NBC's Vieira conflated GOP candidates' own extramarital activities with those of Clinton's spouse
On the March 15 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Barack Obama (IL) about "the marriage factor" in the 2008 election, saying that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) "all married multiple times." She added, "Plus, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] has had her marriage troubles as well."
Vieira's reference to Clinton in the same question as Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich (here and here) suggests that Clinton's "marriage factor" issues are comparable to those of the Republican presidential candidates, overlooking the obvious difference: Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich themselves have histories of extramarital relationships, while in Clinton's case, it is the conduct of her spouse to which Vieira was presumably referring.
CNN.com's Political Ticker uncritically noted Vieira's "marriage factor" question.
From the March 15 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: And one more question, this one about the presidential campaign. There's been a lot of discussion lately about the marriage factor and how that will play in the race. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich -- all married multiple times. Plus, Hillary Clinton has had her marriage troubles as well.
Do you think that the personal lives of candidates give us any indication of what kind of leaders they will be?
OBAMA: You know, I think, ultimately, people are going to make decisions on the basis of their track record -- a candidate's track record in the public sphere. You know, everybody has personal issues and the -- I think, ultimately, what people want to know is: What are you going to do on behalf of the American people? And that's how it should be.
VIEIRA: Will you make the personal issues of other candidates an issue in your race?
OBAMA: Absolutely not.
How does the Republican party expect to garner the evangelical vote when their field of candidates is so far from saintly?
Well, that's why Hillary was tossed in there.
The same way they have for the past 30 years: by making promises about abortion. Considering how valuable those promises are for getting votes from the sheep, it's not too surprising that abortion remains legal.
That about says it all Rusty...
And in four sentences.
Abortion has been the "Holy Grail" for the Publicans.
The Democrats need to be aggressive, but will they? They are the party that can significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They should shout it from the rooftops.
And just how can the Democrats do that? (I know this is off topic, but someone had to ask)
Through birth control and safe sex education.
How can they shout that from the rooftops without the message being distorted? No friggin' clue.
You just made the point. I haven't heard one Democrat, at least the ones running for President, make any public statements or advocate in any way for more birth control or safe sex education, have you? Is it on their websites? Of in any of their unfiltered speeches to supporters?
"Is it on their websites?"
You'll have to look, I don't have the time. I remember Dean addressing it, but I haven't listened to any full speeches or even browsed presidential webpages since he lost the primary in early '04.
I haven't heard one Democrat, at least the ones running for President, make any public statements or advocate in any way for more birth control or safe sex education, have you?
It's in Obama's Audacity of Hope.
So it's Hillary's fault that Bill cheated? That sounds like something a wingnut would say...
Well, if Sen. Clinton weren't the stereotypical bitch, then Bill wouldn't.... (Yes, that's sarcasm.)
I know this is sarcasm, but don't be surprised if it becomes a Flying Monkey talking point, especially if Hillary becomes the nominee. Rush Limbaugh will convince his idiot audience that Bill's philandering was Hillary's fault.
and in their charming way, they will then blame HRC's being "stereotypically bitchy" on WJClinton's history of bad behavior, to complete their circle of blaming WJC for everything that has happened since he was born. This may cause their heads to explode.
Seriously
Does it really matter what the marriage history is of a candidate? I for one do not care. I also think that the treatment of the Clintons throughout the former Presidents term is the reason today the Republicans will face this type of questions.
While the marriage issue is definitely overplayed, I think there is some relevence. Electing a president is a lot like dating. People are naturally suspicious of people that have been married 3+ times. They are either impetuous (they made a mistake is getting married in the first place) or malcontent (the grass is always greener, younger). Similarly, a bachelor president (or date) might make you wonder, "what is wrong with him/her that he/she is still single?"
So I believe this fascination with a U.S. president having a "normal" family life (1 spouse, 2.5 children) less to do with religious conviction or "focusing on the family" and has more to do with assuaging public fears that a candidate is a little odd personally. So I disagree that extra- or multi-marital issues have a huge impact with the religious right. After all, the leaders of the religious right have been historically less than wholesome. Let's see...Jimmy Swaggart liked prostitutes, Jim Bakker was a rapist, Ted Haggard liked male prostitutes. These evangelicals make Newt, Giuliani and the Clintons look like, well, evangelicals.
That was pretty good (for the most part), but you have to remember that the Clintons didn't divorce, whereas the other candidates have done so (at least once).
