CBS Evening News aired only part of Bill Clinton quote about Obama, ignored praise that followed
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: CBS' Jeff Greenfield reported that President Clinton "offered a decidedly lukewarm endorsement of Obama's credentials," but Greenfield aired only a small portion of a response Clinton gave to the question from ABC's Kate Snow: "Is he ready to be president?" Greenfield did not air Clinton saying: "I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in my first year. ... He's shown a keen strategic sense and his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."
On the August 5 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield reported that "despite the image of unity, some [Sen. Hillary] Clinton supporters are still wounded" by the Democratic presidential primary, "apparently including former President Clinton, who offered a decidedly lukewarm endorsement of [Sen. Barack] Obama's credentials." Greenfield then aired a portion of a recent interview Bill Clinton gave to ABC's Kate Snow, in which Snow asked Clinton: "Is he ready to be president?" But, in his report, Greenfield aired only the first sentence of Clinton's response, "Well, in -- you could argue that no one is ever ready to be president," and omitted what followed: "I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in my first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different. You could argue that.* He's shown a keen strategic sense and his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."
From Greenfield's report on the August 5 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
GREENFIELD: It was the longest, tightest primary battle in some 30 years, and at times it was testy.
HILLARY CLINTON [video clip]: Shame on you, Barack Obama.
OBAMA [video clip]: I opposed that bill, and you know I did.
GREENFIELD: And despite the image of unity, some Clinton supporters are still wounded, apparently including former President Clinton, who offered a decidedly lukewarm endorsement of Obama's credentials.
[begin video clip]
SNOW: Is he ready to be president?
BILL CLINTON: Well, in the -- you could argue that no one's ever ready to be president.
[end video clip]
GREENFIELD: And while poll numbers suggest that Obama has won the backing of some six in 10 Clinton supporters, that leaves a whole lot more of her backers who have yet to be persuaded.
From Clinton's interview with Snow, posted August 5 to ABCNews.com, the omitted portion of Clinton's response bolded:
SNOW: Is he ready to be president?
CLINTON: You could argue that no one is ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different. You could argue that. He's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn.
*A portion of Bill Clinton's remarks were edited out of the video of the interview that accompanied the August 4 ABCNews.com article. ABCNews.com posted another version of the interview on August 5, and the body of this item and the related transcript have been changed to include the comments that ABCNews.com had edited out.
The comment about campaigning for him is negligible. The fallout for saying he wouldn't campaign for Obama would be horrific, so there's really not much of an option there. This item is the argument that MMfA should have made the previous day, pointing out that there was more context for one of the answers, instead of pointing to "absolutely" as some sort of reliable indicator.
If Clinton was trying to preempt arguments about inexperience, why on earth did he respond to a question about qualifications by talking about the Constitutional requisites for office, as if anyone would believe that's what the question was actually about? It seems to me that if he really wanted people to think he had enough experience, that was the perfect time to drive that point home instead of making such a ludicrous response.
The Constitutional qualifications are not in contention, that's precisely the point. If Clinton's really supporting him wholeheartedly and wants to address his experience, why not do it there instead of making that response? It doesn't make any sense at all.
i think you're overlooking the forest for the trees. if you look at clinton's words he's clearly supporting obama. to me this is more of the pick every word apart and try to make something out of nothing. just like the "as far as i know" crap. if you look at that one small part of the quote you can make a controversy out of it. if you look at what followed there's no controversy.
The ridiculous "Constitution" answer is totally inconsistent with the notion of unequivocal endorsement. I find it impossible to believe that someone as intelligent as Clinton genuinely thought that "qualified" referred to that. So unless he had a sudden, monumental brain lapse, it's very difficult to take that interview as wholehearted support. I don't see how it can be brushed off as if other parts of the interview somehow make up for it or overshadow it.
"to me this is more of the pick every word apart and try to make something out of nothing. just like the "as far as i know" crap."
