O'Reilly: "[M]aybe I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton"
On his radio show, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly admitted that he has "been a little unfair" to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Media Matters for America presents numerous instances in which O'Reilly was indeed "a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton."
During the May 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly admitted that he has "been a little unfair" to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Indeed. For example:
- During the April 3 broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that if Clinton were to become president, "the first thing [Osama] bin Laden and his killers are gonna do is say, 'Oh yeah, this is good,' " because they would consider Clinton "weak" enough that they could "test her."
- On the February 10, 2005, broadcast of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that "after 9-11, Mrs. Clinton didn't go to any funerals for the regular people killed. None. She's the only major politician in New York not to attend." In fact, Clinton attended several funerals and memorials, including one for 79 restaurant employees.
- O'Reilly also falsely claimed, on the November 18, 2004, broadcast of his television program, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, that former President Bill Clinton's presidential library gives Sen. Clinton "access to money because Bill Clinton's got a checkbook that he can write anything off against that library he wants." Actually, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), a federal agency, took over the Clinton Presidential Center, including its management and funding, on the day the library opened. NARA currently administers 11 presidential libraries.
O'Reilly made the concession after he was challenged by a caller to explain his "inconsisten[cy]" when criticizing Clinton. The caller stated: "[O]n the one hand, you tell us that when we talk about Hillary Clinton, she's doing things that are disingenuous, that she's just changing her positions to get votes. ... But now that we're talking about Bush" proposing to send U.S. National Guard troops to the Southwestern border, "you're telling us ... it doesn't matter where his heart is ... what matters is what he's actually doing. I think it's inconsistent." Earlier in the broadcast, O'Reilly had said, "I don't care" if Bush is proposing to send National Guard troops to the border solely for "political reasons" because "I want him to do it so that we can get this problem under control." O'Reilly later stated he didn't "have any emotion invested in President Bush," but admitted that "maybe, I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps, I have been in the past."
From the May 15 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER 1: Okay, Bill, here's the situation. The White House offered to put some troops on the border is too little and too late. The solution, like the problem, has moved on. It's easy to put the troops on the border. It's also even easier to take them off the border. President Bush is not doing this for the right reasons or because he's had a change of heart about securing our border. He's doing it for political reasons and that --
O'REILLY: But, why do you care?
CALLER 1: Well, let me tell you --
O'REILLY: I mean, I don't care why he's doing it.
CALLER 1: Bill --
O'REILLY: I want him to do it so that we can get this problem under control.
[...]
CALLER 2: Bill --
O'REILLY: [caller] --
CALLER 2: I think you're talking out of both sides of -- I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Let me explain. Thank you for letting me come on.
O'REILLY: Sure.
CALLER 2: Bill, on the one hand, you tell us that when we talk about Hillary Clinton, she's doing things that are disingenuous, that she's just changing her position to get votes and so forth. But now that we're talking about Bush -- and we know where he really stands on the border -- not with what he's doing tonight -- you're telling us this morning, don't -- it doesn't matter where or what -- where his heart is or what's all that about, what matters is what he's actually doing. And I think it's inconsistent.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, look, my position on Hillary Clinton is, I don't know where she stands on the issues. That's my position on her. Not that she's changing her stance. I don't know where she stands. Now, let me ask you a question, [caller]. Do you know what Hillary Clinton's solution to the border is?
CALLER 2: No, I don't.
O'REILLY: OK. Rest my case. So, what I'm trying to tell you is: I really don't care why President Bush does what he does or if Hillary Clinton ever gets a border solution. I don't care why, I just want to know what, because then I can vote for her or against her. Then, I can support the Bush policy or against the policy.
See this -- this is my whole thing. I don't have any emotion invested in President Bush. I'm not a Bush-hater. I think he's done some good things, and I think I've covered the man fairly in his five years in office. I think I've been very fair to him. Now, maybe, I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps, I have been in the past. But I will submit to you, [caller], that you don't know, I don't know, and nobody listening knows where she stands on the border, how to win the war in Iraq, oil prices. We don't know. And that, to me, you can't -- you can't be giving somebody power if you don't know.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Tim Russert once asked O'Reilly during an interview what his beef was with Hillary. I wish I could find a transcript, but one of the things I remember is, "I think she's dangerous."
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Bill O'Reilly finally got the memo...
The neocons are now pushing Hillary's nomination. Bill's a little slow, took him about a week to get on board. Not sure why... but, I believe the neocons believe Hillary will not win. Whatever the reason --- DON'T BELIEVE IT!
Now, I know the righties will cry "Oh sure! Now the neocons are saying nice things and you STILL hate, hate, hate... blah, blah, blah"....
Listen, this is nonsense. Hillary is a pariah, then ... Suddenly, an about-face by these creeps?? It's a sham... be on the lookout.
