NBC's O'Donnell, Shuster falsely suggested Clinton's job approval ratings were low during Lewinsky scandal, impeachment
SUMMARY: While reporting on polling that places President Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low, NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell and MSNBC's David Shuster both falsely suggested that President Clinton's job approval ratings sank during the Monica Lewinsky controversy and his subsequent impeachment. In fact, Clinton's job approval ratings remained high throughout the period of the Lewinsky controversy and reached their highest level ever at the time of his impeachment by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
While reporting on polling that places President Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low for his presidency, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell and MSNBC correspondent David Shuster both falsely suggested that President Clinton's job approval ratings sank during the Monica Lewinsky controversy and his subsequent impeachment. On the April 12 broadcast of NBC's Today, O'Donnell falsely claimed "President Clinton hit 41 percent [approval] around impeachment." Similarly, after characterizing Clinton as "a president who once argued it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" -- a reference to Clinton's semantic defense of himself during an August 17, 1998, deposition relating to the Lewinsky affair -- Shuster reported that "[t]he [Bush] administration's poll numbers are even lower than at the height of President Clinton's verbal gymnastics." In fact, as Media Matters for America previously noted, Clinton's job approval ratings remained high throughout the period of the Lewinsky controversy and reached their highest level ever at the time of his impeachment by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
As Media Matters noted, the January 6-7, 1998, Gallup poll, the last taken before the January 17, 1998, onset of the Lewinsky matter, showed 59 percent job approval for Clinton. From the time that the Lewinsky story broke through the Senate's February 1999 acquittal of Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, Clinton's Gallup job approval rating (subscription required) never dipped below 58 percent (a relative low he reached in a January 23-24, 1998, poll). Clinton's Gallup job approval ratings actually hit the high for his presidency during the Lewinsky matter, reaching 73 percent at the time of his December 19, 1998, impeachment by the House of Representatives (in a poll taken December 19-20, 1998) and reaching another relative peak of 70 percent in a February 9, 1999, poll, taken during Clinton's trial in the Senate.
Although several months after Clinton's acquittal, Clinton's Gallup job approval rating fell to 53 percent (May 23-24, 1999), he never dropped to "41 percent" -- as O'Donnell alleged -- in the Gallup poll, or any other major poll taken during or after the period of the Lewinsky scandal. The last time Clinton's job approval rating ever fell to 41 percent or below in the Gallup poll was December 28-30, 1994, when it was recorded at 40 percent.
In contrast to Clinton's high job approval ratings during the time of the Lewinsky scandal, the ABC News/Washington Post poll referenced by Shuster -- and likely referred to just prior to O'Donnell's report by Today co-host Matt Lauer, who described a "new poll" indicating that "Bush's approval ratings are still the lowest they've ever been" -- shows Bush's job approval rating at a new low of 38 percent. This reveals Shuster's assertion that "[t]he administration's poll numbers are even lower than at the height of president Clinton's verbal gymnastics" to be a profound understatement. Bush's job approval rating in the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (April 7-9) is 37 percent.
From the April 12 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning: President Bush's numbers game. Despite campaign-style speeches, a more open approach, taking questions from the public, and a high-level staff change, President Bush's approval ratings are still the lowest they've ever been -- that, according to a new poll.
[...]
O'DONNELL: Looking back, some second-term presidents have been able to rebound. President Reagan's approval fell to 34 percent with the arms-for-hostages scandal. President Clinton hit 41 percent around impeachment. But both bounced back up to the sixties as they left office.
From the April 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
SHUSTER: After succeeding a president who once argued it depends on what the definition of "is" is, President Bush now depends on what the definition of "classified" is. White House officials maintain that despite the president giving Vice President Cheney's chief of staff "Scooter" Libby the authority to leak intelligence about Iraq, this statement two months later was accurate.
BUSH [video clip]: I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it.
SHUSTER: White House officials emphasize the word "classified." They say that when President Bush gave the vice president and his chief of staff the green light to leak, and even though everybody else including the CIA director had been kept in the dark, the information was technically declassified.
[...]
