ABC's Snow labeled Clinton's discussion of housing issues "tedious"
On the January 7 edition of ABC's World News, in a report on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) question-and-answer session that day with voters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, ABC News anchor Kate Snow commented that Clinton's "answers were detailed, even tedious." Snow said that Clinton spent "10 minutes" answering a question "on real estate insurance," then showed a brief clip of Clinton saying, "I think we should raise FHA [Federal Housing Administration] limits." Clinton has promoted Federal Housing Administration reform, aimed at easing the subprime mortgage crisis and increasing opportunities for home ownership.
Snow did not quote any attendees saying they found her housing-related answers "tedious," nor did she provide any further detail about what Clinton was talking about in her response.
From the January 7 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: So we'll begin with the Democrats and ABC's Kate Snow with Hillary Clinton in Salem, New Hampshire -- Kate.
SNOW: Charlie, good evening. Senator Clinton never actually let a tear escape from her eye and roll down her face, but if you were in the room, you could tell that she was clearly fighting back tears. And the question now with her campaign struggling is: Will this one moment help or hurt?
[begin video clip]
SNOW: Clinton had been fielding questions for an hour, sitting in a Portsmouth coffee shop with 17 undecided voters. Her answers were detailed, even tedious -- 10 minutes on real estate insurance.
CLINTON: And I think we should raise FHA limits.
SNOW: And then one final question.
MARIANNE PERNOLD-YOUNG (New Hampshire voter): As a woman, I know it's hard to get out of the house and to get ready, and my question is very personal: How do you do it?
CLINTON: I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down. It's about our country, and it's about our kids' futures. And it's really about all of us, together. You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds.
But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't really thought that through enough.
SNOW: We spoke to people in the room, both before and after Clinton's appearance. That moment swayed some voters from Obama to Clinton.
Did that clinch it?
ALISON HAMILTON (New Hampshire voter): Her whole thing today really convinced me, but that really did clinch it for me, yeah.
SNOW: The moment was the talk of New Hampshire politics today. A reporter asked John Edwards to respond to Clinton's emotion.
JOHN EDWARDS (Democratic presidential candidate): I really don't have anything to say about that. I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve. And it's -- you know, presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also very tough business.
SNOW: Clinton herself has taken on the weight of her campaign. It was her idea to take so many questions and confront Barack Obama.
CLINTON: That's not change.
SNOW: Late today, in an interview for tomorrow's Good Morning America, [anchor] Diane Sawyer asked Senator Clinton if different standards apply to female candidates.
CLINTON: Now, as a woman, I know that I've got to be, you know, always presenting a very, you know, sort of organized front, and nobody's ever said that, that wasn't one of my strong suits. But I, also, you know, I'm a person, much to some people's surprise.
SNOW: Clinton is hoping showing that other side will help bring women to the polls tomorrow. Kate Snow, ABC News, Salem, New Hampshire.
Yes, if we MUST speack of issues, it is tedious. Let's talk about her shrill voice and that calculating way that she shows emotion. Meat and potato's.
If her outfits, mannerisms, and voice were off limits what would they talk about?
Hair color and cut? Are her teeth white enough? Are they too white? Is she against brunettes since she changed color herself? Does she hate boys since she only had a girl? . . .
Almost forgot--She didn't leave a tip, or the tip was too large...
Did she have plastic surgery ?
Her thighs.
She kind of has that lesbian vibe with the hair cut and affinity for pant suits.
I should just shut up before I give them more ammunition.
Hahahahaha !!!! Wouldn't you flip out if you were watching Fux News tomorrow and you heard someone state your pant suit theory !
Hell, they've already labeled her a lesbian. They've called her a murderer, shrill, homely, pig in a pant suit, calculating, and on and on and on. They've called her daughter (at age 12) the "first monkey."
They're making me want to vote for her, even though I haven't made my mind up yet.
I want Hillary to be pres for 2 terms and then Obama to be pres for the following 2 terms.
How dare Hillary say anything beyond hollow sound bites? We can't expect voters or reporters to have an attention span or anything.
I have to say, ever since the Iowa caucus I have been very disappointed in the coverage of Clinton and Obama by the media. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in this climate and Obama is literally skating home scott free.
He's going to have the nomination without answering the question "How?" to any of his ideas. It strikes me as a pretty big leap of faith.