It's wrong to attribute it to a single group, since many groups on the right want Hillary to win.
For example, if you already know and hate Hillary, and know how to campaign against her, you might be a "GOP Campaign Manager for Hillary."
If you have written a book about Hillary, you could be a member of "GOP Book Authors and Publishers for Hillary in 08"
If you think you've looked at the numbers and seen that Hillary can not win in 2008, you might be a member of "GOP Tacticians For Hillary '08"
There is also the Chris (spit) Matthews-like reasoning... the drama of it all! What's particularly interesting to see Mark Warner vs Pataki compared to another Bush v Clinton matchup? Oh the ratings! "Media Moguls for Easy to Follow Campaigns" support Hillary in 2008 and anyone with the name Bush for the GOP.
So, there are lots and lots of personal and tactical reasons which would make a Republican partisan want Hillary.
despite the fact that o'reilly is a bush apologist extraordinare, i would have infinitely more respect for hillary clinton if she would go on his program and duke it out for an hour. like it or not, he has the highest rated news program on cable so she would get plenty of exposure. but the fact is that she and many others refuse to go on any media venue that isn't cushy, or friendly, or scripted. i may never vote for her, but maybe i would.
I think ALL respectable politicians should boycott Bill's show. Being in a screaming match that Bill call's debating is beneath them.
I think ALL respectable politicians should boycott Bill's show. Being in a screaming match that Bill call's debating is beneath them.
There isn't much that's beneath a politician. And don't kid yourself. The reason that Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney or John Kerry or John Ashcroft wouldn't appear on his show wasn't because of his demeanor it's because they are used to the softball venues where they can feed people the same tired political rhetoric and go unchallenged....in other words "Larry King."
I would rather see someone from either party interrupted then see an interviewer who's a wimp.
Not Bill's show, maybe Hume's, but BO and Hannity are not fair debaters; they're not debaters at all. They scream, they inject unsubstantiated information (make sh-it up along the way), they deflect. They would have been disqualified or at least they would have received an F in my high school debate class. There were rules for debate. Number one you had to stick to the topic under discussion and provide logical reasons to support your position. They do neither. Screaming the loudest doesn't mean you win the debate. Besides BO edits the final product, it's a lose lose situation. Bill is a loud mouth bully and he’s ETHICALLY challenged; and this belief that everyone is obligated to go on his show because he DEMANDS ticks me off.
It's not a debate if one side gets to edit the result.
Why would any of these people step into the mouth of the beast? Fox is notorious for politically motivated editting of footage. Look at what they did with the Cheney interview to remove the reference to Cheney drinking a beer during the shotgun incident etc.
I think you just want to see them get skewered. It's not like they are going to have a chance to fully present their side in a fair manner.. You've got to be kidding me.
if you would rather your elected official steer clear of any situation that might challenge them or make feel uncomfortable, go fot it. i have no interest in their spokespersons and what they feed to the sympathetic and softball media outlets. give me a break. it's constituents like you they love so much. hear only what you want to hear and vote for them blindly. they sit in their tax payer expensed offices in washington or whatever and think they can get by without having to defend themselves or their votes through tough scrutinization. and you applaud that? wow.
which right wing politician ever goes on left wing radio or television?
not nearly enough, sadly. where do you see me giving them a pass?
Mike Wallace made an entire career out of pulling down the pants of crooks, liars and other worthless scum. He did it without yelling at people, without telling people to shut up, without cutting microphones, and without editing and cropping footage. Mike Wallace commands more respect because he was always dialed in, showed no weakness, and calmy went for the jugular backed up with impeccable research. O'Reilly is nothing more than a immature, clumsy, blundering bully with a even more inept research staff.
I don't think Hillary is scared, she's smart. Smart enough to know not only that O'Reilly and the rest of the thugs at Fox News are boneheaded morons, but that they also refuse to operate according to their own mantra.
i never said she wasn't smart. she's very smart to avoid a venue where the questions she answers aren't of her own choosing. come on people, be real here. you can support her, fine. i have no problem with her anymore than most, but to deny she shies away from these for any other reason than for her own self serving political career is so ridiculously naive, it's amazing. whatever. i have made my point here. enjoy the discussion.
come to her political rallies! What a jerk!
Oh wait. That wasn't her, was it?
You didn't make your point. O'Reilly's show is rigged. The real test would be to debate O'Reilly at a neutral site, something O'Reilly continually refuses to do himself. Nobody would benefit from Clinton going on O'Reilly and watching him smear her, cut off her mic, drown her out, and edit the affair. You're off base.
I have seen a few brave the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. Few and far between yes since they regulary get skewered by their own words, but a few have tried to glean crumbs of respectability that way. Of course repubs desperatly needs to distance themselves from their Culture of Corruption. no way they can do that on any FAUX infotainment show.
