Brooklyn debate - initial thoughts
Having intently listened to the farce masquerading as a debate, and the post-debate 'analysis' by 'senior correspondents' etc.:
- - the most depressing aspect of the U.S. media's equivalent of Soviet-style bias in this farce was that despite the two candidates' apparently having agreed to the debate rules pre-debate, Clinton was allowed by moderator Wolf Blitzer and the two other questioners to keep talking well past her allotted time, winding down the clock so that Bernie had less time to make his points/rebuttals. Each candidate was supposed to have one minute and fifteen seconds to reply to a question from Wolf, Dana, or Ollie, and thirty seconds to respond to a rebuttal, yet these rules were not impartially applied, and in Clinton's favor. In other words, the 'debate' was biased from the start in favor of the candidate preferred by the powers that be, and the viewers' response to the dialogue between the protagonists has been carefully manipulated in favor of their preferred candidate, i.e. Hillary.
Interestingly, Michael Smercomish and Gloria Berger praised Wolf Blitzer's moderation of the debate on his show "The Situation Room" the following day, completely ignoring the fact that Bernie had to repeatedly appeal to Wolf to forcefully apply the debate rules during the debate (when Clinton was flaunting them) with no adequate response from Blitzer. Despite this, in a previous debate when Bernie attempted to silence Hillary when she was illegally encroaching on his time to speak, he was later accused by the media of being sexist.
If Hillary cannot even abide by debate rules that she had agreed on prior to the relevant debates, it is astonishing that anyone can think that she is a plausible candidate for President of the United States of America. When one considers Hillary's history of misrepresenting the facts (regarding Bernie) in this election and her disengenuousness/blatant lies for many years previously, stoningroll submits that Hillary Clinton is (much like the rest of the establishment politicians on offer, whether democrat or republican) unfit for office.
Furthermore, some so-called political experts (e.g. Baccari Sellers, a pro-Clinton supporter) on the post-debate discussion (spin) mocked Bernie's efforts (i.e when politely wagging his finger rather than interrupting) to try to indicate that Clinton was egregiously infringing on his time, flaunting the rules that she had supposedly agreed upon prior to the debate.
Shut up Hillary! If you want to unite the party, let the candidates for the Democrat party's nomination speak in these debates without usurping the time ILLEGALLY according to the rules of the debate.
The spin of the pro-Clinton establishment pundits on CNN and MSNBC was that the debate was good for the Democratic Party. That remains to be seen, since if it comes to a general election contest between a disingenuous misleader and a pathological liar, the American people may wish that Bernie was still around. The advice of stoningroll - vote for Bernie while you still can.
It's written on the subway wall . . .