THE GAME OF "GOTCHA"

The truth about what Hillary said at the last debate and the "Gotcha" game played by Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Barak Obama, and John Edwards.

No question that this last debate was going to be a difficult one for Hillary. As the front runner of the democratic nomination and the national nomination - she is taking heat, and will continue to take heat, from the Republicans and her own parties candidates in an effort to curtail her escalating poll numbers.

So, why were Russert and Williams in on the game? If they were suppose to be the "moderators", they were anything but. Not only did the moderators steer the game of 'gotcha' against Hillary, they ensured that the other supporting candidates - namely Edwards and Obama - won the game.  How? By simply trying to force Hillary into a corner, getting her to make pledges that are unrealistic, and forcing her to say "yes" or "no" to questions that deserve an explanation. Yet these same rules did not apply to other candidates. In fact, the "moderators" went so far as to ask a question of Hillary, then the follow up to the other candidates was not about the issue or question, but about her answer to the question.

Here are some examples -verbatim- from the text of the debate:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

SEN. CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

SEN. CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can -- (laughter) -- to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards.

MR. EDWARDS: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. And -- and so, you know, we -- we -- we could potentially short-circuit this. (Laughter.)

But -- but I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is we have been governed by fear for the last six years, and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing. And it is very important for us to draw a clear line and say we are not going to be governed by fear.

We will take threats seriously. We will take action to make sure that the United States is secure. As president of the United States, I will do everything in my power to keep us safe.

So - Tim Russertt asks Hillary the question 3 times, trying to force her to make a pledge that by all accounts is ridiculous anyway, but he allows Edwards and Obama to escape the same pointed "you won't pledge" question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely but I do not, and I don't think any of us do, oppose the brave young men and women who have fought this war with such distinction and heroism.  You know, I have said repeatedly that I will begin to bring our troops home as soon as I am president, because it is abundantly clear that President Bush does not intend to end the war while he is still president. In order to do that, we're going to have to get the Joint Chiefs and my secretary of Defense and advisers together to start the planning, to move as quickly as possible, because I don't believe that the planning has been sufficiently undertaken in the Pentagon under this administration. But we've got to do more. We have to try to get the Iraqi government to understand its obligations, because there is no military solution, and they have thus far failed to do so. And finally, we need to engage in diplomacy with respect to Iraq. You know, we have a big diplomatic apparatus. This president doesn't use it. He relies on a very small group of people. I think that's a terrible mistake. In addition to the Foreign Service officers, I would bring in a lot of other distinguished Americans who have experience, people, you know, like my colleagues Bill and Joe and Chris.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton's answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA; Well, I don't think it's consistent with the Iran resolution, for example, which specifically stated that we should structure our forces in Iraq with an eye towards blunting Iranian influence. It is yet another rationale for what we're doing in Iraq, and I think that's a mistake.

Now, I agree that we've got to focus on diplomacy. The president has to lead that diplomacy, which is why I've said I would convene a meeting of Muslim leaders upon taking office because I think we have to send a strong signal that we are willing to listen and not just talk, and certainly not just dictate or engage in military action.

But the -- the real key for the next president is someone who has the credibility of not having been one of the co-authors of this engagement in Iraq. And I think I am in a strong position to be able to say I thought this was a bad idea from the first -- in the first place, we now have to fix it, we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but we nevertheless have to take steps that are not only engaging Iraqis -- the Shi'a, the Sunni and the Kurds -- but also engaging Iran, Syria and other powers in the region.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, same question.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I -- here's what I want. I want to make certain that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and all across America -- Democrats, independents -- understand that you have choices in this election, very clear choices. If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain stationed in Iraq, and if you believe there should be no actual timetable for withdrawal, then Senator Clinton's your candidate.

I don't. I think that we need to end combat missions; we need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership as president, and I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended, combat troops out of Iraq, period. So there's a very clear choice here between the candidates.

