{news} NADER- Questions They Weren't Asked at The Great Clinton-Obama Debate

[Tim McKee]

Questions They Weren't Asked
The Great Clinton-Obama Debate

By RALPH NADER
CounterPunch, February 2/3, 2008
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02022008.html


It was billed as the great debate that, in the
words of moderator Wolf Blitzer, "could change
the course of this presidential race and the
nation."

Situated at the packed Kodak Theatre -- site of
the Hollywood Oscar awards -- thousands of
people, including anti-war protesters, were
outside, where tickets were being scalped for
$1,000.

The burgeoning excitement swept up Mr. Blitzer
into an introduction reminiscent of a heavyweight
boxing title fight. Referring to the "glamour on
this stage_one of the great stages of all time,"
he declared that "this will be the first time
that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be
debating face to face, just the two of them,
one-on-one." The crowd roared!

When it was over two hours later, here is how the
reporters, not the columnists, of the New York
Times described the showdown: "Senators Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama sat side by side
here Thursday, sharing a night of smiles,
friendly eye-catching and gentle banter_It was
almost as if the battle was to see which of them
could outnice the other."

Since neither scored a knockout, a knockdown, and
neither stumbled, the audience left without many
feeling the pain of their champion being bested.
Even the Times' critic, Alessandra Stanley, she
of the usual barbed pen, could only marvel at the
smooth harmony ideology both candidates decided
to adopt. She wrote: "They let their eyes make
nice. As they stood in front of the audience
before the debate, Mr. Obama leaned down to Mrs.
Clinton and whispered a few words in her ear, as
if continuing the fun chat they had just shared
backstage."

The two candidates were unperturbed by any
questions from the reporters that they had not
answered before or they were soft balls they
could hit out of the ball park.

As in all debates involving presidential
candidates, the reporters were unwilling or
incapable of asking questions reflecting
situations and conditions widely reported or
investigated by their own colleagues.

This phenomenon of invincible reluctance should
be studied by anthropologists or psychologists.
Examples follow:

I called up Chris Hedges, former New York Times
Middle East bureau chief and author for a
question he would have asked. He offered this
one. 

"The Israeli government is imposing severe and
continual collective punishment on the 1.5
million people of tiny Gaza, which includes
restricting or cutting off food, fuel,
electricity, medicines and other necessities.
Malnutrition rates among many children resemble
the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. Israel's leading
newspaper, Ha'aretz, has reporters and columnists
describing these horrific conditions and
concluding that the ferocity of the blockade is
detrimental to Israel as well as the
Palestinians.

"Collective punishment is clearly a violation of
established international law. Prominent, former
military, security and political leaders in
Israel are speaking out against this punishment
and calling for negotiations with Hamas. Do you,
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, agree with
these Israelis or do you continue to support the
policy of collective punishment against innocent
men, women and children in Gaza?"

Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch coeditor,
suggested this question:

"Senator Clinton, in all your previous debates,
you have not criticized the bloated military
budget.The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military
spending now consumes half of the federal
government's operating expenditures.

"What would you do to reduce the tens of billions
of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons
systems?

"And, further, would you abolish the missile
defense project, now universally conceded to be
useless for the purpose it was originally
designed, downing incoming ICBM. It costs about
$10 billion a year with a total expenditure of
over $150 billion since Ronald Reagan kicked off
the program."

Here are a few questions of my own. "Senator
Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has
President Bush violated the Constitution, federal
statutes and international treaties during his
two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and
tell the American people what you think should be
done about holding the self-described
"responsibility" President accountable under the
impeachment authority of Congress and other laws
of the land?"

"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which
includes the large banking, brokerage and
investment firms colloquially called Wall Street.
Eliot Spitzer became governor of your state
largely on his widely reported reputation for
prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced
investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of
billions of dollars. He often remarked that the
federal criminal laws were too weak and the
Securities and Exchange Commission was too
lenient.

"As the Senator from New York, what specifically
have you done to advance a strong crackdown on
corporate crime with tougher laws and larger
enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do
you intend to do as President?"

"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your
health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs.
Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction
opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of
Congress, estimates that ten per cent of the
entire health expenditures in this country go
down the drain due to computerized billing fraud
and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220
billion.

"Under a single payer plan, administrative
expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That
would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a
year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public
Health study estimates about 80,000 people die
every year from medical malpractice in hospitals,
estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year.
These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year
health care industry.

"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored
proposing practical actions in these areas?"

"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money
for children's programs. One way to make this
possible is to end or diminish the complex system
of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts,
giveaways and bailouts of business corporations.
These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a
year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why
have you not moved against such spending so that
some of the money may go to help needy children?
And specifically, what would you do as President
to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate
welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"

Is reportorial self-censorship limiting the
questions presented to the Presidential
candidates? You decide.


Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen
Traditions
 

***********************************************************************
  Tim McKee
  Manchester CT
  Home-860-643-2282
  Cell-860-778-1304
  Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT.
  BLOG- http://TheBigGreenPicture.blogspot.com/

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080206/119bc161/attachment.html>