Is there any critical (when I say critical I mean analysis) coverage of Obama's plans for this country starting in 2009 or are we just going to party?
I hope they're all questioned on their plans. As much as I'd like Hillary to lose, I hope it's because she's genuinely outperformed and not because of any press favoritism.
With 62% of the vote in New Hamphire counted, Clinton still leads. Even if this breaks for Obama, it renders the last 48 hour suckathon for Obama nearly meaningless as the predicted blowout did not happen. These people (the pundits) look like idiots and I'm an idiot for believing their crap.
Either that, or the Clintons control the voting machines in New Hampshire?
I think we can safely say that you're an idiot for believing their rhetoric...
Come on now. Polls aren't generally dead on but usually they're close to what actually pans out. I'm surprised at the results myself. Bruce is being too hard on himself, or intentionally exaggerating, and using that as an excuse for a cheap shot is troll-like behavior.
i was surprised she won, so you're hardly alone. but i was not expecting a double digit defeat as predicted. i thought that she would lose by 3 or 4 percent and claim a comeback victory. i think even her campaign didn't expect this. but i think her getting a little misty eyed made people see her as human.
That could be it, especially since I saw talk about the women's vote that she got. Maybe that helped women to identify with her.
Bruce,
I understand where you're coming from regarding the media's love affair with Obama thus far, the near coronation of his nomination following Iowa - and the less than critical scrutiny of such a relatively young and inexperienced candidate. The media does what it does, I try and keep their enthusiasm, and their dislike, for each particular candidate in perspective and make up my own mind.
That being said, I can understand the public's fascination and their attraction to Obama, speaking for myself anyway. Most of these politicians act as though they are THE agents of change, that they are vastly different than any of their opponents, yet are they really? No, not much.....even from one party to another.
They are basically robotic corporate politicians who all talk the same, pander to this group and that group, are slippery when cornered, and seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
This is why people are hungry for the inspiration that Obama has tapped into - we are all tired of the divisiveness that Bush and co. have saddled us with; the us vs. them mentality...it is corosive and people are over it. So when someone as fresh as Obama appears, it is a natural gravitational pull to check him out......and issues and policies take a back seat, perhaps temporarily, but it's like - "they are all the same, what does it matter anyway, at least this guy lifts us up instead of tears his opponents apart"
Anyway, it's now a wide open race and that is a good thing.
It is the GOP trying to keep the frame where they want it. WAAAAYYY far from any ISSUES. Who is pretty, who is white, who has a nice voice, anything but how catastrophic has the last GOP administration been?
I imagine that a 10 min answer would seem tedious to a media with the attention span of a cocker spaniel.
Sorry it wasn't a 30 second sound bite Kate.
Let me help.
"Ugh. Take too long. No understand. Ugh."
If only the con media could really have their dream candidate.
Thanks, Snoop, I've linked to that cartoon before, but you gave me an excuse to do it again. ;0)
Don't give 'em any ideas, after all, these idiots actually voted for George W Bush. Ug could bring Republicans to the polls in droves.
My bad, I though GW Bush was Og
"Ugh. Take too long. No understand. Ugh."
That line is normally followed by this one:
"Megadittoes, Rush. I'm a first-time caller..."
:-)
maybe she should have sobbed her way through it, hankie in hand. that would have been much better television.
the incessant reporting of the same thing all over the news ( and cable news ) employing many versions of the same narrative is tedious. i am so glad i have many good DVD movies.
This is a perfect representation of today's media.
A detailed answer to a voter's question is "tedious". You can see the reporter rolling her eyes. Hillary wasn't playing to the CAMERA, wasn't paying attention to the all-important REPORTER. What about ME?, the reporter whines.
And Hillary WINS. Guess what, reporter? YOU aren't the story. The VOTERS are, and they are not as easily bored as you are. In fact, they don't give a hang if you're bored.
Great observations. I agree with you completely.
What do you think the polling organizations are doing right now ? They all predicted an easy Obama win. I don't think I saw one NH poll that predicted Clinton would win. A Zogby poll predicted a 13% win for Obama ! I hope they are all scrambling now, trying to figure out what went wrong.
ATHEIST:
What all those polling firms SHOULD be doing is closing up shop and getting HONEST work.
