CBS' Storm, Schieffer cropped Michelle Obama quote, claimed "it may be up to the wives to criticize" Clinton
SUMMARY: On CBS' The Early Show, Hannah Storm told Bob Schieffer that "[a] lot of people ... took" Michelle Obama's statement "as a slam at [Sen.] Hillary Clinton," adding: "She and her husband both said, 'Not so,' but there is a school of thought that says with a woman running for the Democratic presidential nominee that it may be up to the wives to criticize her because the men can't." At no point did either Storm or Schieffer provide Mrs. Obama's full comments, in which she talked about her own family and did not refer generally or specifically to any other candidates.
On the August 22 edition of CBS' The Early Show, co-anchor Hannah Storm and CBS News host Bob Schieffer discussed a recent comment by Michelle Obama, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, that "[i]f you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." Storm claimed that "[a] lot of people ... took" the statement "as a slam at [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]," adding: "She and her husband both said, 'Not so,' but there is a school of thought that says with a woman running for the Democratic presidential nominee that it may be up to the wives to criticize her because the men can't." Schieffer replied: "I think there's something to what you say, Hannah. You have a woman running. It is sometimes difficult for men to criticize women without looking like they're brow-beating them or ... putting them down in some kind of way. And so, I think you will hear the wives speak out during this campaign. I mean, we just have some very activist wives this time out, especially on the Democratic side -- Elizabeth Edwards and now Mrs. Obama speaking out."
At no point did either Storm or Schieffer provide Mrs. Obama's full comments, in which she talked about her own family and did not refer generally or specifically to any other candidates.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, immediately following her comment about "run[ning] your own house," Mrs. Obama went on to discuss measures her and her husband were taking to keep their children "grounded" while campaigning and the efforts they are making to ensure that their children will continue to "come first." From her August 16 remarks:
MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.
Mrs. Obama's comments were first reported in an August 17 New York Times article. As Media Matters noted, in an August 21 column, the Chicago Sun-Times' Jennifer Hunter selectively cited Mrs. Obama's remarks and suggested that she was referring to Clinton in her statement. Internet gossip Matt Drudge then seized on Hunter's column, linking to it on his website under the headline: "Obama's Wife Slams Hillary?" Others in the mainstream media soon followed suit.
- On August 21, CNN host Wolf Blitzer discussed Mrs. Obama's remarks with strategists Donna Brazile and John Feehery on CNN's The Situation Room, but failed to provide the full context of Mrs. Obama's remarks.
- On the August 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Lisa Sylvester teased a segment on Mrs. Obama's comments by claiming that she "apparently blast[ed] Senator Hillary Clinton."
- On the August 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased a segment on the remarks by asserting that Mrs. Obama was "taking off the gloves and letting loose the claws" in making what "some say ... is a personal attack on Hillary Clinton." Throughout the subsequent segment, the on-screen text read: "The Claws Come Out: Mrs. Obama Aims at Sen. Clinton"; "Mrs. Obama vs. Sen. Clinton: Cheap Shot or Fair Territory?" and finally "Darts Flying: Michelle Obama Heats Up the Campaign Trail."
Storm and Schieffer's assertion that because, in Schieffer's words, "[i]t is sometimes difficult for men to criticize women without looking like they're brow-beating them or ... putting them down in some kind of way," recalls remarks conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh made on August 20. As Media Matters documented, on his radio show, discussing comments made by White House senior adviser Karl Rove about Clinton, Limbaugh claimed that "nobody criticizes Hillary. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [Democratic presidential candidate John] Edwards and Obama to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her."
From the August 22 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
STORM: Let's move over to the Democratic side for a moment, and we're going to talk about the wives there, who are very outspoken. In particular, Michelle Obama, recently getting a lot of attention for a comment that she made last week, saying, "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."
A lot of people, Bob, took this as a slam at Hillary Clinton. She and her husband both said, "Not so," but there is a school of thought that says with a woman running for the Democratic presidential nominee that it may be up to the wives to criticize her because the men can't.
SCHIEFFER: Well, I think you're going to see wives more active in this campaign, than any campaign we have seen before. I mean, just look at the role that Elizabeth Edwards has been playing. You're going to be talking to her about all this in just a minute on this broadcast. But, I think there's something to what you say, Hannah.
You have a woman running. It is sometimes difficult for men to criticize women without looking like they're brow-beating them or being -- you know, putting them down in some kind of way. And so, I think you will hear the wives speak out during this campaign. I mean, we just have some very activist wives this time out, especially on the Democratic side -- Elizabeth Edwards and now Mrs. Obama speaking out.