SHUSTER: Overall, the president's job approval rating has fallen to 38 percent, his disapproval a whopping 60 percent. There was no poll released today about the vice president, but in first-pitch ceremonies at the Washington Nationals' home opener, the boos were much louder than the cheers. The strong feelings about Vice President Cheney and President Bush have prompted huge fears among congressional Republicans over the midterm elections. The administration's poll numbers are even lower than at the height of President Clinton's verbal gymnastics, a sign that the public sees the legalisms and parsing statements from the Bush White House as even worse.
Clinton's numbers CLIMBED around the Lewinski witch hunt. Please, stop lying, you fools. Stop it. Go away. Stick your heads in the sand and pretend everything is just fine. I know they do the latter anyway. The sand is a step in the direction of passive eugenics.
The general population made a clear distinction between Clinton's job performance and his personal life. His approval ratings always remained high even as he became the late-night talk show punch line. But only 1/3 found him to be "honest and trustworthy" and only 42% say he showed good judgment in 1998. Bush couldn't even match those low numbers today.
[link to www.cnn.com]
that the American public cares less about the integrity and trustworthiness of our leaders than they do about the effectiveness of their policies and how they affect our daily lives. This current crop of administration whores are just an unbelievable bunch of criminals. In my lifetime ( I guess I'm relatively young, at 38 ) I cannot think of a president, with the exception of this one, that I absolutely despised. I never felt that way about Bush's Father, or Reagan, and still don't. Nor do I recall any of my friends or family feeling that way towards ANY of them, all the way back to Nixon. These guys are just evil - no doubt about it in my mind.
You and I are a similar age, I'm 40. You might be right that on balance the country cares less about the personal integrity than about policy. However, I still can find no other explanation why Gore would have lost in 2000 other than Clintons personal indiscretion turning off a high number of people. Really, if you think back to the economy numbers at that time, and granted it was just beginning to slow down, but why would 50 million people vote for a change with such good economic numbers? (Unless people weren't feeling as good about things as the numbers implied)
The moral values crowd got a lot of mileage out of Clintons affair and it cost Gore bigtime, IMHO. (And for those who are going to respond with the "stolen election" post, don't you think an economy like that should have produced a landslide?)
Actually, I feel what hurt Gore more was his distancing himself from Clinton due to the Lewinsky scandal, as opposed to having Clinton actively campaign for him. It wasn't until late in the campaign that Gore relented and had Clinton hit the campaign trail for him. Perhaps there was a Clinton backlash due to his infidelity, but I think those were from conservatives that wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway. Gore should have used Clinton WAY more than he did, that was his biggest mistake.
I agree with you on one thing, though. It shouldn't have been a 'stolen election' as Gore, running on the highly popular (if scandal-ridden) Clinton's coattails, should have won in a landslide based on the strength of the economy.
Don't you think that just supports the stolen election charge? Throwing 90,000 people off the voter registration roll calls for having the same last name as a felon (almost all of them were black) and refusing to count "spoiled" ballots in black precincts resounds of a stolen election, especially when coupled with a solid economy. The sexual misconduct provided a solid smoke screen to conceal the deed, though. How many of these stolen elections will it take before people see a pattern of Republican corruption? Republicans OWN the machines, and power has and always will lie with those who count the votes.
Gore failed (to capture the electoral college, not the popular vote) for two main reasons. # 1. He ran away from Clinton. He should have ran towards him. Clinton was popular. He bought the "values" and "character" BS that the right was selling but wasn't a reflection of reality. #2. He picked a Jewish running mate. Never underestimate the latent (and sometimes not so latent) anti-semitism of the south and heartland.
Considering the bizarre antipathy the national press corps showed for him. GW Bush was their man from the opening volley. He was dumb, but cute and lovable and chatted with them. Gore, on the other hand, was distant, over-educated. Worst of all, he refused to hate Clinton as much as the press corps did. They smeared him, gossiped about him, refused to take anything he said seriously--just as they do nowadays whenever he makes a speech.
Yes, it's juvenile, but a number of reporters have actually admitted to it.
As the polls quoted above show, Americans back in the 1990s were a lot more serious about politics than the political elite were. George W Bush is the punishment the Beltway social club inflicted on us for daring to disagree with their wisdom.
Gore lost because of his inability to combat the massive disinformation campaign and coordinated spin from the right-wing. He just wasn't ruthless enough and niether was Kerry.
The Republicans were successful in mischaracterizing Gore as an elitist robot wierdo and Gore did nothing to combat that impression outside of some appearances on talk shows.
