CNN's Bernstein cited Russert's misleading debate question to Clinton as an explanation for "what led to the problem in the Clinton campaign"
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Carl Bernstein accused Hillary Clinton of "dissembling" in her response to a question during an October 30 Democratic presidential candidate debate regarding the release of records from Bill Clinton's presidency, asserting that her response was "the opening" the other "candidates have been looking for." But Bernstein didn't note that the question, by moderator Tim Russert, was based on a falsehood. Bernstein has previously claimed that Hillary Clinton was "disingenuous" in her answer to the question.
On the December 3 edition of CNN's Situation Room, CNN political commentator Carl Bernstein responded to CNN commentator Jack Cafferty's question -- "[W]hat led to the problem in the Clinton campaign?" -- by citing a question by NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) during the October 30 Democratic presidential candidate debate about "the records in Arkansas." Specifically, Russert asked Clinton during the debate: "[T]here was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?" In fact, President Clinton's letter did not ask that such communications "not be made available" but, rather, listed them as documents to be "considered for withholding." Bernstein accused Clinton of "dissembling" without noting that Russert's question was based on a falsehood, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here). Bernstein asserted that her response to the question was "the opening" the other "candidates have been looking for."
This is not the first time Bernstein has been critical of Clinton's response to Russert's question while failing to note that the question was based a falsehood. As Media Matters of America documented, Bernstein said on the November 2 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition that Clinton was "disingenuous" in responding that "it's all up to the archives."
From the December 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BERNSTEIN: I don't think Obama needs the advice of Karl Rove. Right now, the real news in Iowa is that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are in terrible trouble. They know it. They're looking for a magic bullet. They're trying to get the endorsement of the Des Moines Register or some of its columnists. They need something that's going to throw some change their way into this campaign because they know they're sinking in the polls and they have a real weakness in terms of her being perceived by voters as being less than truthful and trustworthy.
BLITZER: Jack?
CAFFERTY: I just wonder, Carl, what led to the problem in the Clinton campaign? We were getting ready for the coronation here.
BERNSTEIN: Well, I'd say part of it has to do with the media, that the media was ready for the coronation. But also, the candidates got rough on Hillary Clinton at the debate several weeks ago in Philadelphia. And Tim Russert came up with this question about the records in Arkansas. And from there on in, it was about dissembling. And that's the opening I think these candidates have been looking for. And it registered with a lot of voters.
From the November 2 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
BERNSTEIN: Now she's got herself in the position where she has been apparently, again, disingenuous by saying, "Oh, well, it's all up to the archives." It's not all up to the archives. It's up to her husband. I would think that she certainly has the wherewithal to say, "Hey, Bill, why don't we put these records out there?"
MARA LIASSON (NPR political correspondent): In fact, the National Archives is ready to release 26,000 pages of Bill Clinton's records, but it's waiting for the green light from Clinton's lawyer, Bruce Lindsey, who has not finished his review of the papers. So the delay is not, as Senator Clinton claimed on Tuesday, completely beyond her control.
Clinton's opponents were quick to predict that the flap over the archives would dent her claim to electability. They say it was deja vu all over again, recalling fights during the Clinton administration over access to documents like the couple's tax records or Mrs. Clinton's law firm billing records. As if on cue, The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote that her answers in the debate were, quote, "Clintonesque." Carl Bernstein doesn't think we've heard the last of this particular issue.
BERNSTEIN: In that debate the other night, the issue was finally raised: Hey, what do we want? Do we want another president that is not candid, that is not committed to openness? Do we really want another one after the Bush presidency? And that is what's going to haunt her, I suspect, through this campaign, and it has changed the dynamic.
LIASSON: It changed the dynamic from what was looking like a preordained coronation to a vigorous fight for the nomination. The debate on Tuesday was the first time that Clinton's Democratic rivals were able to shine a spotlight on some of the weaknesses of a candidate who, until now, has been an unscathed front-runner.
Exagerrated or not, HRC does have a monkey on her back that her two main Dem opponents do not. Her campaign should be putting in as much effort to shoring up New Hampshire as they are to not finish 3rd in Iowa.
This is such ridiculous word parsing - if you ask for something to be "considered for withholding", you are essentially asking it "not be made available" - otherwise, why bother.
You're right. I don't think it's a big deal either way, and Hillary should've just said "Tim, it's not a big deal, it happens all the time, the president at the time requested it, I'm going to let the process take its course." Then, no issue.
Absolutely, perfect response.
Absolutely, perfect response.
Uh, no, it's not. Russert would just say "Lift the ban, yes or no" and any answer other than a flat "yes" (which endorses the false premise of the question) becomes "evasive" or "squirming" or some such.