I don't think you'll see it as much on the Republican side, among the front-runners there, especially with Mayor Giuliani's wife. The idea is to keep her under wraps as much as possible, but I think you will see it more amongst the Democrats.
Wow, this media lie is spreading like a fungus.
The spore for this kind of fungus is Matt Drudge, a manufacturer of "controversy" of the wacky "some people say" variety which will keep rightwing talking heads busy for days discussing THEIR agenda ... Hillary bashing ... instead of what was actually SAID.
Right on Lynn!
I am however a bit suprised that the 'liberal' media anywhere would create the impression that a 'liberal' like Michelle Obama was attacking another 'liberal' like Hillary Clinton as opposed to running the entire clip to allow their viewers to see and hear the entire context where they likely wouldn't have come to that conclusion...... damn so-called liberal media!
Are there no professional editors on these news staffs? Or is the craziest, ratings starved SOBs the top producers? Isn't anybody questioning the context of the quote? This is sad, even for Rovian style propaganda.
It was deliberate, that's why. An automatic pouncing on Clinton, with Obama's quote as pretext. And even worse, she was OBVIOUSLY referring to Guiliani's messed up family life.
More proof that there's no way the MSM is going to allow a Democrat to get elected. Dukakis is right-- it'll be "Bushland" right before the election...
Carl,
You said: "More proof that there's no way the MSM is going to allow a Democrat to get elected"
If the MSM has this kind of power over enough of our fellow citizens........
We are in seriously BIG trouble!!
Unfortunately this is how the media reports political races these days...it's not about substance at all, just about creating drama to drive up ratings. The problem for them is that most people really don't care...most won't even think about who they will vote for President until until a month before...
On another note, kudos to CNN for Christiane Amonpour's excellent series on God's Holy Warriors...perhaps the only news feature with any depth I've seen all year...
I think Media Matters is being unfair criticizing The Early Show. It's not, as MM implies, some sort of news show with journalists. CBS and The Early Show is infotainment, with people trained to read teleprompters, not investigate and report news. It's roughly equivalent to the tabloid show Inside Edition. For instance, here's the Inside Edition take on this story:
"Some are suggesting that a simple statement about balancing work and family made by Michelle Obama while campaigning for her husband is subtly attacking Hillary Clinton, and her past marital problems. But, as INSIDE EDITION reports, hearing her speech in its entirety makes her intended meaning much clearer.
...Upon listening to the rest of her speech, her intended meaning becomes much clearer. Michelle started was talking about how her husband doesnt' (sic) hesitate to take time to read "Harry Potter" with his kids and always puts family first.
In the end it seems this is all much ado about nothing - the result of a shortened sound bite taken out of context and spread around the internet."
Okay, I stand corrected. Inside Edition is closer to the news show with journalists, whereas The Early Show is the tabloid. My apologies to Inside Edition.
And there's still capacity for a prowar media blitz. I'm wonderring if any of the MSM will become so obviously bent in the next year that most of the population will considered them completely discredited.
And a tip of the hat to Jeter2, the one to find it. Thanx!
Glad to be of service :-)
Well I mentioned the CBS Morning Show on a few other threads today...guess this proves that MMFA reads them. Guess that also means I better behave ;-)
Good for you J, Does this mean you are now carrying the water for MMFA? ;)
Nah...but I did get an e-mail this morning from the Republican Party telling me I was on probation & one more *tip* to MMFA would mean my membership would be revoked ;-)
Nice work, Jeter. Now you are going to have to deal with a call from CBS security. Don't mess with Schieffer. He plays hardball!
Reading the entire quote, it's clear that Ms Obama was talking about their family values, and if she were a Republican or conservative wife we would be told that her comment illustrates that the candidate is "strong on family values." As it is, we get media reports that are totally the fantasy of the reporters. They don't believe that Democrats and liberals have family values. They also delight in the idea of what they call a "cat fight", which is the only way they can conceive of two intelligent women disagreeing with each other. Pitiful. I'm breathlessly awaiting the correction and apology from the networks. At the very least, they could have done some fact-checking instead of uncritically relaying a right-wing distortion from Drudge.
Schieffer has a valid point, notwithstanding the obvious manufactured conflict between Michelle Obama and Hillary. That being said, I would rather see some real debate betweent he candidates. Now is not the time to be fluffy with Ms. Clinton. I say this because I really dn't think she has a chance in the general election. Too many people dislike her. Nominating her is effectively giving the White House to the Republicans.