Strangely enough, the Tipper kiss (more like eating her face alive on national television) was probably Gore's deepest self-inflicted wound.
Once people think you are just wierd, they usually won't vote for you.
I was watching tapes of teh 1992 presidential debates the other day. Clinton was masterful. Whenever he was attacked, he didn't hesitate. He hit back. A couple of times he turned and directly faced Bush I and said, "Mr. President, you were WRONG to question my patriotism. You were wrong in the last debate and you are wrong now." Neither Gore, nor Kerry, or Dukakis for that matter would do that. It's a horrible mistake. I wonder if these poltical handlers don't study previous succesful campaigns. By not fighting back, they are exacerbating the already soft image of Democrats that has lingered throughout the years.
I've been saying this for years. In a nutshell, Rush Limbaugh and his clones elected Puddinhead George.
I've never had this level of animosity toward any president before either, I was very young when Nixon was President and but my parents hated him. I've heard some of the Nixon tapes that was released not long ago and the man was a raving racist. I guess they instinctively sensed that.
My dad voted for Nixon and Reagen twice. My mother and I never forgave him for it, even though we got him turned around by the 1988 election. I was proud to cast my first presidential vote for Bill Clinton. If you do the math, you can figure out roughly how old I am.
I actually shook his hand as he ran for the presidency in 1960. I was just a kid.
At the time that he was president, I could not stand the man. I cast my first vote for president in 1972. I proudly voted for George McGovern.
Nixon was hated deeply in his day. After he left office, it was hard to find anyone who would admit to having voted for him. As much as he harmed this country, I think it pales in comparison to what GWB has done. Nixon continued the War in Vietnam. He used the FBI, CIA and other government agencies as his private investigative political police force. He was a ruthless political animal. He would do anything to gain or hold onto power. He knew black, white and every conceivable shade of gray. But he did start to improve our relations with China and the Soviet Union. He was wiling to work with our allies.
GWB on the other hand appears to be messianic. He seems to be driven by some deep religious belief that he alone can save the world. He doesn't seem to care that his policies are dividing the country and losing us support with the rest of the world. His world is Black or White. You're with us or against us. You back his policies 100% and you're a patriot. Deviate from his policies and you're a traitor. He can't see the road he's going down, or the carnage in his wake, he only sees the final destination.
On a side note, is anyone else as tired as I am of the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" bull?
I wonder if any of the people who sneeringly spout that line know what the context was. I recall reading the transcript of the actual exchange and while I don't remember the exact wording, I do recall it as having something to do with whether the lawyer, in using the word "is" in the question, meant the present or rather the past time frame about which the question asked.
That is, in context Clinton's response made perfect sense and it was only by the almost by definition deceitful tactic of quoting out of context that it has been made to seem evasive or "verbal gymnastics."
The talking heads who vilified Clinton for that legal sidestep are now excusing everything Bush does or says. These are the same pundits who are floating the declassification technicality that supposedly makes the outing of Valerie Plame a "non crime". Their hypocrisy and disingenuousness is astounding.
Here is the reality. Clinton suffered immediately after the scandal surfaced, but the way his team handled the issue was masterful. And Kenneth Starr helped Clinton, too. By releasing an explicit impeachment report Starr helped keep the majority of the U.S. public strongly behind Clinton and the Democrats even through a midterm elections. The Democrats even picked up seats in the Senate, a surprising result of such a scandal.
Here is a story from CBS News last year.
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
"I know I know I ain't correct But politics are so much better when there's sex"
The band Louis XIV -- "Paper Doll"
Man sex really does sell. Maybe this WH needs a good sex scandal to turn this thing around. Hmmm, who could be the one no, no, I hope not -- nevermind. Wow, I feel icky just thinking about the possibilities.
I don't care about the politics or whether this reporter or that is conservative or liberal....these errors come down to basic journalism. You don't just say stuff, you report facts that you've checked. For these on air copy readers (they don't qualify for the term journalist) to make such fundamental mistakes is a disgrace. This isn't a case where you have dueling experts or an obfuscating elected official or some complex issue to cover in 30 seconds. This is basic fact checking. Surely, these two news outlets have some type of discipline prodcedure to teach their employees how not to report.