Newsweek's Alter, like NY Times, omitted Rose's on-air explanation for abrupt ending of Clinton interview
SUMMARY: Referencing an interview former President Bill Clinton gave on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter wrote, "During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called [Sen. Barack] Obama 'a roll of the dice,' as aides tried to end the interview." However, Alter omitted Rose's on-air comments in which he indicated why Clinton's aides wanted to "end the interview."
In a column published in the January 28 issue of Newsweek, columnist and Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter wrote that "[d]uring a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated [former President Bill] Clinton called [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] 'a roll of the dice,' as aides tried to end the interview." However, Alter omitted on-air comments by Rose during the December 14 edition of PBS' The Charlie Rose Show in which Rose indicated why Clinton's aides wanted to "end the interview." During the interview, Rose said to Clinton: "Let me -- let me just close with this, because it's important and fairly -- we're over and your people need to take you -- you need to go wherever you need to go." The interview then continued for several more minutes, at which point Rose added: "Your people are pushing me, so I want you to finish, but it's not my -- ."
In omitting the comments, Alter joined New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and New York Times reporter Patrick Healy in publishing a misleading account of Clinton's interview with Rose. Dowd claimed, "He [Clinton] got so agitated with Charlie Rose -- ranting that reporters were 'stenographers' for Obama -- that his aides tried to stop the interview"; Healy wrote that "[a]t one point, Mr. Rose said that, in his control room, aides to Mr. Clinton were trying to persuade the show's producers to end the interview." Like Alter, neither Dowd nor Healy noted Rose's on-air comments about why Clinton's aides wanted to end the interview.
From the January 28 issue of Newsweek:
On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary [Clinton] still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama -- even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."
During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice," as aides tried to end the interview.
From Clinton's interview with Rose, broadcast on December 14 on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show:
ROSE: And when people say we don't need to go beyond looking back at the '60s, or even the '90s, then you -- you say, "I think a lot of good things happened in the '60s, and I think a lot of good things happened in the '70s, in the '80s, in the '90s."
CLINTON: Yeah, but the basic thing is that's irrelevant.
ROSE: Right.
CLINTON: Look at this decade. Look at this record. She has been a completely modern senator. She has sponsored -- she just passed the bill as a candidate for president, with [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-SC], who led my -- who was one of the impeachment managers --
ROSE: Impeachment managers -- right.
CLINTON: -- to extend the family and medical leave law to the families of veterans who were suffering physical or emotional trauma in Iraq or Afghanistan.
ROSE: All right. Let me -- let me close this one.
CLINTON: I mean, that's not nothing to do with the '90s. I mean, this -- that's sort of a superficial, you know, bigotry. That's like saying -- that's like ageism or something. You know, it's like -- if you fought and did good things, we've got to give you a gold watch and tell you goodbye.
ROSE: Let me -- let me just close with this, because it's important and fairly -- we're over and your people need to take you -- you need to go wherever you need to go.
I've said this to you before, because of your eight years of experience, because of your experience as a governor and because you have spent your time since doing good, but traveling around the world, sometimes with your friend President Bush 41. Tell me what you would put as the top five things for the next president if you were sliding a little letter into that Oval Office desk. You can make it as short or as long as you want from my point.
CLINTON: We have to restore America's standing in the world. We have to send a signal that we are going to get back in the cooperation business. And we're going to cooperate whenever we can, act alone only when we have to, including discontinuing our direct military involvement in Iraq as quickly as we can without making it worse.
We have to regain our economic momentum, to restore the middle class, which means we need more good jobs and significant changes in our education policy.
We have to have -- finally, we have to pass universal health care. Now what we're doing is costing us too much, doing too little, undermining our economic stability and our -- the moral fabric of our society.
We have to do something really significant on energy for reasons of national security, global warming, and most -- and our economic wellbeing. We have got to move back toward a clean, independent energy future. It will create millions of jobs and promote more equality.