G-string married his cousin and his wife (his second, I believe) had to get a restraining order against him. Newt left his wife, while she was in the hospital to run off with one of his staffers. If you ask me, Bill's fling in the Oval Office PALES in comparison to the action of these others.
If you're right, it is another form of unfair bias and discrimination that we're not being honest about.
If you think about the weirdest or least attractive people you know, they are just as likely to be married as the people you like the most.
I'm not saying I necessarily feel that way, not consciously, at least. But many Americans do feel that way, or at least let it be reflected in their voting behavior. And the media is to blame as well. When was the last time we elected a president who was short, obese, bald, single, thrice-married or childless? Or for that matter, when was the last time we elected a female, homosexual, or an ethnic/religious minority?
The American people, with the help of the American media have resoundingly mandated that the President of the United States be as socially presentable as possible. A "normal" marriage is just part of this package. At least when the media delves into a candidate's marital affairs, we are dealing with an aspect of their life the candidate has some control over. I suppose that is preferable to attacks on a candidate's race, gender, sexual preference, or physical appearance.
It is stupid that when it comes to the president, we value the packaging over what is inside. Americans don't readily admit to being that shallow, but if these things didn't matter for most Americans, a guy like Dennis Kucinich would be a great presidential candidate. Instead (because he is short, Catholic, ethnic, is thrice-married, and his current wife is half his age) he has no chance.
Fair or not, it's the nature of the business. No one wants to see Paul Giamatti star as Batman, and no one wants Dennis Kucinich to be President of the United States. It's one of the limitations of democracy, I guess. Too often we put the power of the vote in the hands of people ill-equipped to wield it.
The relevance it has for some people is when the "family values" party shows its hypocrisy by not behaving in accordance with the very values that they want to impose on everyone else.
If a candidate doesn't preach in that way, then it isn't relevant.
Following this type of thinking, does this make Missy Laura Bush a recovering alcoholic?
Good point.
I believe Laura was also once a male cheerleader.
Also, I wonder if the other candidates will go on record as Sen. Obama just did and not make personal issues a factor in the race? Better get Karl Rove on the record also before his days are over.
Viera does conflate, unfairly, Mrs. Clinton with the Republican candidates who were responsible for their own infidelity. Mrs. Clinton had no hand in her husband's adulterous affairs, so the comparison made here is inaccurate.
But the overriding point is whether or not the candidate's personal lives are an indication of leadership abilities, or relevant in some way. In theory, they probably should not be as Obama says........but in actuality it is very naive of any candidate to believe or act as if it isn't a big issue for voters. With the 24/7 news cycle these days, we are bombarded with every aspect of their lives. And much of the voting public find it much easier to wrap themselves around the candidate's personal lives, than studying or focusing on the more complicated issues of policy. Disappointing, but true.
"but in actuality it is very naive of any candidate to believe or act as if it isn't a big issue for voters."
My personal opinion is that it's an issue with voters because the media is making it an issue with voters. I don't care about Giuliani's private life any more than I care about Clinton's. The only reason I care about Gingrich's private life is because he was hypocritically leading a moral crusade against the sitting President while he was living a life of less than stereotypically moral proportions. If the media keeps shoving affairs, divorces and the like down the throats of the American people, the American people are unfortunately going to consider it an issue -- if the media didn't make such a huge deal out of nothing in these terms, the only people who would care would be the evangelicals who probably wouldn't like any of these candidates anyhow.
BLR,
That was my point - the media grabs on to this stuff because the public eats up these selacious details.......do you think a programming producer from the cable networks is choose some snoozy policy think-tank discussion over a candidate's personal problem? Not likely.
Now I agree with you, I could care less for the most part too. I am far more interested in policy and issue advocacy positions candidates take, than who they slept with.........but the media gives the public what it wants, generally. Just at look at C-Span's ratings as proof of that.
"That was my point - the media grabs on to this stuff because the public eats up these selacious details.......do you think a programming producer from the cable networks is choose some snoozy policy think-tank discussion over a candidate's personal problem? Not likely."
That's where we disagree, Tommy. I don't believe that the media is in the business of reporting the news any more, but rather reporting agendas. While I don't expect them to report snoozy discussions (what was that PBS show? The Mac-something Report? I could never watch that), but I do expect journalism to address the results of said think-tank discussions, and I think if the discussions and their results are important, the public will take interest in them.