And the second thing that I want to be certain that voters are aware of, when we talk -- we've had long discussion about Iran, and Barack just made the connection to Iran, and there is a very clear connection, because we need to learn from the past. And what we've learned from the past is you cannot trust this president, and what I worry about is if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to hear, "If I only I had known then what I know now"? Well, we know enough now to know we have to stand up to this president.

And the second point I would make is, I was surprised by Senator Clinton's vote, I'll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time. We should not be saying something different in the primary than we say in the general election. I think that's what Americans have been hearing from George Bush, and I think they're looking for something different, and voters have a choice in this election.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, 30-second rebuttal.

SEN. CLINTON: May I -- well, I -- I need to rebut this. I don't know where to start.

Number one, when we talk about combat missions in Iraq, my understanding is that we had the same agreement, most of us, on this stage, that we would bring out combat troops, but we would pursue a mission against al Qaeda in Iraq if they remained a threat. Now, I don't know how you pursue al Qaeda without engaging them in combat. So I think we're having a semantic difference here.

I think we should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as possible. If we leave any troops in, like Special Operations, to go after al Qaeda in Iraq, I assume that we don't want them just sitting around and watching them; we want them to engage them. That is a very limited mission. That is what I have said consistently.

And you know, when it comes to where I stand, I have been explaining that to the American people. I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home. But I also know it's going to be complicated, and it's going to take time. And I intend to do it in a responsible manner that is as safe for our troops as possible. We're going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against al Qaeda in Iraq. So that's a very big difference than having the 160,000 troops that George Bush has there today.

In this round of questioning, Brian Williams asks if she opposes the war - gets her answer and instead of asking the same question of Obama and Edwards - he instead asks them if they thought her answer was consistent. This plays right into the Gotcha Game because rather than questioning their stance on the war, they were able to circumvent this by questioning her answer of her stance on the war. How is that a debate on the issues?

And here is the verbatim transcript of the "news" media, pundit-attacking account of what Hillary said about illegal driver's licenses:

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege. And look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here, but we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome. And I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders, we need to deal with the attraction that draws people here, we need to deal fairly with those who are here; but this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who else? Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed --

SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) -- (inaudible)?

SEN. DODD: Well, that's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker --

SEN. DODD: There's ways of dealing with that.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but --

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses; one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.

SEN. DODD: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.

SEN. CLINTON: So it's not the full privilege.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It --

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

MR. WILLIAMS: New subject.

Senator Edwards, you have young children. As you know, the Internet can be a bit of a cultural Wild West. Assuming a lot of homes don't have parental support, would you be in favor of any government guidelines on Internet content?

MR. EDWARDS: For children and try to protect children and using technology to protect children? I would.

I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago, and I think this is a real issue for the country.

I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.

Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country, and that's what I intend to do as president.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you for it or against it?

SEN. OBAMA: I think that it is a -- the right idea. And I disagree with Chris, because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer. That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

So, how is Obama's answer any different than hers? He agrees with Gov Spitzer too, but also calls for illegal immigration reform. HELLOOOO!!! It's the same answer. And WHY didn't Russert go back to Edwards and call him on it too? Why not ask Edwards the same follow up question: "Are you for it or against it?" I am sure he would not have said "I'm for it". Done.

So, now the media is asking "Is Hillary using the Gender card?". You have got to be kidding. Eight men and one woman up on the podium. Five of the eight consistently attacking her, including the moderators. At no time did Hillary attack or accuse any of the men of being "unfair" (though they were), or did she even counter-attack other democrats views on the issues (like they did hers). Instead, she remained focused on the mission - to outline for the American people what HER views on issues are and how they are differ from the Republicans and George Bush.  She never once engaged in the game of "gotcha" with her opponents because she realizes that a united democratic party is much stronger than a divided one.

Edwards and Obama need to take a serious look as to why they are faltering in the polls. If Obama's message of "hope" is displayed through attacking Hillary, then what "hope" is there? I think Governor Richardson summed it up nicely:

"You know what I'm hearing here, I'm hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. It's bothering me because it's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need. We need to be positive in this campaign. Do we trust her? I trust Senator Clinton but I don't agree with her on a majority of issues."