Just to expand a little, I agree that the "as far as I know" crap was exactly that, and I supported Hillary on that score in no uncertain terms. The difference is that this is not a matter of context, as far as I can see. In that case the full answer made it completely understandable, there was an obvious and simple explanation for that phrase. But here, there's nothing that makes the "Constitution" answer remotely sensible. So "the context makes it reasonable" is not nearly the same thing as "well, there are other parts that are complimentary, so let's just ignore this part which is glaringly inconsistent with them".
".......and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."
I said yesterday that I believed this was incredibly condescending. Barack Obama does not need Bill Clinton to tell him how smart he is, or what a fast zippy learner he is, with his pat on the head "compliment".
Tommy,
It would have been nice to hear Bill say, "Coming out of nowhere and beating the hell out of Hillary while not falling for my race baiting was very smart on his part... but just wait till the convention!".
HA!
Well done!
-- but just wait till the convention! -- AA
Muy bueno...the exact reason why the Clintons will not give their full support or endorsement to Obama right now. They will not slam the door shut on Hillary's nomination. 2000 Clinton delegates at the convention could produce real fireworks...and maybe even a surprise or two.
Was there anything unequivocal when Bill pointed his finger and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?
Case closed.
That is maybe the most succinct and absolutely hilarious comment posted on mmfa.
It's a Hall of Famer.
Why? Because it's true or because you didn't like it?
The Clintons are professional politicians. They won't do anything to jeapordize her chances in '12. If fake praise of another democrat will provide her with needed promise, then that's what they will do.
I have to agree, Wes. The cherry on top was the "Case closed" by a wingnut still obsessing over a decade-old BJ applied to current political events.
Wait, were you laughing with him?
Time to move on, it's 2008 my little friends.
"I'm saying when someone lies about something you'd expect anyone to lie about, you can't take that as an indication that they'll lie about everything"
And, I'm saying if you lie for one thing, then you'll have no problem lying for another. It's expected that a liberal would consider lying about an affair to be normal. What's your limit on stealing before you consider it "really" stealing?
No, lying for one thing isn't the same as lying for another, because the motivation isn't the same. Pretty much everyone lies at some point or other, even if just to be polite. By your logic, if you tell your wife she doesn't look fat in a certain dress (when you sure as hell think she does), then you'll lie about anything.
Why is this supposed to be a partisan thing? Conservatives don't lie about having affairs? That seems pretty hard to believe.
Stealing has nothing to do with it at all. That's a complete logical disconnect on your part.
"No, lying for one thing isn't the same as lying for another, because the motivation isn't the same."
So, the liberal position is that you can lie anytime you want as long as you're properly motivated, and if properly motivated then the lie isn't really a lie.
Oh, and the stealing analogy is correct. You refuse to answer to it because you know that to answer that one would let everyone know how liberals feel about stealing, too. (liberals approve of lying and stealing as long as they have proper motivation) Good thing Christianity and liberalism are like oil and water. We won't have to deal with too many of you in Heaven.
"So, the liberal position is that you can lie anytime you want as long as you're properly motivated, and if properly motivated then the lie isn't really a lie."
Another strawman, another failure. I didn't say anything isn't really a lie, I'm saying that motivation for one doesn't lead to motivation for another. Obviously you can't address that simple concept without twisting it beyond recognition.
"Oh, and the stealing analogy is correct. You refuse to answer to it because you know that to answer that one would let everyone know how liberals feel about stealing, too."
I'd say if someone has to steal something to avoid starving to death, that's understandable. Otherwise, no. The analogy is incorrect because the nature of all theft is largely the same, wanting something without wanting to pay for it. That motivation is pretty consistent, and the effect is as well. Neither the motivation or the effect is consistent for lying, those vary depending on the circumstances.
"Good thing Christianity and liberalism are like oil and water. We won't have to deal with too many of you in Heaven."
Considering Jesus was pretty liberal, that says a hell of a lot about modern Christianity. And thanks for demonstrating how Conservatives can't comprehend simple arguments (isn't generalizing fun?).