These 24/7 cable "news" outfits are SELLING their expertise, their insight, their far superior knowledge about unfolding events, as a PRODUCT. And the PRODUCT is crap.
There is absolutely NO DOUBT that our Rightwing MSM feels that it can SHAPE and MANIPULATE the American Public and election outcomes. I admit, it was priceless watching Britt Hume's face as the vote tallies came in, and Hillary remained ahead an hour, then two, then WINS. Hume's face said to all, "This can't be happening!"
On MSNBC, it was Brian Williams who said to Chris Matthews, about 'what did we learn tonight', that maybe we learn to wait for the VOTERS to speak before we act like we know what's going to happen. Matthews, of course, balked, saying, "We CAN'T do that, what would we fill our time with?" (paraphrase)
They fill the time, because they CAN and because they MUST. And the fill it with MISINFORMATION that is intended to both FOOL and INFLUENCE the American People and their voting.
Ironically, Rachael Maddow, speaking to Matthews about what the "blogs" were saying about Hillary's win, said that a lot of posters were citing MATTHEWS HIMSELF as a reason for switching support to Hillary. People were tired of a biased media ganging up on Hillary, with Matthews at the forefront. Matthews, ever clueless, actually PUFFED UP, saying he had no idea he could be so influential and important!
Yeah, Chris, in a NEGATIVE way. It's called a BACKFIRE, you idiot!
I'm not sure if it's misinformation to report what a poll is saying if in fact that's what the poll is saying. All the polls had Obama leading and most had Obama leading by more than 5 points. Even Clintons internal polling had her campaign hoping she could keep the defeat within 10 points (according to sources).
Clearly, the polls were not accurate but the media was accurately reporting what the polls said.
The last time the polls were so wrong people blamed the voting machines. What's it going to be this time?
Probably her getting emotional.
I think we should make a distinction between phone polls and exit polls here. If the phone polls don't line up, then it's possible that some recent event had a major influence. The same can't be said for exit polls. It's a difference between the testimony of people that might vote (and might change their minds) vs. people who did vote. If exit polls are that far off, I want an investigation immediately.
Brab is right and makes a very important point here, Bruce. What nobody in the media ever talked about after 2004(why not?), which is probably why you are confusing different types of polls, is that exit polling is usually very reliable. So reliable, in fact, that it is the globallly recognized standard way to watchdog elections around the world. In 2004, multiple exit polls from many different areas were all consistantly different from the actual results, and all in the same direction. That simply doesn't pass the smell test for any objective observer.
In this case, if the exit polls were shown to be consistantly off, than there should be an investigation. I don't know what type of technology they used, but it's not like we don't have mountains of shocking evidence that the electronic machines are unsafe.
Very good point Brabantio and Jawill regarding the difference in the types of polls.
I noticed last night that the worst poll, Zogby, had apparently only polled registered Dems and Repugs. But NH has a semi-open primary and all voters can vote either Dem or Repug, including voters who are not party-affiliated. I have voted Dem all of my life but I have never been a registered Dem. Zogby wouldn't have polled me and yet I would have voted for Hillary. The most accurate poll I found included 33% "independents", not sure in NH if that's a registered thing or just meaning non-Dem and non-Repug. But even that one was well off.
Maybe the NH voters are very clever and sick of polls and attempt to throw them off as much as possible. :-)
Yeah, Chris, in a NEGATIVE way. It's called a BACKFIRE, you idiot! Tex
Hi Tex, I saw that little exchange and was amused that Chris didn't seem to get his "role" in the deal.
Oh geez, I just did a google news search just using "Clinton" and of all of the results posted post-NH primary, all had headlines referring to her NH win ... except Fux News, which had a headline "Hillary Clinton Should Stop Blaming the Media". ROFL !!!
I wonder if their new story will be that the media is to blame for her win...
Yah, for playing her "breakdown" too much. >:-)
(How tears in the eyes qualifies as a breakdown, I have no idea.)
well, she (snow) probably had a cocktail party to get to, those shrimp go mighty quick!
this is actually classic MSM, a serious discussion of serious issues just bores those poor boys and girls to near tears.
Btw, I do want to point out Snow's first-hand account of Clinton's occular condition: "Senator Clinton never actually let a tear escape from her eye and roll down her face,"
Proof that she did not "cry", unless your vocabulary is at the 2nd grade level.