And finally, we need to do this in a way that gives all Americans a chance to work together on it. One reason I like this whole idea of a clean independent energy future is it's inherently beyond politics. It gives people something to do across political lines, racial lines, income lines. It will benefit people in urban areas, suburban areas, small towns, rural areas.
We live in an interdependent world, where just a few people, as we found out on 9-11, or the British found out with their car bombings and their subway bombings, who don't feel part of the community, can do an enormous amount of damage. The only way to overcome our differences is not basically to try to erase the past, it's to get used to working together.
I mean, it's really kind of a metaphor for the Hillary argument. If you look at last Monday, the new --
ROSE: Your people are pushing me, so I want you to finish, but it's not my --
CLINTON: The new leaders of Northern Ireland came to Washington to see the president. They -- it represents a stunning change. I think everybody would admit, right? Stunning change in Northern Ireland.
ROSE: It's unbelievable.
Well I am not sure what will come of Obama fighting back against President Clinton, MMFA can attempt to define people like Alter as Conservatives which is a just a joke. Alter is someone who has done well with progressive issues, and the bottom line is the Clintons are lying about Obama, good for him to now fight back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22769395/
The point I think is MMFA is now targeting Alter because he has dared to challange the Clintons, that is not allowed, unless your name is Keith Olbermann then you are allowed to smear Senator Clinton by saying she is playing the 'al-qeida game".
Disgusting
No, the point is that Alter is being misleading-- he's not telling the whole story and he's deliberately bashing Bill Clinton by leaving the impression that something else happened to end the interview. That's either dishonest, or incredibly sloppy.
It's also another example of gross MSM bias against the Clintons. Good for MMFA to bring this up-- and I'll tell you, more of this treatment and the backlash from voters will sweep Hilary into office.
Sue, I've tried to show you this before, but here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
Now I know you really hate him, but grant me this. His description of Hillary "playing the Al-Qaeda card" is most apt, considering she MENTIONS AL-QAEDA. How in the world would this be misinformation?
As far as Alter goes, I don't believe this site is trying to paint him as conservative. What he writes may be misinformed, and he could very well have gotten it from a right-wing smear site. MMfA's problem is not with Alter, but with misinformation.
Tommy,
After seeing the second thread, my guess is most of the staff took today off.
:-)
The aides actions weren't connected to the content of Clinton's comments the way Alter is suggesting.
It would have been better for Alter to not mention the aides at all.
Ed Schultz proclaimed Bill Clinton to be "the Carl Rove of the Democratic Party" (What would MMFA do with that had a conservative said it?)
Jonathon Alter said that Bill Clintons attacks against Obama were "unprecedented in American politics".
Paul Begala came on the program and defended the Clintons, slamming Obama for his Reagan comments saying no Democrat should be praising Ronald Reagan.
A caller said that Bush and Codaleeza Rice were definitely having an affair. It's common knowledge.
But the best moment of the show was when a caller said that if Obama's spouse were married to Clinton's spouse, Bill would need to get ahold of John Bobbit's doctor.
Now that's entertainment.
Interesting if Paul Begala was angry about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/reagan.main/index.html
No, Tom Daschle praised Reagan how dare he
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle praised Reagan's ability to seek compromise with Democrats, who controlled the House of Representatives throughout his two terms and the Senate for his last two years in office.
"I would hope that we could revive that civility and that political partnership and that comity and politics of common ground that President Reagan and Tip O'Neill and others so powerfully demonstrated on so many occasions during the '80s," he said.
the difference is that at a funeral you put all the rancor behind and find some nice bit of fluff to say about the person. saying reagan could be civil is not remotely the same thing as praising his policies.
How the Republicans behaved at Wellstone's Funeral? As someone who lives in Minnesota, I think your memory is failing you on that.
From Time:
Did the memorial service for Paul Wellstone cost Democrats the election?
