Fox's Juan Williams repeated NY Times' misrepresentation of Clinton approval rating
On the January 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams repeated The New York Times' misrepresentation of a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, in which 54 percent of respondents said they had a favorable impression of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). On a different question, as The Washington Post reported on January 21, "[t]he poll showed her the favorite of 41 percent of Democrats, giving her more than double the support of any of her potential rivals." Williams incorrectly stated, as the Times itself did on January 21, that the poll shows Clinton with a 41-percent approval rating.
From the January 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WILLIAMS: Well, I mean -- to me, it's -- you know -- what's interesting is everybody knows who Hillary Clinton is. There's no secrets there. You spoke of baggage, [host] Chris [Wallace]. I mean, you got to -- when you compare the ideas -- I think it's like 41 percent in the last Washington Post poll that -- you know -- her approval rating, but it's 100 percent that know Hillary Clinton. So, what is that disconnect?
What is going on there and why is it that Hillary Clinton -- even though she far outpaces Barack Obama, John Edwards, and the like -- why is it that people still have the strong emotional response? Is it about Bill Clinton? I think it is. I think it's about Bill Clinton. I think it's about what happened in the scandals. I think it goes back to the health care controversy early on, when she was given authority, and the sense that she has -- she lives in a bubble and is very, you know, sort of intellectual, limited group of people that have influence over her.
Now, on the other hand, I think, you know, when it comes to Iraq, she has been running a moderate course and so, some who are on the left of the Democratic Party actually see her as too political, too soft on Iraq, too soft on President Bush, but that might be the reason that she could actually get elected.
From the January 21 New York Times article:
Several New York and Hollywood donors offered a similar assessment: they liked Mrs. Clinton as a senator, but worried that her rating in a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll released Saturday was at 41 percent, despite having nearly 100 percent name recognition.
From the January 16-19 Washington Post/ABC News poll, in which a random national sample of 1,000 adults was asked: "[D]o you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)?"
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
No opinion |
|
|
Hillary Clinton |
54 |
44 |
3 |
|
John McCain |
49 |
35 |
16 |
|
Barack Obama |
45 |
29 |
25 |
|
Rudy Giuliani |
61 |
29 |
10 |
|
Bill Clinton |
61 |
37 |
2 |
The poll then asked of respondents who said they leaned Democratic: "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?"
|
1/19/07 |
12/11/06 |
|
|
Hillary Clinton |
41 |
39 |
|
Barack Obama |
17 |
17 |
|
John Edwards |
11 |
12 |
|
John Kerry |
8 |
7 |
|
Al Gore |
10 |
10 |
|
Wesley Clark |
1 |
1 |
|
Tom Vilsack |
* |
1 |
|
Evan Bayh |
NA |
1 |
|
Bill Richardson |
1 |
2 |
|
Joe Biden |
3 |
2 |
|
Chris Dodd |
* |
* |
|
Dennis Kucinich |
1 |
NA |
|
Mike Gravel |
* |
NA |
|
Other (vol.) |
1 |
* |
|
None of these (vol.) |
2 |
2 |
|
Would not vote (vol.) |
* |
1 |
|
No opinion |
3 |
4 |
*= less than 0.5 percent
I don't see what the conservative misinformation is. This poll clearly shows that people would favor a cobbled together Frankenstein monster made up of parts from Kerry, Obama, Gore and Edwards. President KOGE has got my vote.
The misinformation is blatant. Statistical manipulation... or if you feel like giving benefit of the doubt, statistical information presented ignorantly and incorrectly. 41 percent is NOT her approval rating in a random sampling, as these two sources suggest. It is the percentage of DEMOCRATIC leaning individuals who would vote for her out of a list of DEMOCRATIC candidates - basically a straw-poll primary. People need to get their facts straight before they spew them out their mouths.
More than likely Williams was citing the Misrepresented results of the New York Times poll. It's doubtful a Faux Liberal like Williams is going to check whether the New York Times piece was accurate.
So it's really those first two New York Times nitwits who are most at fault here.
Good example by Media Matters here of how the lies and filth spread.
why is it that people still have the strong emotional response?
Sorry Juan, but I don't think it's her past health care proposals, or even her positions on the issues at all. The right spent a large deal of money and time demonizing the Clintons. I know many people who still to this day think she had Vince Foster murdered, thought she stole millions and helped orchestrate Whitewater, and also played a part of several other murder scandals the right-wing concocted during the Arkansas Project.
