CNN in it for sound bites over actual debate

Friday, Nov. 16, 2007 | 4:02 p.m.

The clearest difference revealed by Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate wasn’t among candidates, though they did draw distinctions, but between the network that aired the debate and the voters in the hall.

Nevadans who posed questions to the candidates wanted to know what could be done to prevent war with Iran and how the White House hopefuls would preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Wolf Blitzer and CNN’s other public faces were focused on questions intended to create news events, put the candidates on the wrong side of public opinion or fry up salty sound bites for replay during the network’s never-ending news cycle.

So, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was asked by CNN whether driver’s licenses should be given to illegal immigrants. It was an obvious sequel to the question that tripped up the race’s front-runner a couple of weeks ago at a debate in Philadelphia.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton had expressed some uncertainty then, and tallied the advantages of giving driver’s licenses: Though they might seem to sanction illegal immigrants, those immigrants are here anyway — and they are driving without proper training. The licenses would at least ensure that everyone on the road is accounted for and trained. She spoke of the advantages, while saying she wasn’t in favor of the idea.

The resulting media narrative was that Clinton again showed she’s always calculating, never principled. It became the basis for much of the buzz before Thursday’s debate.

So Blitzer was ready for her chief rival, Obama, armed with the question about this suddenly important issue, even if licensing is a state government issue with no discernible relevance to the presidency.

“When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety,” Obama said. “That was my intention.”

He then went on to call the whole matter a “wedge issue,” one that is tangential to the real problem of fixing the country’s immigration problem.

This seemed clear enough.

But Blitzer responded with a somewhat clever hypothetical: Assuming the larger immigration problem can’t be solved, do you favor driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?

Here’s what followed:

Obama: I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t ...

The Clinton-sympathetic crowd detected that Obama was falling for the trap, and there was laughter.

Obama: No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses ... can make that happen. But what I also know ...

Blitzer: All right ...

Obama: But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.

Blitzer: But — because this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer.

More laughter.

And then Blitzer declared victory:

“Either you support it or you oppose it.”

Applause from the crowd.

And so, CNN had its moment, one that no doubt will be repeated on CNN and its sister network interminably. It will be discussed on the Sunday shows, with tut-tuts around, written about in the papers as having shown Obama stumbling publicly, blogged about by partisans.

But the exchange should be preserved for another reason. It was a curious moment in the national discourse, one in which the standard of excellence was suddenly defined by a one-word answer and contempt for nuance.

Blitzer achieved another such moment with a classic, heads I win, tails you lose trap after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson suggested that human rights could at times take greater priority in his administration than national security.

The longtime anchor improvised, asking the candidates which was more important: national security or human rights?

It was like asking whether candidates would cheat on their spouses to prevent a car accident, or save their first or their last born child in a house fire.

Clearly, at the moment the wrong short answer was human rights, but the right answer could be nuanced: Standing up for human rights can at times be better for national security.

Obama again struggled with this style of interrogation, flailing around in his own evident gift for nuance, which is generally treated harshly in these media events.

Clinton knew how to respond, clearly accustomed to this style of questioning because she’s been facing it for more than a decade and was bitten by it last month with the driver’s license issue. When the question came to her, she said, “The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America.”

So it went, until Nevada voters were given a chance to ask their questions. Their inquiries were straightforward, if halting, and addressed rather practical issues.

An Iraq war vet said he’s worried about war with Iran and wanted to know what the candidates would do about it.

His mother said, “Please tell me how you are going to show us your leadership on this issue now so I can decide who I think would be the best leader for tomorrow.”

What resulted was a discussion about Iran. The candidates debated whether a recent Senate measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, which all the candidates except Clinton opposed, is sound policy.

There were then questions about military pay, racial profiling, Social Security and Medicare.

Finally, a woman wanted to know what type of person the candidates would nominate to the Supreme Court.

Blitzer saw another opening and asked:

Would the candidates insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court support abortion rights? Boil it down, fry it in oil, sugar heavily, place in blender, serve with straw.