About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hotline's Todd: Clinton aides will "never admit" purported truth about timing of announcement

January 21, 2007 4:57 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

23 Comments

Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline, asserted that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) would "never admit" what "certainly seems" to be the truth -- that her campaign accelerated the timing of her presidential candidacy announcement in "reaction" to that of Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL) four days earlier, "and the frenzy that is surrounding Obama." In a report about Clinton's announcement on the January 20 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News by NBC News correspondent Chip Reid, Todd said, "It's hard not to view this decision as somehow a reaction to Obama and the frenzy that is surrounding Obama. I think that that sped up her timetable. They'll never admit it, but it certainly seems that way." As presented in Reid's report, Todd offered no support for his suggestion first, that Clinton did set up the announcement in response to Obama, and, second, that her aides were not being honest in refusing to "admit it."

By contrast, several other media outlets have reported that Clinton aides say that the timing was planned far in advance to take advantage of media attention in the weekend preceding the president's January 23 State of the Union address. Indeed, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood made that point on the Nightly News immediately after Reid's report. Asked by Nightly News anchor John Siegenthaler why Clinton had "announce[d] this way," Harwood said that Clinton's "aides had long targeted this weekend just before the State of the Union address because all this publicity puts her on the national state right next to George W. Bush. That underscores her status as Democratic frontrunner."

Likewise, a January 21 Los Angeles Times article reported that, according to "[s]everal Clinton supporters," Clinton's "decision to run had been planned more than three weeks ago, with a target date carefully slotted to fall after she returned from last week's fact-finding trip to Iraq and Afghanistan and before President Bush's State of the Union speech."

Moreover, Todd's claim about the timing and his suggestion that Clinton spokespeople were being dishonest are undermined by reports preceding the announcement. Several news reports in the preceding weeks -- here, here (subscription required) and here -- said that Clinton was expected to announce her candidacy in January. For example, a December 28 Washington Post article reported that Clinton, as well as other possible candidates like Obama, "are expected to announce their candidacies in January."

Todd is only one of the most recent media figures to suggest dishonesty or lack of candor on the part of Clinton, while citing no support for the insinuation. As Media Matters noted on January 17, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut suggested that Clinton may have faked a cell phone call to avoid reporters' questions.

From the January 20 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

REID: Her announcement comes just four days after Democratic Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] announced he's exploring a run for the White House.

TODD: It's hard not to view this decision as somehow a reaction to Obama and the frenzy that is surrounding Obama, and I think that that sped up her timetable. They'll never admit it, but it certainly seems that way.

REID: Today in a statement, Obama said: "I welcome her and all the candidates, not as competitors, but as allies in the work of getting our country back on track."

[...]

SIEGENTHALER: NBC's Chip Reid in Washington for us tonight. Chip, thanks very much. With more on Senator Clinton's announcement this morning is John Harwood, CNBC's chief Washington correspondent. John, why announce this way, on a Saturday, over the Internet?

HARWOOD: A website release allowed her to maximize the element of surprise and control, just as Barack Obama had done a few days earlier. And her aides had long targeted this weekend just before the State of the Union address because all this publicity puts her on the national stage right next to George W. Bush. That underscores her status as the Democratic frontrunner.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by col.roycampbell (January 21, 2007 5:26 pm ET)
         

      We all know that Clinton needed to stop the Hussein Obama momentum train. She is too old school and was probably going to announce sometime late summer but Obama began to steal her thunder. She doesn't want to end up fighting with Edwards for the VP spot.

      question for everyone here - assuming clinton gets the nom, do you like

      Clinton/Edwards or Clinton/Barack Hussein Obama? two firsts or a first woman and a safe white vp male to get more southern votes?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (January 21, 2007 5:43 pm ET)
           

        >>>"notice how mmfa left out "falsely claimed" "<<<

        Media Matters says that Todd offered "no support" for his suggestions.

        Todd has no supporting evidence. Apparently, neither do you.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (January 21, 2007 9:31 pm ET)
           

        I'd wager that you would never admit it?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (January 22, 2007 10:37 am ET)
           

        I have to say..... your intellect is something else!

        You lamely attempt to attack Barack by doing that oh so famous right-wing jib at his middle name....Hussein.....as if that has ANYTHING to do with him as a good candidate for president!

        Something you fail to mention is that Obama, Clinton, and pretty much all the democratic hopefuls have opened their arms to all the other democratic contenders!

        In other words.....the democratic debates will be done respectfully!

        Could it be that you (and all the right-wingers) are so afraid of the Democrats, in that they will run a decent campaign, without resorting to name-calling and whispers and lies.....

        Something your so-called compassionate conservatives have been doing sincethe 80's!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pedant (January 23, 2007 5:03 am ET)
           

        I like Obama for president and Al Sharpton for veep. Refuse to be bound by your limited list of choices.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by autopsychic (January 23, 2007 8:47 am ET)
           

           " two firsts or a first woman "

           It's a little early to be using logic in the presidential campaign. But, it seems to me the only way either scenerio will happen is because they simply want a "first". Whether either are qualified will not matter to any who vote for them, they will simply want a "first". And concerning the timing of Clinton's announcement, it really is hard not to agree that she sped up her timetable.