-- when Bill pointed his finger and said -- AA
Here's another reason why you can't trust "what the Clintons say"...rather watch what they do:
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton told a gathering of supporters last week that she's looking for a "strategy" for her delegates to have their voices heard and "respected" at the Democratic National Convention -- and did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention alongside Sen. Barack Obama's.
"Because I know from just what I'm hearing, that there's incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said. -- abcnews
Yeah right...she gives her full support to Obama but still wants her name on the ballot...a strange way to show your full support.
"Obama does not need Bill Clinton to tell him how smart he is, or what a fast zippy learner "
Maybe Jeff Greenfield DOES need to be told.
".......and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."
I said yesterday that I believed this was incredibly condescending.
Why? If I said these words--and I have said similar ones many times--of a student, or a co-worker, or any number of other people that I know, then there isn't anything condescending about it. It's a compliment, and that's certainly how I would take it if it was applied to me. (Sounds like poor Tommy never had these words said about himself, and he's jealous and angry as a result; that sure would explain a lot of his posts.)
Barack Obama does not need Bill Clinton to tell him how smart he is,
Complete straw man. No one ever intimated that Obama needs Clinton to do so. Moreover, Clinton--who was a Rhodes Scholar, remember--has a valuable opinion on that point, it helps confirm those of us who already thought Obama was intelligent.
or what a fast zippy learner he is, with his pat on the head "compliment".
Well, I already shot this down above, so there's no need to do it again. Now you just go on your way, Tommy, and try not to get hurt next time you play (pat, pat).
According to this poll, 100% of rational humans are bored of your sad little posts.
I think cartoons more suits your needs: Col's Cartoon
Here is the actual Pew report on the poll.
http://people-press.org/report/441/obama-fatigue
Allow me to correct what I said above. Two-thirds of Republicans believe they are hearing too much about Obama...not two thirds of everyone who responded that way.
wz,
Think of it this way, if there were not alternative positions you wouldn't have any cause to respond. You need Science a heck of lot more than he/she needs you.
Science,
You might say wz backed right into that one! ;-)
WZ
You need people like us to remind you on a daily basis that there is life away from the radical left. Come a little closer to the center, you may even find one or two people who agree with you then. As far as your other problems, they sell cream to take care of that.
Rasmussen 8/6: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 45% of the vote while and John McCain earns 43%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for six straight days
Gallup 8/6: 46% Obama, 44% McCain
Both polls virtually tied within margin of error.
it will be the "silent minority"...all 28% of them..may not include you, but maybe they'll be glad to have you.
IT'S worth noting, that if Sen. Obama is elected our next President, he's going to need an extraordinary amount of help support and assistance, from all of those People who presently support him (and also from the truly American People who maybe don't at this time support his candidacy: because if he should be our next President and if they are truly Americans, they will get over it), and especially from Democrats in Congress, and for that matter from any and all past U.S. Presidents (President Clinton included, but perhaps George W. Bush excluded, for reasons that I am getting to)... and this is not because Sen. Obama is in any way unqualified to perform the Office, but instead because of the extraordinary circumstances of that Office, at the present time: over 100,000 U.S. Troops occupying IRAQ: a Department of Defense so corrupted by private commercial defense contractors, that you could almost say that the Pentagon had been privatized: a U.S. Army stretched so thin, and whose recruitment and retention is presently so low, you could say it was "broken": a Justice Department so politicized, that our next President's first order of DOJ business should be to fumigate that Department, and purge it of every last George W. Bush appointee and hire: and the seriousness and the importance and the difficulty (and even the danger) of prying our many Intelligence agencies (the CIA most of all) from the private and political influences that have corrupted them to so great a degree of our misfortune (and danger), is also the work of our next President.
These are the things that make our next President to require our help support and assistance, to a degree too great to overestimate, in solving problems and meeting challenges that are perhaps unlike any that a new U.S. President has ever inherited (and now you see why I said that perhaps George W. Bush is excluded from this required help support and assistance, it being the negligence and incompetence and misdeeds and crimes even, of his administration, that will plague and challenge the next administration, from it's first day, it's first hour).
I would alter what President Clinton said, from...