I for one am glad that people are starting to see Hillary for what she is. It will give Obama the chance to win Iowa, then New Hampshire, and hopefully the Democratic nomination. He would be a million times better as president than Hillary.
And may I ask you what you think she is?
Appleboy, I think the words "you think" might have put too much pressure on.
I agree. I'm not really high on Hillary, it's just that between her and ANY of the republicans, there' no contest in my mind. But I see Obama as far more than just the lesser of two evils. We need someone like him. Now more than ever.
I just think it is a shame that we need to vilify any of the democratic canditates. I think they are all fairly decent people - and dare I say this includes Hillary. Now if you watch (and believe) Chris Matthews on an every day basis you would think she was the mother of satin.
Vilify? Is that what you call working through the primary process and trying to figure out which is the best candidate to run against the Republicans? These Democratic candidates had better get used to the scrutiny and the "vilifying" while they are still sparring with friendly Democratic rivals......if they can't handle it now, imagine the problem they'll have in the general election.
Do you watch Hardball? Vilify is the perferct word to describe what he does to Hillary every day. And if this is part of the "process" of picking our President, then I think we are in serious trouble as a nation. How about what the media did to Al Gore in 2000? They lied like hell about him! Does "I invented the internet" ring a bell? Is this part of the process, Tommy? And looked how it all worked out in 2000. We sure did pick a swell president. Can't the media and the idiots like Matthews just stick to policy issues and facts regarding canditates? Nope, must talk about hair cuts.
Democratic candidates had better get used to the scrutiny and the "vilifying" ... if they can't handle it now, imagine the problem they'll have in the general election.
The actual quote was
I just think it is a shame that we need to vilify any of the democratic canditates. I think they are all fairly decent people
Where is the suggestion that the candidates "can't handle it?"
I also find it interesting that your comment necessarily assumes that the GOPper campaign will be heavily into vilification.
And does your comment here indicate that you agree with the contention that the right wing was whining when it complained about Gen. Kerr's question? After all, if they can't handle questions from Democrats now....
(Oh, and I don't expect you would but just in case you want to bring up the "It's a primary!" dodge, I'll note first that not all primaries are closed and second that at least one right wing source thought it a scandal that Democrats were able to ask questions at a Democratic debate and ask you to reconcile those two in any way other than "Democrats aren't allowed to ask questions.")
This is not "srutiny", for Russert to be rewarded for some phony tough guy "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions. This is spin.
What on earth is "him"?
I'd be interested in why you have that perception. I'm profoundly disappointed with Obama. His campaign was going nowhere until his big fundraisers bullied him into being an attack dog. The big press outlets -- NBC and WaPo, essentially -- have jumped onto the Obama bandwagon with both feet. The spin is getting ridiculous. Hillary's in the process of having done to her what was done to Gore. Was that a good thing? Meanwhile, Obama is looking more and more like an opportunist empty suit, and his followers mere Hillary haters.
such ridiculous word parsing
No, it's not. The issue is not your contrived non-difference between "considered" and "asking" but between being "considered for withholding" and being banned from release. Such a ban was within Clinton's legal authority but he did not exercise it.
It's worth noting that both Reagan and Bush Sr. used that authority. Like Clinton, they later relaxed the restrictions, the difference being that Clinton did it sooner and more extensively.
Which means that when Sen. Clinton said it was "up to the National Archives," she was factually correct.
The issue is not parsing, the issue is a false assertion.
Thanks for the reminder!
Corporate Media lies!
Corporate Media lies FOR the Repugnants!
Corporate Media lies to discredt or damage Democrats - and even then some more than others!
But, most important, Corporate Media lies to US!
It's the difference between telling your kids "no, we absolutely are NOT going to Disney World next summer" and "we'll see." It's a big difference
I'm glad the media has put away the coronation plans and have started asking questions. The questions should be to all candidates, especially on the repug side as they are most prone to lie.
That would be nice, it won't happen though. Check this link out for instance. This should be the end of Huckabee's career, but it won't.
Just like a repug, Old Huck is having a Willie Horton moment. Repugs cry all the time about Democrats being "soft on crime" but there it is, his hatred of "all things Clinton" screwed him over and of course meant death for an innocent person.
Snoop,
Wow! It may well be. Thanks for the link.
I recall seeing those "Clinton denied an innocent man his freedom" charges popping up from time to time. It's looking pretty obvious now that those were as contrived and bogus as are those "suspicious deaths associated with the Clintons" lists that keep popping up from time to time.
The "innocent man" that Clinton left in prison as governor rapes and murders upon his release. Sure looks like he chose the right "innocent man" to leave in prison.