My point is: O'Reilly isn't a news reporter, he's an "analyst" or whatever.. point is, there is a lesser expectation of "fair and balanced" news coming from him, while Brett Hume is the managing editor of Fox News and it was during his show where this editting occurred. If the "straight news" portion of the network can't keep itself from this kind of manipulation, what greater kinds of distortions might they expect on O'Reilly's show?
Don't get me wrong, I want tough questions to be asked but I also want it in a neutral setting where there is no overt agenda... so that the answers to these tough questions can stand on their own... is that too much to ask?
the correct term is "analass".
And the editors sciss0rs afterward but before the show airs? It would be dumb. If O'falafel would meet her in a neutral venue where he DOESNT control either of those things like he did Krugman, that I would like to see. She would most likely, like Krugman did, eat his lunch.
he has the highest rated news program on cable so she would get plenty of exposure
Yes but sponge bob square pants gets better ratings than billy. The "afraid to go on my show" is an oldy but goodie for billy but it has as much relavance as a five year old say that my dad can beat up your dad.
By the way billy's average viewer is also over 60 years old
...mean he's a better man than Bill, at least if you follow the logic of the wingnuts that are always defending the ratitings of The Factor, Limbaugh, Savage, etc.
Hillary and other legitimate politicians generally don't go on O'Reilly's show because there is no possible benefit for anybody but O'Reilly.
Not long ago he posted an almost identical post saying the same exact thing.
glad tommy and i agree, but don't fool yourself or defend them. it has nothing to do with o'reilly's legitimacy, although that's a good line for her spokespeople, it goes to their fear that they may be challenged and if they can get elected without it, they would rather have a tooth pulled. you can drink all the liberal koolaid you want, but being this naive is dangerous.
I didn't say anything about O'Reilly's legitimacy. I said that a legitimate politician does not stand to benefit at all from an appearance on O'Reilly's show. Neither do rational voters, who by definition would not be tuned in to his program.
feel free to call me whatever name, for whatever reason, you want. i have addressed the tommy before and it's meaningless to continue to do so, although i would urge him to return as another voice of sanity. whatever. you pretty much admitted that if a politician can't see the benefit for themselves for such an appearance, then no way, why bother? if that isn't the ultimate in condescending elitism, i don't know what is. forget the fact that voters would like to see the people they employ tackle and handle tough and pointed questions, if they don't come out smelling like a rose it ain't gonna happen. wow. just stay insulated in their own little world and put out press releases and they get your vote, automatically if they are a democrat. wow again.
Why would a politician do something that did not benefit him/her or rational voters?
but they wouldn't be getting the straight answers from those politicians which is the entire point. You claim that appearing on Fox News would satisfy the desire.. my contention is that it would not because you are just shifting the problem. The environment shouldn't be overly friendly, but it also shouldn't be overtly antithetical either.. that is what the voters really want. And you are full of it if you think that O'Reilly is the place where these voters are going to get that desire fullfilled.
Are you paying any attention at all to the resonses being posted on this site? there are many venues that would afford Hillary a difficult & challenging contest (Meet the Press, This Week, etc), nut what sane reason would she have to appear on a clownfest like the O'liely Factor? She could find far greater dignity in appearing in a bra & panties match on the WWE.
I think that since the network in general and the show in particular have a long history of bona fide lies and distortions.
Only a fool would debate in an environment that is likely to misrepresent the issues, the guests, and the facts.
---"she and many others refuse to go on any media venue that isn't cushy"---
Media Matters' David Brock asked to appear on O'Reilly's show months and months ago. Brock is still waiting for an answer. It's O'Reilly that wants things cushy, controlled and scripted. He's afraid to defend his own words.
I keep forgetting about the people he WON'T have on his show! Good one!
I for one am getting tired of the "I don't know where [insert Dem scapegoat] stands" excuse. It's a cop out to the 10th degree. The message being sent is that because Bill doesn't know where Hillary stands, that she therefore doesn't have a plan. Wrong.
Just because Bill hasn't taken the time to understand where Hillary stands, doesn't mean that she doesn't have a position or opinion. The same crap happens everytime some right-wing loon pundit says "The Dems don't have a plan." BS. They do have a plan, you just haven't taken the time to figure what it is.
In many cases they know the Dem's have a plan but they distort it and focus on the criticism of the Republican plan and ignore the actual details of the solution the Dem's are putting forward. (Or they scoff and act like the Dem's plan isn't really a plan)
It's a word game and it gets tiring.
Hi everyone, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching. Here's todays memo. Hillary Clinton. She's a very dangerous lady. I have no idea what she stands for on any issue, but she's dangerous. You know me, you can trust my judgement on this. Now, I'm an Independent and this is the No Spin Zone, and even though I'm babbling incoherently right now, please don't change the channel. You see, here at FOX News we pride ourselves on being fair and balanced. Which means, anything a Democrat says, we disagree with. And that's the memo.