The simple fact is that the right has to do it this way. They want to get the shots in at Hillary about Bill's affairs and how she did not stop him, but they have to do it now before the republican candidate is set. And they have to sneak it in without it being conected to any of the GOP candidates since all except Romney would sound like a total hypocrit saying it. Now they have the groundwork in place for next year to say things like "remember what Obama's wife said about Hillary" as a pretext to talk about this without mentioning Rudy's far worse track record in the "keeping your house in order" area. And as usual, the "liberal" MSM is more than happy to help them do it. To anyone who can read this was clearly not a shot at Hillary, but the right cares not. They can connect it to a different democrat, smear Hillary and pretend their candidates don't have far worse problems in thier houses.
Politics as usual from the "family calues" party and the "liberal media". Oh Lord how we need change in this country from the top down.
Don't you know that it's why Rove resigned, so that he could do exactly that?
If he is still working for a lame duck President, he's got no legit reason to slime the Dems, because his employer is not in the race.
It seems obvious that Michelle Obama was NOT referring to Hillary Clinton on this ...
I mean, it's almost always the rightwingers who question the sexuality of HRC ... and Michelle Obama referred to the "opposition" as a HE:
"That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family?"
I can think of only three types of people could come to the conclusion that Michelle Obama was speaking of anyone other than an Obama.
1.) Brainless sheep, AKA Republicants
2.) Right wing demagogues, AKA Drudge, Talk Radio, Fox and Republicants
3.) So called liberal media types who won't call a spade a spade for fear of being tarred with liberal bias from #1 & #2 above.
The intellectual dishonesty from the media on this issue proves beyond a reasonable doubt that "The Liberal Media" is a right wing phrase that, much like everything else spewed from their mouths, has no credibilty.
If we're going to put things in context, let's really do that. If we're going to focus on the whole quote, let's actually focus on the whole quote. Not just what MMFA decides to boldface...or even include. The following is from the follow-up piece by the original columnist who wrote the Sun Times piece which started the whole thing. It includes a quote I don't believe I've seen elsewhere in any of the MMFA. From the column:
This is from Michelle Obama's introduction to her husband's speech: ". . . part of what we want to do as a family is to make sure that our children are sane, but also to model what it means to have family values in this country, and we haven't seen that for a long time . . . [applause].
Now, this is the most complete version of this portion of the speech I've been able to find. It starts and ends with ellipses, so I admit there may be a contextual problem. But if it is accurate to the sentiment of the entire sentence, I think it adds context to the piece MMFA is not adding. Namely, that Michelle Obama is making a general statement not about her family, but about previous inhabitants of the East Wing (that's where the family lives, right?). Is she not saying that first families of recent memory have not been great models on what it means to value the family? Is she not asking that the audience make a direct comparison between the Obamas and--among other families--the Clintons? Does that not have at least as direct an influence on how we should interpret the 'control your house' soundbite as what followed the soundbite? If not more?
Further, look at the words that directly preceed the soundbite in the context that they follow the above quotation:
"That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person?"
Do you think it's really think such quotes are not begging for general comparison? That's the whole point of the campaign. To point out your strengths and your opponent's perceived weaknesses.
Nice try, but simple logic excludes Hillary as the possible target of this comment. First of all, Hillary had no control over Bill's sexual adventures. Secondly, by all accounts, Chelsea has turned out quite well, and was never a problem child.
Since Mrs. Obama's comments focused on their children, how can one possibly conclude that she was aiming any jabs at Hillary?
As other's have stated, this is just another Right Wing manufactured controversy.
Since Mrs. Obama's comments focused on their children, how can one possibly conclude that she was aiming any jabs at Hillary?
On the contrary, the statement was about family values. About priorities. She illustrated the sentiment by talking specifically about how the Obamas are intent about being there for their children during the campaign, but she preceeded that by attempting to shatter nostalgia for the families of previous administrations. She didn't just say how you value the family is important, she said it was 'one of the most important things we need to know about the next president.' And she stated quite directly that how you run your house has a direct relation to how you would run the White House. She's not simply talking about the future. She's talking about the past.
As I've said elsewhere, I think it's pretty smart.
I still don't see how anyone can assume she's pointing this at Hillary. Where did Hillary fail in "running her household?" Is a wife responsible if her husband cheats?
If it's aimed at anyone, I agree with a previous poster that it's probably aimed at Giuliani. It could possibly be meant to criticize Bill Clinton, but I don't see how it hurts Hillary.
If she weren't still married to Bill Clinton, if she weren't using him in her campaign, if she weren't implying that she were the 'experienced candidate' and based this on her apparent ability to run on the record of the Clinton presidency, then maybe I would agree. But that is the foundation of the Clinton campaign. A criticism of the 1990s in general is a criticism of Hillary Clinton. What Michelle Obama seems to be doing is directly reminding us about one of the reasons the Clinton years are not necessarily something to feel all that nostalgic about.