A backlash against the politically charged service almost certainly helped Norm Coleman beat Walter Mondale for Wellstone's Minnesota Senate seat. And a private poll by Bill Clinton's former pollster, Mark Penn, suggests the service backfired on Democrats nationally as well.
Penn found that 68% of voters knew about the service, a high awareness of an event broadcast live nationally only on C-SPAN. What's more, 49% of voters said the service made them less likely to vote for a Democrat nd 67% of independents said they felt that way. One Democrat who quickly sensed that the service was a political disaster was Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a possible 2004 presidential contender.
The next morning Kerry called Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, who had been booed at the memorial, to tell him how bad he felt. Penn believes national security was ultimately a bigger issue. His poll shows a stunning 65% of voters thought Democrats weren't supportive enough of the President's war on terror. "That was the issue," says Penn. "But the memorial didn't help."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,388903,00.html
here's al franken's take on the wellstone service, he was there, and how it was spun by guys like limbaugh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/reflections-on-the-wellst_b_15459.html
I'm not giving Limbaughs opinion any validity on what the service was all about. Of course he's going to spin it his way.
I will tell you that our Governor at the time Ventura (Independent) walked out before it was finished, he thought it had turned into too much of a political rally. My mother (Democrat) watched on TV and said it got too political. I think a lot of people had that opinion.
I don't think it was planned. I just think it turned out badly for Democrats in general as the Time piece suggested. It got a little out of hand in the final 15-20 minutes and that's what people will remember.
Franken is certainly entitled to his opinion and he stated his case pretty well. Of course he's going to see things from his own political point of view.
If ya want ta talk to Strom, talk LOUDER inta the Masheen!!!
(anyone else remember this from the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings?)
Alter's toast.
Schultz is fast becoming toast.
Begala is peaches and cream.
Are you wondering if whoever is elected will reward their supporters?
One thing I know for sure: If and when a Democrat is elected president they won't be officially honoring any member of the media like the Republicans did when they made Rush Limbaugh an Honorary Member of Congress.
Not "reward" as much as punish those who worked against them, by ignoring them into obscurity.
You're right about the Rush thing.
It sure sounds like it.
Tommy,
It'll be interesting to see if Hillary can pull it off, (The nomination,) without any more 'misunderstandings' aimed at Obama. I think she runs a risk of alienating many who support Obama if there are any more references to his race brought up in this campaign.
I could be wrong, but I feel she'll have to have her minions cast Obama as 'the black' candidate in order to continue to win. If she doesn't Obama's positioning himself as the candidate of change leaves Hillary looking for 'connecting moments'. By casting Obama as the 'black candidate, Hillary will disenfranchise many Obama supporters and even Obama himself.
I wonder if he'll see himself as her VP candidate? Anyone think Hillary would put Obama on her ticket? Is the conventional thinking Hillary has the AA vote all locked up? If so, my guess is she would try to find someone else who might gather in the independents and not outshine her on the campaign trail.
Lets say Romney wins on the GOP side, (or pick anyone else,) and he picks someone like Condoleza Rice, Colin Powell, or another AA, as their VP candidate. Theoretically they could siphon off a large number of African Americans voters and tilt a close election to the GOP.
Just speculation on my part. What do you think?
It's just speculation on your part.
Get ready to hear post-election coverage comparing the Republican wipe out to the Goldwater disaster of 1964. John Dole errr McCain is going to be a sacrificial lamb, an answer to a trivia question about the historical election of 2008.
Then get ready to hear W compared unfavorably to Herbert Hoover.
It's not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that Obama would take a VP offer from the Clinton's, having been attacked so much by them. I think independent voters would see it as a marriage of convenience rather than mutual respect and strength, and not respect it as much. Obama would then have to sit by for 8 years and hope the Hillary years ended up well enough that having a (D) next to his name during the 2016 election wasn't political suicide.