BILL CLINTON: "Well, in the -- you could argue that no one's ever ready to be president"
...to: "You could argue that no one is absolutely ready to be the 44th U.S. President. The next President faces challenges and problems that even Generals (and Presidents) Washington and Eisenhower might think difficult. Perhaps only Presidents Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt inherited a more unstable and plagued U.S. Government, than will the 44th President inherit. And so I think the 44th U.S. President will need all of our help, and to a great degree: not because of who that 44th President will be, but because of who the 43rd U.S. president was... a man whose help in this matter we do not expect, nor would we in good conscience even allow: as he and Dick Cheney have already done enough to the American People, and to their Federal Government. The return of the U.S. Government to the service and National Security of the American People, shall require the efforts and support of all those People, me (President Clinton) especially."
Nice,
I agree.
Though I do not think anything Clinton said was in any way inappropriate.
But yes, what the next President will inheret is beyond belief.
I am not convinced that Obama will clean it asll up though given his FISA capitulation and some of his advisors advocating for non prosecution for this administration.
I find that completely unacceptable.
He, and many others in "leadership" within the democratic party seem to believe that the result of impeachment/charges/prosecution etc. will result in "not getting anything done" and partisan gridlock.
As if reinstating the Constitution, finding out exactly what went down in this administration and being transparent enough to let the American people know what was done in our name is getting nothing done! We should let the world know as well. Not just for the humiliation but to show that the whole country isn't corrupt and that we in fact do hold those in power and no one is above the law. That alone would help us to regain some respect and standing in the world and would create a more hospitable and co-operative global environment.
As far as partisan gridlock goes start the narrative now and hold all those who would fight the upholding of the law and the constitution responsible-- shame them into doing what is right if necessary- though shaming Neo_Cons may be a difficult task, just like the current administration they seem to have no shame.
I'm sure there are ways to convince them that it is in their best interest to hold the criminals accountable- Maybe full page ads in their homestates and districts recounting all they say and do to put up roadblocks.
Be transparent and keep the citizenry informed (which means getting rid of the current crop of journalists and punditry.)
Personally, I wouldn't be above a little blackmail and propaganda against some of these people!
LOL
Ok Dem, time to back up these statements with some facts...
Department of Defense so corrupted by private commercial defense contractors, that you could almost say that the Pentagon had been privatized: a U.S. Army stretched so thin, and whose recruitment and retention is presently so low, you could say it was "broken":
You may not like private contractors with our armed forces, but that genie is out of the bottle and will NEVER be stuffed back in. Get used to it. I can tell you from my own experience that as soon as KBR showed up quality of life went up. I know that doesn't jibe with the lefts world view of life in the green zone, but the truth hurts sometimes.
As for your tired left wing talking point about retention rates, well the facts speak louder than a Rev Wright sermon:
Retention rates for '06
Info for "07
Retention rates for '08
Being a Clinton means NEVER being right. If Bill Clinton is willing to campaign for Obama, Clinton has a tremendous ego and how dare he presume that Obama can't win without him? If he doesn't campaign for Obama,Clinton is petulant and immature and has an ego si big he refuses to accept that his time has passed.
If Clinton's actual words don't match the story you want to write, take snippets of what he said out of context, or simply make them up. It's also OK to falsely attribute to a Clinton motives, thoughts and emotions, as long as such attribution bolsters whichever myth you want to prepetrate.
Being a Clinton also means that in the eyes of the pundits and reporters, you just can't win.
MSNBC Pulls Race Card
I believe it was Contessa Brewer, who in defense of John McCain's stumbling attempt to answer a question about support for the MLK holiday, played a tape with Barack Obama dancing to black music. After showing the tape, she asked her guest if Obama's dancing went too far. This tape of Obama dancing was in 2004, so Brewer had to dig it up. It appears, because no one picked up on it, she got away with saying any acceptance of Black culture may be cause for concern if you want to be president.
I would of backed this up with video footage, I could not find it. Those of you who know how to capture previous news footage may have a better way of finding the video. It was taped on the 8/4/2008 in the morning.
Joseph