters could be arranged. The only two who demonstrated they have depth and a grasp of the issues is Paul and Newt. Paul's philosophical perspective is too libertarian at the present time and so that leaves Newt who has no money. Romney will be the nominee which I think happens to be both the establishment Republican's and Obama's choice. Obama is viewed as a failure but Romney will lose because he is exactly what the American people do not want, a privileged aristocrat who tries but is incapable of appearing to be genuine.
Re: Winner - Obama... as CNN Intended
I agree except that I think that Obama will lose (which is not the same thing as saying that Romney will win). Unemployment will take him down. Romney will be hard to demonize. Perry would be an easier mark.