It's really a chicken and the egg argument. I believe that the public is misinformed because the money behind the media isn't interested in a truly informed public. Let's face it - the ignorant are easier to control (thank you, Neal Boortz). You believe that the public itself isn't interested in truly being informed, so the media's hands are tied about what it presents.
I do believe traditional media (newspapers) are suffering because of their lack of providing real and meaningful information. The minority of the public who were willing to read newspapers are dwindling not only because of the advent of the internet media, but also because the quality of the papers' journalism is plummenting so greatly.
I disagree Tommy
She said MARRIAGE factor not ADULTERER factor, which means Hillary's very public marital misadventures thanks to her cheating spouse, a former President, fits as easily into the category of "marriage factors" as do the other examples.
Many do not admire her "standing by her man" because they find her reasons for doing so disingenuous. Some see it as just another example of her calculating image. Say or do anything to get ahead politically. Even if it means forgiving the hound dog she'd might have kicked to the curb otherwise.
J,
I see your point, but for Viera to compare the two even in the "marriage factor" is really not fair. Guiliani and the others have had extramarital affairs, and Mrs. Clinton has not. That was my only objection to what she said. Yes, the Clinton's have had theur marriage problems - but as far as we know, they have not been because of her - Bill was the one who screwed around.
Hey Tommy,
I think the so called marriage factor is a broad category and could include both bad marriages or marital histories as well as good marriages such as the Obamas & the Romneys.
At least that's how I see it.
Point noted Jeter, thanks.
Ok...I see what you're point is, Jeter. I suppose if Viera had raised the issue of the "marriage factor" without the other examples, there wouldn't be much here for MMFA. However, as presented, it seems an unfair conflation, even if unintentional.
There have been numerous claims Hillary had an affair with Vince Foster, some made by her ex-security agents.
Once again you bring up a good point Leather.
Whenever facts are brought up concerning the multiple marriages and divorces of a candidate that happen to be official records, we should also bring up the rumors.
I'm still amazed that people voted for George w. Bush knowing that he was also endorsed by aliens.
[link to www.presidentialufo.com]
Yeah...saw that too...on "The Clinton Chronicles". It's a wingnut video with a shipload of baseless allegations and smears.
Are you addicted to lying or something?
He's not lying. The claims are there.
He's addicted to repeating lies, is all.
No doubt some people will view it that way, Jeter. I think the comparison of Sen Clinton's marriage problems to that of the others is still unfair. The theory as to Clinton's reasoning is also just that...theory.
Of course, some would play any response as a negative. If the Senator had tossed Bill, her opponents would have described her as a cold-hearted, unforgiving, stereotypical bitch, cashing in on Bill's mistake, instead of putting aside her interests for the good of the Presidency.
Hey CD,
I guess I'm just looking at the Marriage Factor as a broad category [as I wrote to Tommy above], and feel the term could include all marriages, good or bad of every candidate.
And in this elections those very comparisons are already being made.
I agree about Hillary, no one can read her heart or mind and no matter what she did there would be criticism.
On a personal note, I'm a great deal more interested in the issues than in any Marriage Factors.
I shall dub you "Spinmaster" with your ability to spin this as somehow alright. You should quit your day job and be a political handler with that type of maneuvering.
And I shall dub you "Reading Comprehension Impaired"
Where did I say anything was alright? I made no distinction about the wrong or right of anything.
I simply pointed out--correctly--that the term Marriage Factor is a broad category.
It can be narrowed down further to good, bad, multiple, straight, gay...get my drift?
It's like saying Food Factor...covers a lot eh? Now if you want to narrow that down, you might limit it to ethnic dishes, then narrow it down further to Italian food, till you get to Spaghetti & Meatballs. Which happens to be what we're having tonight for dinner :-)
You should quit your day job and be a political handler with that type of maneuvering....by Pragmatic Liberal
Thanks for the compliment. But it's not maneuvering, it's common sense & logic. And in this particular case, simply stating the obvious.
J,
Once again your point makes perfect sense, even if we slightly saw it differently........these entrenched ideologists that not only disagree, but personally attack in the process, are becoming less and less worthy of a response.
these entrenched ideologists that not only disagree, but personally attack in the process, are becoming less and less worthy of a response.
I hear ya Tommy. I took a month off last year from this forum because the ideological screech monkeys were disrupting the otherwise civil debates here with personal attacks. Many of them are now long gone, unfortunately they've been replaced by a new crew. And sadly we lost a few good posters also who simply got fed up and left for good. I enjoy debating/discussing issues here as I know you do, and most of the posters here are reasonable & respectful...but there are a handful here that troll these boards just looking for an argument. Which would be ok, IF they had a point to make. Or had passed Basic Reading Comprehension 101.