            They had a political comic in the paper the other day that showed Barack sprinting out front in a running race and Hilary trying to keep up while carrying 4 or 5 pieces of luggage. I thought it was hilarious and very true. Hilary has a lot of baggage that she needs to get rid of before she can expect to compete with Barack. The only way a Democrat will win is if Hilary drops out and gives her support to Barack. No woman in the history of the US has ever gotten enough votes to even win one electoral vote, so why would they split their hopes on two unlikelies. Instead of wasting a vote on Hilary the democrats should just put all their money on Barack and hope for the best. Maybe they'll get Kerry to run again, that should be a hoot.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (January 24, 2007 12:54 am ET)
             

          Bush has screwed up the country so badly it will be hard for ANY Republican to beat ANY Democrat. Republicans cant win unless they turn out their neandrathal base and neither McCain or Guiliani the two frontrunners for the GOP will do that. Look forward to a Dem in the Whitehouse in 08.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by autopsychic (January 24, 2007 7:43 am ET)
               

             Well, you better rest all your hopes on Barack. A woman hasn't received more than a couple hundred thousand votes EVER, none have ever gotten electoral votes! And one won't this time either. Like the comic expressed, Hilary has tooo much baggage to win, she would be better off helping Barack/Edwards.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (January 21, 2007 8:06 pm ET)
         

      Speculating without ANY hard evidence to back it up. Happens all the time in the media and is usually pretty pointless.

      Now I don't necessarily buy what Hillary's people are claiming...

      But in the larger scheme of things--Does it even matter WHY Hillary chose NOW to announce? Who really cares? And why should it matter?

      The Chuck Todd's & his ilk in the media ought to stick to FACTS, and knock off "speculations" that are meaningless & offer nothing but gossipy political babble for the pundits to ruminate over ad nauseam.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (January 21, 2007 10:05 pm ET)
         

      Sounds like a variation on "some people say . . ."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (January 22, 2007 10:33 am ET)
         

      I think somebody's maybe straying from the course of what is, and what is not, important right now.

      The subject matter of this item seems so unimportant, and so inconsequential, that you could pick either of these two options of things to believe...

      1. The Senator in question timed the announcement of her presidential candidacy in part due to the timing of another Senator's announcement of his presidential candidacy.

      or...

      2. She didn't.

      Who cares, so what, pick one or the other, it doesn't matter...

      Choice 1 or choice 2, believe what you like, it's of no consequence to anyone or anything at all...

      Make a choice, and move on.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (January 22, 2007 11:17 am ET)
         

      I'm loving this new format...thanks MMFA :-)

      Just a heads up....

       The BIG NEWS according to a few Right-Wing sites I just visited is that  there are leaves on the trees & flowers in the background as Hillary is making her [video] announcement INDICATING [they claim] that she may have taped it last Summer or Fall.

       

      Expect THIS to be made a BIG DEAL of by Fox, Rush etc.

       

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (January 22, 2007 11:31 am ET)
           

        Hi J2,

         I think she taped it in May 2005.  ;-)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (January 22, 2007 11:52 am ET)
             

          Hehehe you might be right Bruce...

          Of course this disqualifies her as a candidate because she's already trying to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending she just shot the video this past Friday ;-)

          Now I think I'll go check out Barack Obama's video background to see IF there's anything suspicious about it.

          And what about the background where Bush gave his 'I'm surging and you can't stop me' speech...while it appeared to be the White House library, I suspect it MIGHT have been elsewhere. Not sure where, BUT I'm sure gonna to investigate!!!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by ChristianDemocrat (January 22, 2007 12:17 pm ET)
               

            it appeared to be the White House library

            Of course, it was fake! After all, what would Bush be doing in the library?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by aDifferent McCain (January 22, 2007 11:54 am ET)
           

        Or she taped it January 10th here in Michigan :)

        Or of course they could realize that like 95% of TV shows the background is fake!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (January 22, 2007 12:12 pm ET)
             

          Newsbusters just updated their story by adding:    

          UPDATE: A national-level reporter whom I respect informs me that the video was produced last week in DC.  The reporter does not know whether the background is natural.

          http://newsbusters.org/stories/when_did_hillary_tape_announcement.html?q=node/10266

          So you might be onto something  DifferentMcCain ;-)

           Too bad Rush would have had fun with this ;-)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (January 22, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
               

            Why would RUSH hesitate to have his fun with this, just because the allegation has been debunked? Never stopped hi, or the rest of the "pundits", before.  In fact, the effort to debunk is often merely an incitement for further frenzy by Rush, with eventual dissemination throughout the MSM.

             

            Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (January 22, 2007 4:01 pm ET)
         

      Hey Col., to answer your dubious question, I'd take any of the democrats over the morally bankrupt, give Christianity a bad name faux conservatives on the national scene.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (January 22, 2007 4:48 pm ET)
         

      Unimportant to any with a brain; however, 'mongst the Repugnants, it is important because it implies something other than straightforward - and we all know how they worship truth and forthrightness.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.