I was even on an entertainment message board over the weekend when Hillary made her announcement, and post after post was about how "evil" Hillary was, how she murdered Vince Foster, etc.
...and immediately after I post this, MMFA posts Limbaugh again smearing Hillary with the Vince Foster murder allegations.
Let's face reality. These longterm smear campaigns are why people have such strong anti-Hillary and anti-Clinton feelings.
How about that she is a political calculator who doesn't stand for a thing on her own?
You just described 99% of politicians.
That alone wouldn't distinguish her from any other politician. There's a reason why the first thing that Rush brought up after the Hillary announcement was Vince Foster.
Thank you for bringing that up - I am no fan of Hillary, but I hate that argument, that she is calculating.
I would love to hear anything that is said about Hillary that is not just as applicable to, say, McCain. He looks terrible in those pantsuits, too.
Go Gravel!! Landslide in '08!!
Keep it up, Rusty.
The aggregate effect of mining that vein of bad Gravel jokes only serves to make mine gems by comparison.
Granite, I have trouble resisting such tempting quarry, and in my boulder moments have made rubble of any foundation of respect I may have built here.I'm trying to clean my slate, and I shale overcome.
I bow to you, HBL!
Excellent new formatting toolbar, MMFA. Congratulations.
Juan Williams is unprofessional. These are not even opinions. These are facts that can easily be veryfied, yet he got it wrong because he thought nobody was watching.
Clinton's approval is 54%, not 41%.
personally she is too far left for my taste, and yes i worry when the whlesale nationalization of an industry (Insurance ) was a past failure of hers
a legitimate complaint... but also not at issue here. That would be a great thing for Juan Williams to say - it would at least express a rational opinion based on a substantive issue. The issue here is misrepresenting poll numbers.
TOO MUCH TO HOPE FOR ...
for RRASTRO ... or any other rightwinger ... to actually EXPLAIN and give examples of the so-called "wholesale nationalization of an entire industry" ... that being Hillary's Health Care proposal.
"WHOLESALE NATIONALIZATION" was the GOP "FRAME" for Hillary's proposal, and the Health Care bosses spent a BILLION DOLLARS arguing in favor of a status quo with what was (and still IS) wildly profitable for THEM, but is failing the American People.
Hillary's PLAN kept in place all private sector service providers. It "nationalized" NOTHING. Yet, the rightwing cling to their FRAME and rely on the American People to be ignorant of the facts. Rrastro, for example, blithely promotes and repeats the rightwing FRAME, without any expectation or intention of explaining how what he says is even close to the TRUTH.
People are now asking WHY the Health Care industry HAD that Billion Dollars to stand in the way of needed change, to try to fool the American People into accepting a status quo that is woefully inadequate to serving the American People as a whole, but which served the INDUSTRY very well.
How about it, Rrastro? Care to tell us exactly WHAT part of Hillary's proposal was about NATIONALIZING the insurance industry? Can't name that clause? Never even READ the proposal? Depended instead on industry propaganda and framing by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity? That's what I thought.
God save us from brainless ditto-monkeys.
I'm amazed that HC is considered "far left", and that national health care is seen as a "failure" of hers. Something that has been proposed, in different incarnations, by many pols and activists, and never accepted by enough people,or drug corporations, to happen, I don't see it as her failure.
As if it were a business venture, like one of George Bush's "experiment's in capitalism"
i worry when the whlesale nationalization of an industry (Insurance ) was a past failure of hers - rrastro
How can it be a failure when it wasn't attempted? Still, it's quaint that you think insurance companies have your best interests at heart. There are a lot of Mississippi (former) homeowners who'd disagree with you on that.
Always fascinating to watch the flow of comments.
This is an item about a poll that was innacurately reported, and how that innacurate reporting is now entering the news echo chamber.
...and the comments immediately turn to people attacking or defending Hilary. Hilary is not the issue with this item. The news media is.
Focus. Focus.
Sorry, Nocomment- it's all that sugary cereal we grew up on.
On another note, I notice this item was written by "S.P." Is BilldO right?
I blame ADD for the shift in subject matter.
But we liberals didn't start it, they were just responding to a comment made by someone who automatically dislikes Hillary, based on false arguements.