AA,
I don't think the Clintons are at all worried about alienating blacks, in so much as they can still do so and still secure her nomination - they know that despite all the primary "bloodshed", she and Bill feel that they can rally them back to them during the general election - I mean really, they are banking on the fact that the bruisings here will be long forgotten, and they will pander away vs. any Republican opponent, so they are not too worried, my guess.
Which is another reason I don't think she would offer Obama the VP nod, she will look for like an Evan Bayh type, a moderate to conservative Democrat to appeal to the Midwest where the election will most likely be decided.......or perhaps a Southerner although that is pretty much lost for the Democrats anymore, anyway. She needs Ohio, PA, Florida, states like that to win.
But my preference would be that her and Bill are happily retired in Chappaqua watching the campaign from their easy chairs, they have done quite enough for all of us, time to take some time off - enjoy!
I seriously believe that the Clintons don't really care if the Democratic party is in shambles should Hillary be denied the nomination - they intend to pull no punches in getting her nominated and if that means taking the party down with them if she doesn't, they'll do it. Tommy
Tommy, I agree with you. The debate tonight was nasty, I mean really really nasty, at least the first part. I've heard that over the last few days, Jim Clyburn, Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel have all spoken to Bill and requested that he "chill" due to his conduct in campaigning for Hillary. I have to wonder IF they do care for the party because when has a former President who is not the candidate gone after an opponent who is in his party the way Bill has Obama? When Junior was running for President did his father attack McCain on Juniors behalf the way Bill's been attacking Obama? I don't think so. I have to wonder if either Bill or Hillary care if the Democratic party remains united if she doesn’t get the nomination. This is the freaking primary for god’s sake! If Hillary gets the nomination Bill can come out swinging in the general but to be THIS nasty against a fellow Democrat in a primary and he’s NOT even the candidate to going to far. I have to guess that they think that most Democrats will vote for Hillary because they dislike Junior and the Republicans but have they considered that we need more than just Democrats to win the general election? Do they know that more and more people are registering as independents? I know Bill and Hillary want to win but you can sometimes win the battle but lose the war. For myself, they appear to be well on their way to losing my support completely.
Did Alter really say that Bill Clinton's attacks were unprecedented? If so, that's ridiculous. I guess Hillary is not allowed to run a campaign anywhere.
Bob Somerby's right-- these guys are all stupid.
Jonathon Alter was a guest on the Ed Schultz show which is a very good program on the radio Air America Network.
Thom Hartmann is much better.
What makes Ed Schultz "a very good program for the Air America Network?" He's on XM 167 but he is not (he insists on telling his listeners pretty much every day) under contract with Air America. He's on the Jones Radio Network. Did you just mean to write that it's easier to listen to him than it is to listen to Bill Press or (gag) Lionel?
Schultz dedicates pretty much every show to bashing the Clintons. That he had Alter on and that he used the time to beat on them some more isn't surprising. Schultz is like every other yakker on XM 167 (except Lionel, who is just a bloviating gasbag)- he hates the Clintons and pimps Obama every chance he gets. The only thing that makes Schultz different is that he praises Huckabee more than any so-called "Progressive" really should.
What's wrong with Bill Press? His is one of my favorite shows on my local AAR affiliate. He's well informed, entertaining without being bombastic, respectful of opposing views when warranted and has just the right amount of humor mixed in. I think he's underrated.
I got fed up with Ed Schultz quite a while ago. I don't think he has a good grasp of facts or logic and doesn't present his arguments especially well. There's a lot more style than substance there.
This is the 2nd falsehood Alter has said about the Clintons in about a week, though his statement on COUNTDOWN recently that 4 Clinton surrogates talked to the press about Obama's past drug use was not totally off the mark, even if MMFA refuses to realize it.
This falsehood though is way more appalling and you have to wonder if he actually watched Bill Clinton's interview with Charlie Rose or just got lazy and took the NYT's faulty analysis of it and used it as his own.
Anyone who watched the interview in full or read the relevant transcript provided here knows that Clinton was long done talking about Obama being a "roll of the dice" before Rose tried to "close" the interview.