Or look at Somerby on Wednesday. Big scandals in the Giuliani camp, right? First Matthews comes on and weeps for him, like, "Are we going to lose a candidate over this?" He was among the most hysterical about Monica, of course. And where's the investigations about that? The probing questions from the big, tough Russert? Nowhere. Huckabee, same thing. They have substantial problams, but no 3rd degree for them. Hillary gets roasted over the actions of a Democratic governor, and the others jump in against her, particularly the bold and noble St. Obama, when both he and Edwards had supported similar plans. And Hillary gets called Stalin or something because the idiots at Kos didn't understand the joke about Obama in kindergarten.
At times, the press attacks on a politician can resemble a pack of hyenas slowly dragging down a water buffalo. Fair enough, that's their job, as long as they do it across the board. Unfortunately, our current pack of hyenas has been ignoring the biggest buffalo in the herd. Meanwhile, George W. Buffalo just keeps crapping on their heads, and they don't seem to notice.
When it rains all the time, you get used to it.
I dont think you can cite one person or one question for someones decreasing popularity amongst voters. When season opens, there is always a majority leader on both sides - and that can change at the drop of a dime once they start speaking in public. In my opinion - her flip flop on the drivers license issue (regardless of what her opinion on it really was) definately did some damage and is making people think she is not honest and just saying what they want to hear. I also believe her Bill is doing more harm to her campaign than he is good for her campaign. As far as politicians go, I dont think I would trust any of them as far as I could throw them, but my trust in her has decrased more than her poll popularity. Just my $.02.
Well said.
Although I am not sure Bill is a hindrance to her, I think that many people just don't trust her to be frank and honest - she parses and plays to many sides of an issue for political expediency....and people want candor and honesty, thankfully. We should demand it, and Hillary, like her husband, is just too slick for some.
Not true at all. Follow Gore's poll numbers from 1999 to 2000. He ebbed and flowed depending on what ridiculous story about him -- what lie -- the smart "liberals" as well as the conservatives were telling about him. You can even study things like the first debate with Bush, which the overnight polls -- real, telephone overnights -- said that Gore won, and Matthews said he won. But by the next day, the wisdom had congealed that Gore was sighing too much, and saying "lockbox," and ridiculous things like that. This was the night that Bush told outright lies about the budget and Social Security, but that was never brought up. On the night of Gore's speech at the convention, he gave a barnburner, a very populist speech. His poll numbers rose considerably. But the pundits lambasted him. So many lies were told, not by the Arkansas Project or the right-wingers, but by supposed liberal media types, that they sunk his bid. They cost Gore probably ten points. And the same thing is happening now. What the hell gave these guys the right to choose the president?
Hillary is using the John Kerry defense. She's hoping that she can delay the records from being released till after the elections. If you recall, Kerry has never fully released his military records.
It is my view that this won't work for Hillary like it didn't work for Kerry.
I think people are now much more aware of the word parsing that goes on by politicians. MMFA just gave us another example.
They wrote: In fact, President Clinton's letter did not ask that such communications "not be made available" but, rather, listed them as documents to be "considered for withholding."
Tommy nailed it although I don't agree that Dex's imaginary reply would have sufficed. Only a complete vetting of her documents will at this point suffice. Anything less will look like a cover up.
Well, we're still waiting for George Bush's military records to be released so we can ascertain whether or not he actually finished his duty to the country, but I see that isn't on your list of concerns.
I think you're living in the past. You don't like GWB - in fact, majority of Americans do not side with him. However, focusing your efforts on him right now is only going to acheive what? Him leaving office a few months early? He cannot run again for President, so its about time we focus on what we need in our next president, than focusing all of our attention on what we currently have in one.
Well, Kerry is in the past too, so why do we have to keep seeing his name brought up? I may be wrong, but whenever I see someone keep bringing up Kerry, Gore or Clinton their goal is to make some claim of patent dishonesty or disengeniousness that somehow represents what the democratic party stands for. To say we can't bring up equivelant versions of republicans to make similar comparisons is patently unfair.
Anyone bringing up Kerry or whoever else is just trying to do the same think as you were - making a point on the past. When the bottom line is - who cares? its the past, what happened, happened.
However, making a comparison currently Hillary Clinton is completely relevant as it is the present and she is running for President - in fact, bringing up a fact about Bill Clinton is relevant as well because she chose to have him as part of her speaking campaign. Making comparisons and facts on Guiliani, Romney, etc are all relevant as well. But making a remark on the current presidents past - especially when hes been in office for 2 terms and is on his way out is really more of a "who cares" thing.
Frankly, *I* care!
