Posted on 11/13/2007 7:53:20 AM PST by tlb
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Developing.
I hope that Wolf Blitzer shows his manhood and asks Clinton questions about Whitewater, Norman Shu and Monica Lewinsky.
This is a chance for Wolfie to shine and say “See when you threaten the Wolfster this is what you get”.
Fat dreams. It is the Clinton News Network after all.
"Ms Clinton, I really don't want to gang up on you, or ask you any hard questions, or offend you, or make you angry or cry, but..."
So Now with the very public warning and intimidation, the focus is on Wolf with his reputation on the line. If he shills for Hill, he is perceived as not only a wimp but also second rate reporter. Legacy time for Wolfie.
I do wonder if the Clinton campaign really wanted that warning to be SOOO public. It is almost a blatant dare. If Blitz buckles he is lost. Hill’s campaign engaging in sports trash talking..who would have thought it.
Wolfies got another problem....his creditability. If he goes soft he'll forever be seen as an intimidated push-over mouthpiece of the Clinton gang. My guess is this may backfire and Hillary may indeed get the question you suggest.
Ok..maybe I'm dreaming....
Its Wolfson vs. Wolfie in a throw down match.
>Gee — Glenn Beck is a CNNer. I wonder if he will be on the panel? (fat chance!)<
I’d pay to see that!
"Water. For or against?"
"Should food continue to be various colors?"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
And of course..."Boxers or briefs?"
Of course it’s a bold threat.
This is getting pathetic.
Rush says—WHAT ARROGANCE...Clinton Inc. calling Drudge with their Wolf warning! Rush fears for the young college gal.
That would frighten me. History repeating itself?
Source: Wikipedia article on Hitler:"Day of Potsdam" and the Enabling Act
On 21 March the new Reichstag was constituted with an opening ceremony held at Potsdam's garrison church. This "Day of Potsdam" was staged to demonstrate reconciliation and union between the revolutionary Nazi movement and "Old Prussia" with its elites and virtues. Hitler appeared in a tail coat and humbly greeted the aged President Hindenburg.Because of the Nazis' failure to obtain a majority on their own, Hitler's government confronted the newly elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act that would have vested the cabinet with legislative powers for a period of four years. Though such a bill was not unprecedented, this act was different since it allowed for deviations from the constitution. Since the bill required a two-thirds majority in order to pass, the government needed the support of other parties. The position of the Catholic Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive: under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party.
On 23 March the Reichstag assembled in a replacement building under extremely turbulent circumstances. Some SA men served as guards within while large groups outside the building shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving deputies. Kaas announced that the Centre would support the bill amid "concerns put aside.", while Social Democrat Otto Wels denounced the act in his speech. At the end of the day, all parties except the Social Democrats voted in favour of the bill. The Enabling Act was dutifully renewed by the Reichstag every four years, even through World War II.
Removal of remaining limits
With this combination of legislative and executive power, Hitler's government further suppressed the remaining political opposition. The KPD and the SPD were banned, while all other political parties dissolved themselves. Labour unions were merged with employers' federations into an organisation under Nazi control, and the autonomy of German state governments was abolished.Hitler also used the SA paramilitary to push Hugenberg into resigning and proceeded to politically isolate Vice Chancellor Papen. Because the SA's demands for political and military power caused much anxiety among military leaders, Hitler used allegations of a plot by the SA leader Ernst Röhm to purge the SA's leadership during the Night of the Long Knives. Opponents unconnected with the SA were also murdered, notably Gregor Strasser and former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher.[40]
President Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor).[41] Thereby Hitler also became supreme commander of the military, whose officers then swore an oath not to the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally.[41] In a mid-August plebiscite, these acts found the approval of 84.6%[42] of the electorate. Combining the highest offices in state, military and party in his hand, Hitler had attained supreme rule that could no longer be legally challenged.
Third Reich
Having secured supreme political power, Hitler went on to gain their support by convincing most Germans he was their savior from the economic Depression, communism, the "Judeo-Bolsheviks," and the Versailles Treaty, along with other "undesirable" minorities. The Nazis eliminated opposition through a process known as Gleichschaltung.
...I'm thinking....
...still thinking...
I think he'll cave.
LOL! I thought about the Boxer/Breifs question...But figured the PervyDems would just use it as proof that she was under “sexist attack!!!”. (snicker)
I believe you are on to something. You can’t ask tough questions of the other candidates and then “go easy” on Her Heinous. It will only make her look worse to field only “Mommy Track” questions.
,,,Zactly! >Bo)
Oh boy! This “Hillary campaign” implosion is turning out better than any building implosion they show on Fox!
Hey MNJ...hope all is well!
I disagree with your statement.
Hillary is more than 'tough enough'. She would be dangerously ruthless and dictatorial as POTUS.
She'd make Catherine the Great look like Mary Tyler Moore.
Now if you asserted she's not honest, tough or strong enough to face hard-hitting questions during any election campaign....I'd agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.