Apparently ignoring polls, Blitzer asked: Are ads a sign Clinton camp "is feeling desperate"?
On the May 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asked whether former President Bill Clinton's recent campaign advertisement on behalf of his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), is "the act of a supportive husband or a sign the Clinton campaign is feeling desperate." Blitzer offered no basis for his suggestion that the Clinton campaign may be "feeling desperate" and did not mention a recent Newsweek poll that shows Sen. Clinton ahead of all the other leading presidential candidates in head-to-head races (though within the margin-of-error in some matchups).
Later, CNN correspondent Jack Cafferty suggested* President Clinton "is, according to the polls, a kind of a divisive figure" -- despite Clinton's latest favorability rating, taken at the end of March in a USA Today/Gallup poll, of 60 percent. The previous two USA Today/Gallup polls, from February 9-11, 2007, and June 23-25, 2006, show Clinton with 63 and 59 percent favorability ratings, respectively, while a February 22-25, 2007, ABC News/Washington Post poll and a September 22-24, 2006, CNN poll shows him at 55 and 60 percent favorable, respectively. By contrast, Republican strategist and former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) told Blitzer: "If I'm a Democrat [sic] candidate, I want Bill Clinton engaged as early as possible. ... [B]y and large, I think Bill Clinton is going to be very good for any Democrat [sic] candidate."
From the May 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Coming up, Bill Clinton goes to new lengths to promote his wife's presidential campaign.
CLINTON [video clip]: You know that she'll deliver because she spent a lifetime caring, working, and delivering.
BLITZER: Is this the act of a supportive husband or a sign the Clinton campaign is feeling desperate?
James Carville and J.C. Watts -- they are standing by for our "Strategy Session" this hour.
[...]
BLITZER: Guys, thanks very much for coming in. Listen to this little clip.
JAMES CARVILLE (CNN political analyst): All right.
BLITZER: Bill Clinton, explaining why he really wants his wife to be the next president of the United States.
CLINTON [video clip]: You know, the only reason to really support anybody for president is that you believe they'll be the best president. I've seen a lot of people come and go over time, and I like most of the people I've met in politics, but I can tell you that what I believed 35 years ago about Hillary -- that she has the best combination of mind and heart, of leadership ability and a feel for the human consequences of the decisions that a leader makes --
BLITZER: All right, J.C., let me go to you first, 'cause I know what James is going to say about Bill Clinton.
What do you think? Is it too early for Bill Clinton to be this actively involved in his wife's campaign? Or should he be on the sidelines a little bit more? What do you think, as a strategist?
WATTS: Well, Wolf, as a strategist, I guarantee you that the -- Senator Clinton's people have talked about that, and they've drawn the conclusion that it is good.
You know, if I'm a Democrat candidate, I want Bill Clinton engaged as early as possible. Now, I think you have to calculate, and you, obviously, you know, weigh the risks, the pros, the cons.
But, by and large, I think Bill Clinton is going to be very good for any Democrat candidate, and if his wife can't use him, who can?
[...]
CAFFERTY: Bubba is going to be back on the bus.
BLITZER: Yeah, and I suppose, Jack, a lot of Democrats are going to say he should play a very big role.
But, then again, a lot of Republicans are probably saying he should play a very big role, but they have different things in mind as far as what that role will achieve.
CAFFERTY: Well, there's great disaffection, along with great affection, for the former president and his wife, too. He* is, according to the polls, a kind of a divisive figure. So, you either love or you hate her. A lot of people will say we've had enough Clintons and Bushes to last several generations, but we'll see.
BLITZER: We'll see what our viewers think. Jack, thank you.
*CLARIFICATION: Based on CNN's transcript and Media Matters for America's interpretation of the audio, this item originally read, "Jack Cafferty claimed President Clinton 'is, according to the polls, a kind of a divisive figure.' " According to CNN's transcript, Cafferty said: "Well, there's great disaffection, along with great affection, for the former president and his wife, too. He is, according to the polls, a kind of a divisive figure." It is possible however, that Cafferty actually said, "Well, there's great disaffection, along with great affection, for the former president and his wife, too, is, according to the polls, a kind of a divisive figure" -- suggesting that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are "divisive."