It's hard not to reply, but you're right, they aren't worthy of a response. There are a few posters here I simply ignore, I'll probably add PragLib to the list.
You can bet if Hillary was from the Publican party...
The media would be showering praise on her for "standing by her man," and "submitting to the word of God."
Anyone who questioned her fidelity and loyalty would be a "mean-spirited liberal."
You can bet if Hillary was from the Publican party...The media would be showering praise on her for "standing by her man," and "submitting to the word of God." Anyone who questioned her fidelity and loyalty would be a "mean-spirited liberal."...by Debunked
You might be right debunked. Do you have an example? If not, then then all "bets" are off. And you're only guessing at what the media's reaction would be.
Not that I've made up my mind yet, but given the choice between a bitch and an incurious, anti-intellectual, bible-thumping, arrogant little wannabe Texan, I'll take the bitch every time.
Did you figure in the marriage factor, Drafted?That little wannabe Texan took a solemn vow to be faithful to our country and the Constitution, and he's been acting like a little hussy.
HBL,
Believe me, I've got a MUCH longer list of adjectives for describing Duhhbya.
I just picked the ones that I believe have caused the greatest harm to this nation and the rest of the world.
I have an extensive list, as well, but they won't make it past the obscenity filter.
NERZOG,
Like schit-for-brains?
I think right wingers - or anyone for that matter - should give HRC the benefit of the doubt. The Clintons went to marriage counseling and didn't take the easy route and get divorced. There's something to be said for that. I have heard HRC say that she still finds Bill the most fascinating person she has ever met and she seemed very sincere. Marriages can survive affairs.
I do find people who have had multiple marriages a bit suspect. If there was a starter marriage involved, I'd give them a break for being married twice (unless death was involved). Three marriages sounds like bad decision making to me. I'm not particularly religious, but marriage to me is very profound. I wonder mightily why divorce isn't looked at more heavily than homesexuality since the bible mentions it a lot and mentions the latter so little. Why the disconnect for evangelicals. It seems to me that evangelicals should be VERY upset with a serial marriers. Anybody know why the huge emphasis on gays but not that much emphasis on divorced individuals? Maybe just bigotry.
What a strange idea. Ms, Clinton stayed with her husband, they worked out their problems and remained married. I think Mr. Clinton would be the first to say how despicable his behavior was. Mrs Clinton is not the one who strayed but she took her marriage vows seriously enough to make the commitment to stay and work it out. And now, Vieira, just how does that equate to the mess Giuliani put his wife and children through by inviting his paramour right into the Mayor's mansion and he even refused to desist rubbing it in his wife's nose until the Judge forced him to move his sweetie-pie out. Some folks have the strangest way of figuring and it only shows their horrible bias against Mrs. Clinton. I say God Bless the Clinton’s marriage. They have worked and worked to preserve and only the most partisan hack would badmouth their efforts. I notice their child still shows great love and respect for both of them, and my bet is that Chelsea will also campaign for her mother.
All those guys have histories of extramarital relationships? Really? But we really don't know whether any of them were married to someone who had a cheating spouse, either. There are almost never marriage troubles where one person is a pure victim, and their mate is a treacherous evil-doer. I just don't buy that there is some vast difference between the marital troubles of any of these folks, including HRC.
Wow Tommy and Jeter,
I love the good cop/bad cop rountine you guys have going. How do you decide who plays which -- flip a coin? And the whole Jeter bringing Tommy around to the GOP talking point, absolutely brillant. Someone should get a Oscar. Seriously, you guys should be on FOX. The reasoning, the questioning disbeliver, and the flip -- truly a FOX version of the Dialogues of Plato. Brillant. [Insert golf clap]
Only one thing, comparing the person getting screwed over in an affair to those doing the screwing is, well, allow me to use another device of logic, the analogy. Is like comparing the average US citizen to the Bush administration. You see using your logic A = B. In mine A = A and B = B.
Hey I am not a huge Hillary fan either; however, anyone can see how the "marriage factor" comment is meant to play out. Simple attempt to broadside Sen. Clinton. Either to the benefit of Obama or any of her opponents -- and I am not claiming Obama planted the question. The MSM has been pretty effective at spouting right wing talking points on their own -- especially about Democratic candidates -- and let's not pretend otherwise.