That degenerate son of a degenerate family belongs in a jail, and offends every sense of morality experienced by man, by his mere existence - not to mention his success in seizing the office of President. I would be only slightly less offended by his being, if solid statistical evidence did not indicate that more than merely duping the presumed ignorant masses - namely electoral fraud and complicity by the Corporate Media - had produced that disaster. So, to imprison Bungle and his cabal is the first step toward cleansing our national soul; and listing his lies and misdeeds is requisite to conduct even that small step. To eliminate his Corporate Media accomplices, whether by revising the reach/concentration rules, or by legislating an expiry of Corporations, at age 50, or both (hopefully) is still part of that step one, and must be completed prior to any expectation of success in promoting political progress in our nation.
Snoop,
Frankly, I've stopped following the GW military records incident. I had thought they were all released. Even the fake ones by Rather. :-)
At this point, GW's records, like Kerry, are a moot point. Hillary's are of interest. We'll have to see how this all shakes out. Maybe she can keep them hidden long enough? Maybe not?
Agree with both AA and Freethinker - Bush's military records are completely irrelevant at this stage of his presidency, considering he is done in a little over a year.
We need to focus on who is running, not on who is not.
Since we're drawing parallels, let's draw another one.
Pete,
I see also where snoop brought the Huckabee pardon issue up.
Yes, there are parallels. Will it be Huckabee's Willie Horton? Maybe.
AA,
A few things:
Did you use the Willie Horton issue to strengthen your belief in Bush I? Was the Horton thing a dealbreaker for you? Would anyone who was swayed by the Horton issue be a hypocrite to support Huckabee?
Fried,
At this point, thinking back, I think it was pretty much a non issue for me. I don't think I paid any attention to it during the campaign. If I did, it was relatively minor as I was much more into "read my lips". hahaha... Oh well.
ps. I don't know if they'd be hypocritical or not. Could be some have changed their mind on capital punishment. I guess you'd have to go ask them.
I only scanned the article Snoop linked and only glanced at Pete's. So it will be interesting if this issue has any carryover to the mainstream press.
AA,
Thanks for the response and I appreciate your candor. Its a powerful, powerful article. I definitely recommend everyone reads all of it no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
It presents many issues to consider not just about Huckabee, but people in general and their motivations.
Only a complete vetting of her documents will at this point suffice. Anything less will look like a cover up.
Poor repug, your litter box of right wing lies are full. How you can write that is amazing considering the current liar and coverup artist in chief.
Marker,
You might have something interesting to say, but it gets lost in your vitriol.
It is fine by me if you are simply venting. Personally, when I see posts like yours, I think to myself, that the person writing the post isn't interested in discussion and move on. I've seen enough similar posts to yours that they now bore me. As time moves on I find it much more interesting to simply discuss/argue the events and political personalities with everyone. I hope you will find it that way too.
Do as you wish. Just food for thought.
The Bush record has everything to do with the "fake outrage" you exhibit about the Clinton's. Let's have everybody's papers out on the table and let's see what gets the most scrutiny. Bush wins that in a landslide.
That could be true. However GWB is not running for president right now, and that should have been a bigger issue 3 and 7 years ago, rather than now. Right now its a moot point, and only shows someone going on the defensive.
Why doesn't she come come out and say that any percieved secrecy is "a national security issue"? I mean, if it works for the Repubs...?
I am going to assume that you are referring to the Bush administration...if not, then please correct me.
However, its much different to conceal documents and claim its a "security issue" once your in office, as opposed to running for office. Its much harder to get into office when the people think you have something to hide.
Who determines that you've got something to hide. MSM's decisions in this area seem in line with the RNC's opinions. I know what should happen for Huckabee and all the anti Clinton mob that pushed for the parole. Any bets on them recieving their justice? And I don't mean from our current justice unpersonator.(fu)
The American People will decide if someone has something to hide. Whether its true or not - and lets face, much of the political bash during election times are reaches & things taken out of contect on both parties - the people have every right to determine for themselves who they trust, and they do not owe anyone a reason for who they trust and who they do not.
I think rather the decision will be made for them, by the same folks making those calls today.
Well, I think she was disingeneous. She bucked the problem to some government agency. If she really wants to be a leader, she should have said "Yes, the electorate wants to see those papers and I will do everything I can to make them available as soon as possible." I have had it with political spin and dissimulation. A real leader would say "I can make that happen" and then do it.
Keith Campbell
Denver
I'm glad to see people areseeing how important to this country NOT electing hillary really is. She's a corporate shill just like Bush and the neocons.
Obama seems like he offers real inspiration. I like his message about bringing people together to do better things and restore our broken republic. That's a message we haven't heard since before 1968. It would be GREAT if he can quash the divisiveness that Hillary brings to this whole thing by simply continuing to refuse to play the game. Because if he succeeds....then politics in America will be changed.....and for the better.
Obama 'O8
Close, but . . . Nahhh!
Edwards - 08!
Didn't get exactly the right effect, so try once more:
Edwards - 08!