In fact, Bill's "roll of the dice" comment came around the 33 minute mark, TWENTY MINUTES before the interview actually ended! How any serious political analyst can write that Bill was talking about Obama when Rose tried to warn Bill that his aides wanted the interview to end is unfathomable, even for a liberal journalist like Johnathan Alter.
And by the way, it's not just a roll of the dice if Obama becomes president, it's a risk no matter who gets elected from either party, regardless of experience. There is no such thing as a safe choice for president, sorry Bill.
Every candidate has “surrogates”. It just so happens that Hillary’s most visible surrogate also happens to be her husband - and an ex-President of The United States. He has as much right to express his “beliefs” as, say, someone like Solonswine – but it is a no-brainer as for which of these two surrogates would garner a candidate more credibility and respect.
There is no doubt that the visibility and experience of Bill Clinton is Hillary’s greatest asset, but the other candidates knew this would be the case when they got into the race, so they should quit whining about the disadvantage. If they cannot rise above “Clinton machine” it is because they lack substance to do so.
Politics has never been known to be a “fair” game - and yes. the Republicans proved there is no “safe choice” when they “rolled the dice” in support of GW Bush – so we’ll all just have to let the dice roll as they may, and hope that perhaps a collective blow on the dice will have them land in your favor. Horserace or crapshoot - the analogies surely are not being disproven in this election!
There is no doubt that the visibility and experience of Bill Clinton is Hillary’s greatest asset, but the other candidates knew this would be the case when they got into the race, so they should quit whining about the disadvantage. If they cannot rise above “Clinton machine” it is because they lack substance to do so.
John Edwards is a Democratic. Obama is a Democratic. Hillary Clinton is a Democratic. By now we should be smart enough to know that you don't beat your opponent to death in the primary cause you sure as sh*t will need them in the general election, it's just that simple. You don't beat your opponent to death cause all that crap used to beat each other will be used by Republicans in the general election.
Bill Clinton was President of the US and he should NOT be out campaigning for Hillary in the primary. Id Hillary such a poor candidate that she has to use the credentials of her husband in order to attack her opponents? How will things work in their White House? Who will actually be the VP and who would want to be Hillary's VP with a former President Clinton looking over their shoulders. It's like a threesome with a VP not really wanting to participate. Bill should NOT being playing bad cop to Hillary's against another Democratic and if you think that makes the "Clinton machine" simply better you are not looking towards November. Trust me the Republicans are looking and laughing their collective a**es off. What good does it serve Democratic for Bill to attack Obama? How many Obama, those young, first time voters will appreciate a former President attacking a fellow Democratic and what does it say about our party? As a 73 year old African American woman who voted for Bill Clinton twice I find his current behavior beyond tacky and unnecessary.
Chucko,
Thanks for the timeline. Your analysis makes sense. Knowing how much time elapsed between Clinton's Obama comments and the end when Rose was being rushed to finish, tell me my earlier comments were incorrect. Based on your timeline it looks to me that time wa up and Clinton's handlers were simply trying to get to the next appointment.
I wouldn't put it past Alter (or any other columnist) to simply be picking up on someone else's storyline. After reading a number of pundits for quite some time and watching them on TV, the 'borrowed' storyline happens all the time.
It would have been nice had MMFAHRC (I borrowed that one) :-) had included it. Thanks again.
AAFSIRWC
Another American for some ignorant right wing candidate
This has become a pattern with Alter and Newsweek, his Hillary is dead interview on the Charlie Rose show before the NH voters even weighted in shows how he operates on gut vs fact and how out of touch he is. His next day posting as the self avowed Dem Party Pooh Ba advised that the Party should not have Senator Clinton as the nominee because in his view the party needs men not more women, very strange and silly 54 percent of the electorate is female. His track record on the election is poor and he and his magazine has been clear they are supporting a candidate other than Senator Clinton we got it but stop dropping the facts.