I honestly don't see how people don't see this. They can certainly disagree with whether or not it's fair, but to claim that you don't get how it could be about Hillary Clinton, I don't understand how that could be.
Maybe this can help you understand. By all accounts and I've read a lot about the Obama's Michelle Obama is a lot like me, she is very direct. Direct people may sometimes come off seeming a little rude at times and I know that can be annoying even when it isn’t intended to be but direct people aren’t low blowers and they play fair like decent adults should. When people like us when we want to say something it isn't done on the sly. I believe that people who do backhanded insults and drop little insulting quips in the middle of statements will probably assume that she is doing as they would do and that everyone does this. I assure you everyone doesn’t; I hope that most people aren't as devious and conniving as you seem to thing. And you admire that???
I wrote a lot, about why I think it kind of is an admirable thing to do--for a Democrat to tell other Democrats that it's okay to think Bill Clinton disgraced the presidency--but I think it went pretty far off point. So instead I'm going to focus on your basic argument:
That Michelle Obama is like you and you're a direct kind of girl. A woman whose condescending tone is sometimes mistaken for rudeness...
To that, I make the argument that my interpretation isn't that she's being indirect. When I first heard the soundbite, I thought it was an indirect reference, but having read other portions of the text, I think the reference is pretty overt. She goes so far as to say that ". . . part of what we want to do as a family is to make sure that our children are sane, but also to model what it means to have family values in this country, and we haven't seen that for a long time . . . [applause]."
Notice the nature of the conjunction. The words conjoining the two clauses are 'BUT ALSO'. She's saying that IN ADDITION to keeping their children sane, the Obamas want to be a model for 'what it means to have family values in this country.' She goes on to suggest that would be a novel concept among recent first families. That's pretty direct.
She goes on to say "[t]hat one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person?" It could be argued that these rhetoricals are not meant to draw attention to anybody other than Barack Obama; I respectfully disagree. She'd already drawn attention to other presidents and first families. This drives the point home that current and previous presidents had fallen short in these arenas. The implication is that the recent presidents have not shared our values; they've not respected the family; and they've not always been good and decent people.
That's the context of the soundbite. That's the lead up to the soundbite.
Further context is this: A vote for Barack Obama is a vote against what has come before. The whole philosophy of the campaign is that people want change. They want to believe that the political environment is salvageable, but they absolutely don't think Hillary Clinton is in the position improve it. They even question that it's something Hillary Clinton is all that interested in. In short, they remember the Clinton years, and they're tired of all of this forced nostalgia.
Breaker-breaker, You're post is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You got what you think is a little swipe in at me in the middle of all that text. All you had to do is skip that and say Lynn you're condescending and that would have saved you an awful lot of writing. BTW if I’m condescending you can blame Tommy I think I caught it from him some internet virus thing. No wonder YOU beleive that Mrs. Obama launched a stealth attack against Hilary Clinton since stealth low blows under the pretense of being civil is apparently a style that you like. But you carry on my good man, carry on.
Again, she wasn't being all that stealth. Neither was I. If my attempt at being cute was misread as an attempt at hiding the fact that I find the entirety of your post equally silly and condescending, then I'm sorry.
I didn't want to focus on the fact that you're clearly talking down to me. That's the sort of thing that makes an argument feel defensive. Instead, I made a slight crack at your tone, and let it be.
I wanted most of my post to be a substantive refutation of your silly 'she's like me' argument. I specifically cited, for the second time, a quote I have yet to see on MMFA in which Mrs. Obama draws a direct comparison between her family and recent first families. I offered that as a contextual clue for why the interpretation of the soundbite was a logical one. Am I to read from your unwillingness to respond to that argument that you agree whole-heartedly? If so, huzzah!
You have a good day!
That's good. When confronted with a perfectly sound argument they can't seem to come to terms with, it really is the path of most decent adults to be condescendingly dismissive of that argument rather than discuss it on its merits or even admit that such merits exist. So yeah, brava!
HELLO AGAIN. I see you’re as nasty and belligerent as ever. Enjoy your stay.
I'm sorry, where am I being either nasty or belligerent? I don't think I've been hostile at all. You, on the other hand entered into this thread with a tone of condescension that was not only unwarranted, but was entirely ironic since you were explaining how people like you don't stoop to under-handed and rude tactics.
I took a single sentence to give recognition of your insulting tone, but spent most of my response honestly refuting the substance of your post. As a response, you ignore the substance of my post and suggest that I'm the nasty one? Come come.
And it wasn't even in the middle. It was the second paragraph.