So it's misinformation to say the Clintons are divisive figures?
On what planet?
did you read the article, or are you posting from planet strawman again?
Tommy's debating skills aside, MMFA's argument, equating job approval rating to divisiveness (or lack thereof), isn't convincing. A popular leader can still evoke strong support and opposition, thus being divisive. Also, an unpopular leader can evoke apathy, thus not being divisiveness. So, even if Cafferty's claim is dubious, MMFA doesn't provide a convincing rebuttal.
By the way, notice that Cafferty refers to "he" when speaking about the polls. But in drawing a conclusion in the next sentence ("So..."), he changes to the feminine pronoun "her." There are polls that attempted to directly address the question of Hillary being a polarizing figure; I'm not aware of the same for Bill.
he can't have strong support and strong opposition at the same time. is he unpopular among a lot of republicans? sure, but plug in just about any democrat's name and you'll get the same result.
Of course he can - that's what polarizing figures do. They have entrenched supporters, and diehard critics. People either love the Clintons, or they hate them - hence the divisiveness label.
he seems to be pretty popular with about 60% of the american people. to me a divise figure is one like bush, who is deliberately polarizing.
I would absolutely agree that Bush is one polarizing figure......as was Clinton in his day. However, time has softened Bill's divisiveness a bit.
i don't think clinton was ever that polarizing. he never had the us against them mentality of bush, never tried to paint his enemies as unamerican. there's nothing clinton ever could have done to satisfy most of the right wing.
and although i did not vote for reagan, did not think he did an especially good job, i would not put him in bush's class. he was more pragmatic on foreign policy. i don't buy that he singlehandedly ended communism or that we needed to spend the money we did on a declining threat from the ussr. but when he said communism would end up on the scrap heap of history, i had no problem with that. of course, bush's pal putin seems to have forgotten what democracy is about.
I agree. I think Clinton's triangulation strategy was designed to produce compromise and reduce the polarity of the political environment in stark contrast to the "Yer ferus or yer aginnus!" rhetoric of the current president.
That's because you hate Bush and like Clinton. For anyone to suggest that the Clinton's are not polarizing figures is disingenuos.
Right, like H.W. and Marie Antoinette never went to bat for W. [snort]
I think Republicans are just jealous that the nepotism option isn't on the table for them at this time. LOL.
uh yeah, what are they desperate about?
No, it was just a dumb comment by Blitzer...clearly there is no empirical evidence that would substantiate a claim that the Clinton campaign was "desperate". Blitzer drops teasers just to try to make his monotone reporting more interesting.
Blitzer drops teasers just to try to make his monotone reporting more interesting.
Exactly!
Bill Clinton is Hillary's best asset, so using him anytime, anywhere is a plus. Since she's ahead in the Polls I'd hardly call her desperate.
Blitzer drops trousers just to try to make his monotone reporting more interesting.
For a second there I misread your headline. Either way it would seem to make sense.
Make sense, yes.
But now I've got this *image* in my head of Blitzer with his trousers down :-O
Thanks open_mind ;-)
But now I've got this *image* in my head of Blitzer with his trousers down :-O- jeter2
I don't wanna know why that image brought out the very "receptive" looking emoticon, Jeter !
Gawd...I can't believe I did that.
But leave it to you Beach to pick right up on it ;-)
Coinkydink?
I'm sure Hillary's poll numbers and her de-authorization move had nothing, nothing to do with CNN's let's-create-a-story-where-there-ain't-one.
This is an example of why CNN too often deserves the C to stand for Crap.
No one is "desperate" 18 months before the farking election.
I beg to differ. It's all about the money and lining up campaign donors. If one candidate or another feels that a competitor is getting a leg up on donations, then it could be a "domino" effect and their cash may dry up, hence a very desperate feeling.
Fund raising is as important as any message nowadays.
And Senator Clinton has done very well in the fund raiser spectrum . This smells of Blitzers bias and hate toward the Clintons.
Unfortunately you are correct, Tommy. In this case it was just a matter of timing as to when to use the Bill card. It looks like she decided to go big early.