Tonights lead story, Is Hillary bad for America...joining me now is FOX News Analyst Dick Morris who has just written a new book titled "Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist". Dick, welcome to the program.
You nailed it!
bruce1ace
You win!
Ok, I just had a *Laughing So Hard I Almost Spit My Coffee Out All Over My Computer Screen Moment*
Bruce your takeoff on O'Reilly was PRICELESS!!
You should be writing for SNL or Mad TV. They could really use you. Good stuff. LOL
You nailed that one Bruce
Thanks for the kind words. I hope I'm not paid a visit by FOX security....I may have to lay low for a day or two.
I meant that to be does he think he may have been a little hard, cause we all know we ain't talkin peanuts here!
He never even answered the guy's question. Guy tells him that it's hypocritical to denounce Hillary at every turn for doing "evil," but Bush does the same things, and Bill gives Bush the benefit of the doubt.
And what does Bill do?
It's basically a "but Clinton!" move.
"B-b-but Hillary doesn't tell us where she stands on issues, and she's evil!"
Please.
I guess that O'liely has missed the FACT that Bush has been one of Osama's best friends since the 9/11 attacks, by letting his family business partner run free.
Hey Bill, whatever happened to "I'll get him, dead or alive"?
Bush is the best thing that's ever happened to osama. Recruitment is up, the money is flowing in, and he's got more popular support than he had before.
Osama has the perfect training ground for recruits, Iraq.
Ok, sure. Just a whole lot of money riding on delivering the right talking points the White House wants on the airwaves.
Why any Democrat or progressive would appear on Fox News is beyond me. Let their pool of neocon hacks yell at each other and make sh*t up about "leftists" all day in GOP orgiastic vacuum. Hilary wouldn't gain anything by appearing on the network neo-conservatives watch for neo-conservative-style "news."
A Democrat appearing on Fox expecting fairness is akin to akin to swimming with sharks wearing a chum suit and expecting not to get bitten.
would be in the least afraid to go on o'reilly. i don't think he would dare try the tactics he pulls on others. it's the right wingers who are afraid of having the opposite side on, other than the little guys they can talk over. come on bill, have her on. and as far as his makeup artist getting attacked, you mean he pays people to make him look like dracula?
Lessee, both Charlie Rose and Dan Abrams have offered their venues to O'Reilly to debate Clooney, and yet how has tinhorn O'Reilly responded ?
My contract at Fox News will not permit me to come on another show to debate anyone.
Yeah, right. Who is running to hide under his desk now ?
... There is more rigging going on at Fox News than goes on in a ship yard.
Than how does he explain the Krugman debate? That wasn't on Fox at least I didn't see it on Fox because I don't watch Fox. It was on one of the NBC affiliates I do believe.
but I just started to subscribe to FOX news from cable and started watching Bill O'Rielly's facter yesterday . I just had to had to see this train wreck for myself . I noticed that he seems to get some feeling of power by slapping boycotts on countries ( Mexico / France ) if they don't comply with his wishes . In my brief experience watching his show it struck me that either he is very powerfull and can put alot of hurt on a nation's economic well-being or ( most likely )he is seriously delusional . I've also noticed that his demeanor is that of an angry little boy . This guy is a real sad sack . As for this topic about Mrs. Clinton I find it interesting how he tries to weissel out of position when challenged . Has anyone else noticed how passive and noncomittal he becomes after caller # 2 called him on his double standared . All of a sudden he sounds if he needs to know what the EVIL Mrs. Clinton's position is on the issues so he can decide whether to vote for her or not . He also displaces himself from President Bush as if suddenly he is luke warm on his policies . It hasn't taken alot of viewing time to find out why there his reputation is now so discredited . Anyways I had to check out the no-spin zone but I'll be cancelling my subscription next Month .
Do you think that his stating that maybe he's been a teensy weensy unfair to Hilary might have anything to do with his getting a copy of the memo that Boss Rupert has lately started raising money for her.
Bill has never doubted where his bread is buttered & is nothing if not a shameless money grubber.
What will Dick Morris do if Hillary doesn't run? There are many Republicans who have made a career out of Clinton-bashing, and they will be unimportant if Hillary isn't the candidate. Laura Ingraham the idiot, Peggy Noonan the sycophant, and many less famous partisan smear artists.
Many, many Republicans desperately want Hillary to be the nominee, because they've seen the numbers. Hillary is not popular, and probably can't win a national election. Only a tiny fraction haven't already formed an opinion, and her positives simply aren't that high.
Luckily for Democrats, she isn't that favored for a Presidential run, even in New York State.
O'Reilly's apology was part of the GOP backed "Hillary for Dem 08" major media push.