BreakerBaker,
My my you have a hard-on for wanting this to be only about the Clinton's!
Yeah, no chance that Michelle Obama could possibly been talking about anyone on the Republican side, you know the side that averages what..... 2 - 2 1/2 marriages for each of them as opposed to the Clintons one marriage or the Obama's one marriage.
Is it so hard to fathom that this is for starters, a non-issue......
Kinda reminds one of other non-isues created out of the a$$ of (name your right-winger)
Howard Deans scream
Bill's infidelity
Gore's supposed creation of the internet
Also bear in mind..... Chelsea got herself a college degree and has smartly stayed away from the limelight.......
Can the same be said of Bush's girls? Or Mitt's "I respect my 5 straping young sons who also further the drums of war but aren't willing to join in the fight" Romney or Guiliani's own kid not even supporting dear ol' dad
My my you have a hard-on for wanting this to be only about the Clinton's!
Such language. Unfortunately, your premise is incorrect. While I do believe this is specifically a statement meant to remind us of the Clintons, by no way do I mean to suggest that the effectiveness of the line is limited to them. I have myself pointed out (if not in this thread than in another) the obvious possible Republican target: Giuliani. However, seeing as Senator Obama is not running against Mayor Giuliani (yet), and seeing as Mayor Giuliani has never occupied the White House, I tend to think the statement is more directly meant for the Clintons at this juncture.
Is it so hard to fathom that this is for starters, a non-issue......
Personally, I think it represents a larger shift that, if successful could be a good change for the Democratic party as well as general political discourse. I think it, along with Senator Obama's rhetoric during the ABC debate in which he reminded Americans that many of the problems facing the nation are problems that predated the Bush administration are ways of pointing out the pathological nostalgia many Democrats have for the Clinton years. I think any serious challenger to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary is going to have to delicately remind voters that there was a lot about the Clinton years we do not want to return to. I think that's what the Obamas are trying to do. I think it's something the Edwards are trying to do in a far less subtle, and I predict, less effective way. Still, it's something that has to be done. And, speaking as an unaffiliated voter who's always voted Democratic in major state and national elections, it's something that should be done in my opinion.
Howard Deans scream
Howard Dean was done before the scream.
Bill's infidelity
The problem with this is that it is a problem! The fact that so many Democrats do not accept his infidelity as a whole (not to mention the specific and disgraceful action of carrying on a relationship with a 22 White House intern while in the Oval Office) to be a newsworthy expression of a basic and relevant character flaw is just ridiculous. It's time Democrats stopped treating Bill Clinton like he was a greater man as president than he was.
Gore's supposed creation of the internet
While I would suggest this is partly of Al Gore's creation, I do agree that it got way too much air.
Also bear in mind..... Chelsea got herself a college degree and has smartly stayed away from the limelight.......
This has no bearing on the argument.
Can the same be said of Bush's girls? Or Mitt's "I respect my 5 straping young sons who also further the drums of war but aren't willing to join in the fight" Romney or Guiliani's own kid not even supporting dear ol' dad
So your argument is that it's clearly a 'swipe' as the Sun Times columnist wrote, but that it's not a swipe against any of the people Senator Obama is currently running against? How much sense does that make?
What I find remarkable is that the Media Parrots KNOW that this is being spoon-fed to them by the GOP Bullsh*t Machine, yet they keep talking about it. It was the topic on Hardball's Roundtable last night, and they all agreed that Drudge set this buzz in motion...yet they spent 10 minutes talking about it.
I don't know if you're somebody who goes to Drudge on a regular basis or not. My mother's feeling is that Drudge makes stories up. They have the occasionally 'Drudge exclusive', but the majority of what appears on the site are links to stories somebody else written. He's obviously conservative, so there's oftentimes a slant to how the articles or columns are summarized with the hyperlink headline (like an adolescent, he always puts global warming in quotes), but for the most part, the site can be quite helpful.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's pretty bad, but his website, is actually pretty good. Don't hit me.
I agree that the website has value. However, when the mainstream press take its lead from what Matt Drudge insinuates, we have a real problem in America. How come no one in the media asks if she could have been talking about any of the Republican candidates who have checkered family and marital pasts. Maybe she was directly pointing to Rudy Guilliani who definitely doesn't live up to "family values" and his house is certainly not in order. Especially considering his daughter backs Obama? I will tell you why, because Bill and Hillary Clinton are the royalty checks that keep the Right Wing Noise Machine humming along. And the mainstream press play right into their hands.
I actually saw one of the people on Hardball make specific reference to Rudy last night.
Thanks Jeter, that was a good one. :)