Blitzer's question of the Senator's desparation seems to be tied to Bill's level of involvement, not the ad per se. It's based on viewing Bill as a potential liability. Thus, his employment is a sign of desparation.
Wasn't this the same reasoning for which Gore was criticized, albeit after the fact? I.e., is Sen. Clinton turning to Bill now a sign of desparation or an indication of not wanting to make the same mistake twice?
For what it's worth, Daily Kos shows Edwards way ahead and Clinton a dismal 6th place, after "No Freakin' Clue" and "Other":
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/12295/5467
Hmm? Perhaps Blitzer's pontificating of Mrs. Clinton's "desperate feeling" is an appropriate concern not only for her, but her supporters as well.
The folks that spend time at DailyKos tend to be from the far Left-Wing.
So take those results with a grain of salt.
I'm not surprised Edwards would be the favorite of that demographic.
J,
You're right. But that does pose a problem for Hillary. As she is trying to position herself as more centrist, which is smart politically for a general election, just ask Bill - she risks alienating her far left base which isn't too thrilled with her Iraq vote and subsequent equivocations.
In my opinion, she has a good shot at the White House, if she gets through the primaries.
I agree Tommy but I think the Far Left Base represents only a small fringe group and that most Democrat/Liberals will prefer a Centrist, as they probably understand that's their best chance of winning the general election.
It's still early, but I don't see Hillary having much real competition for the nomination. And you're probably right, as of this moment I don't see any Republican defeating her for the White House.
Yeah,
I agree most Liberals are pragmatic and I think they know to win the general election our candidate will have to be moderate. I think the Republicans are going to discover that as well. The extreme right took over the Republican party and the reigns of government and they have scared the bejesus out of everyone. No more extremes left or right. I actually think the Republican Party is going to do some serious assessing and transforming in the next few years.
"I agree most Liberals are pragmatic and I think they know to win the general election our candidate will have to be moderate." --lynn
The problem is that this allegiance to being pragmatic makes liberals vulnerable to media spin.
I will never forget how Democrats were so easily tricked when the Republicans (who were pretty obviously deathly affraid of Wes Clark) were able to go on the news shows and easily sink his candidacy by spinning Clark's apparently flattering remarks about President Bush at some official meeting. Clark was the front-runner at the time.
That incident convinced me that Democrats are often complete idiots to be so easily manipulated like that. Wes Clark was a much better candidate than Kerry. People shifted to Kerry after the media determined Kerry was the guy who was winnable, which turned out to be a terrible assessment as well.
Probably more than a grain, but I still got a good chuckle that she couldn't beat "No Freakin' Idea".
A little off topic but someone tell this college graduate Rep. QB that it is Democratic candidate. That would be like saying a Republicant win the election. Or a Republicant is exactly that.
To be honest, anyone of the Republicants would love to have a backer like Bill Clinton. Remember the Republicants primary when Mrs. Guliani backs her husband or one of his wives tries.
There was a politico, Bill
Did an ad for his wife, with great skill
Such an asset is he
That the press has a bee
In their bonnet that they'd like to kill
Unfortunately/fortunately although she has many fans now, how many people are actually going to vote for her? They think "Oh she's a woman, let's vote for her!" but in the end I get the feeling she will not have a significant number of votes...
If she is the nominee, most Democrats will vote for her. Considering the abject failures of the current Republics, I would hope that would be enough.
You think we are depised by the middle-east nuts already, just think if Hillary gets elected..
nowhere to go but up.
I'm trying to picture Iran's boy (won't attempt to spell that one) who thinks women should not be seen or heard, meeting with hillary to discuss their little nuclear venture... Don't think he will..
nor has bush.
I don't think any American president could do as much for the hardliners in Iran as Bush has. But then again, before Bush I didn't think any American president would be played as well as Reagan was.
Uh... yeah... Hillary for president doesn't sound like the best idea to me. No one will respect her in foreign countries and everything would be a mess. Plus I have petty issues with her views on video game ratings ect.... but that is beside the point. I can assure you though that no hardcore video game fans or anti-censorships will vote for her.
WHEN THAT AD CAME OUT YOU KNEW THE RIGHT-WINGERS LIKE WOLF BLITZER WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT.