Battered by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama might be up against the ropes, but he can count on having Good Morning America in his corner to apply a refreshing sponge and send him back into the ring. Check out Robin Roberts's softballs to the Illinois senator this morning, followed by even more surprising comment -- and body language -- from George Stephanopoulos.
View video here.
The focus was the way Bill Clinton has been going after Obama. Questions from Robin Roberts:
- In a Newsweek article that's coming out this week, prominent Democrats are saying that what he is doing is inappropriate, an inappropriate role for a former president to take such an aggressive role. Do you think it is inappropriate, the role he has taken?
- Anything else that you want to set the record straight that he said one thing about you, and you're now saying that's false?
- [After Obama said he had two formidable opponents, Bill and Hillary] Do you feel at times you're taking on two candidates at one time?
- You're there in Atlanta, you spoke on Sunday, Dr. King's church, Martin Luther King Day. Just your thoughts on the holiday and what you think Dr. King would think of your candidacy?
If Roberts' softballs were unsurprising, more striking were two reactions about his former boss from George Stephanopoulos. The first came, during his conversation with Diane Sawyer, in the guise of a variation on one of Bill Clinton's most infamous lines.
DIANE SAWYER: Not just what Senator Obama said, but reports in Newsweek that leading Democrats including Ted Kennedy have sent word to the former president that they don't think it's appropriate for him to be on the attack this way. Is he going to stop?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It depends on what the meaning of "stop" is, Diane.
A bit later, Sawyer played the clip of Obama's statement about the Reagan era, followed by the video of Bill Clinton utterly distorting the senator's words while assuring the crowd "I'm not making this up, folks." Watch as Stephanopoulos shakes his head in reaction to Clinton's dissembling [2:01 into clip linked above]. Sorrow, dismay . . . disgust?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't know what's
January 21, 2008 - 10:13 ET by motherbeltI don't know what's worse...pretending that Robin Roberts is serious journalist or pretending that George Stephanopolous can be impartial when talking about the Clintons.
I don't care what he says; George not only drank the Kool-Aid, he mixed it and poured it and distributed it, for crying out loud. Why anyone thinks he can be impartial now is completely beyond me. Every time his mug appears onscreen, in the interest of full disclosure there should be a caption that says "former Clinton staffer." Why does the network think that information is irrelevant?
I said it in another thread: can anyone remotely imagine someone like Mary Matalin being given the same "she's an impartial journalist now" treatment by the networks?
Hill, Bill and George
January 21, 2008 - 10:36 ET by qapilotI don't know that George Stephanopolous is going to automatically defend the Clintons. From what I understand, neither of the Clintons are the most pleasant people to work with / for. It's quite possible that George might have to reign-in his anti-Clinton perspective when he has to go on the air! (It's no secret that not all was roses between George and the Clintons when he was at the White House, and it got worse after he left.)
What is telling, but not surprising, is the dishonesty of the Clintons following Obama's remarks about the GOP during the Reagan years. Bill Clinton lied outright about what Obama said. ABC proved it (amazingly), but George would only call it 'going beyond' what Obama said. Clinton totally changed the meaning of what Obama was saying. He is a liar (still), and now the Clinton campaign is covering for him. Don't expect the media to make a big deal of this either. Absolutely amazing.
George is who he is.
January 21, 2008 - 11:14 ET by motherbeltI don't know that he was doing anything other than what any other MSM "journalist" would do, by saying only that Clinton "went beyond" what Obama said. They all fudge like that (don't want to be "judgmental" and say someone lied, you know). And he does occasionally criticize them. But, in spite of the fact that he may have "seen the light," the point is that Stephanopolous is who he is. He carried the Clintons' water for a lot of years, and the network should disclose that.
Stephanopolous follows a rich tradition
January 21, 2008 - 11:52 ET by ThalpyStephanopolous follows a rich tradition of political hacks at ABC. The Left's Who's Who hold countless positions a ABC, CBS, and others. As motherbelt has said, it isn't surprising that Stephanopolous can't be impartial; Stephanopolous IS the Left. From Morton Halperin, the Pentagon Papers, Soviet spy Philip Agee, Mark Halperin (ABC Political News Director), Soros, the Clintons- I thought I had awakened from a dream and it was the 1960s all over again. The 60s didn't go away, the Soviets didn't go away, and many others from the Left didn't go away. They are waiting with their Orwellian vision of our future- "a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
You mean "left-wing"
January 21, 2008 - 19:32 ET by JerYou mean "left-wing" political hacks like George Will, Bill Kristol, David Brinkley? Also, Mark Halperin is far from being a flaming liberal.
And, as previously pointed out, Stephanopolous wasn't exactly at the top of the Clinton's Christmas card list by the time he left the administratio.
Jer
Will & Kristol are not on the networks and none of the others
January 22, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Dee Bunkyou mention are conservative. Bill Kristol isn't even really a true conservative - he's a very liberal conservative (Neo Con).
Just because a liberal didn't like Bill Clinton, that doesn't make them conservative. In fact, it makes them a smart liberal because Clinton was about Clinton - not liberal causes. Clinton campaigned against NAFTA and then signed it, he let the Republican's programs like Welfare reform and the balanced budget go through, and did other things that were not liberal that would have been noticed by anyone paying attention.
Mark Halperin is the one with the infamous letter to his staff telling them to not treat mis-statements by the Kerry campaign equally with mis-statements by Bush's. He and Stephanopolous both have strong ties to the Dem Party.
George Will not on the
January 22, 2008 - 09:42 ET by JerGeorge Will not on the network? Then, apparently there is an imposter on ABC's This Week every Sunday. Bill Kristol, a staunch conservative, was on ABC and now on Fox. Brinkley was a Republican and was on ABC. Now he is dead.
I don't believe Clinton ever campaigned against NAFTA. My recollection is that he consistently supported the legislation. He did campaign on welfare reform and a balanced budget...that's why he worked with the Republicans in Congress and signed the bills. Plenty of people paid attention, and he caught a lot of flack from liberals. It demonstrated leadership.
Stephanopolous had ties to the Democratic party, but less ties than former FNS moderator Tony Snow had to Republicans.
If you read excerpts from Mark Halperin's latest book [I don't have the title handy], it will be clear he is not beholding to liberals.
Jer
Jer - you must be real far left wing and FOX IS NOT A NETWORK
January 22, 2008 - 20:40 ET by Dee BunkiT'S CABLE and we know that FOX allows both conservatives and liberals. They are not the problem.
ON THE NETWORKS, the one or two token conservatives are dwarfed by the liberals and the Anchor or Moderator is always liberal. There is no comparison.
I don't care what Halperin's book said, his letter trying to influence the Presidential election proves he's no conservative. I know he has ties to the Dem party. I looked him up back when that whole thing happened. I'm not doing it again. You can.
I don't watch This Week - Isn't that George Stephopompas's show? Is Will the token conservative? We are supposed to be happy with that? That doesn't cut it. You are saying that Kristol was there before him so that is still one spot and again Kristol is a very liberal conservative.
Clinton totally did the double talk on NAFTA. I saw a documentary not that long ago that even had footage of him talking to Union Guys about NAFTA and making it sound like he wouldn't support it. Clinton a leader? You have to be kidding. Signing a few Republican Bills makes him a leader? I think The Family Leave Act is about the only thing he can claim leadership on.
motherbelt,
January 21, 2008 - 19:15 ET by R D HelmGeorge not only drank the Kool-Aid, he mixed it and poured it and distributed it,...
LOL-You left out that Little Georgie bathed in the stuff, as well.
-It probably started when he was about six years of age, I am guessing.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
"Oh, that scamp, Bill
January 21, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Chris Norman"Oh, that scamp, Bill Clinton...".
Chris - What is amazing is that they are just realizing this now
January 21, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Dee BunkBill Clinton has always been a classless President and ex President. Liberals measure class by how well someone orates and how they look. They could careless about how truthful the person is or how they treat others. The only reason they care now is because Obama is cuter and a better orator.
"reporters"
January 21, 2008 - 11:41 ET by dronetekThese so called "reporters" are sounding more and
more like campaign strategists for the different candidates.
Oh, they've been veritable
January 21, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Chris NormanOh, they've been veritable campaign advisors for years now.
body language -- from George
January 21, 2008 - 11:40 ET by CarlosSBet he was thinking..., "I'm glad I won't have to explain that whopper away"
I loved the "It depends on what the meaning of Stop is"
January 21, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Dee BunkI loved the "It depends on what the meaning of Stop is" comment though.
Dee, couldn't reply to you
January 21, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Chris NormanDee, couldn't reply to you above, but the MSM would have absolutely skewered a Republican like, say, George H W Bush, if he'd involved himself in his son's 2000 and 2004 campaigns. But with Bill Clinton, competing with Hillary to suck up whatever's left of the oxygen in the room, they just smile, chuckle, and say, "Well, that's him, for ya...". And so, they get away with another outrageous thing...
Chris - Anything that is brought up by the far left
January 21, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Dee Bunkthe media give it a strong voice. The same type of thing brought up by mainstream Republicans is ignored as not news worthy. They never talked critically about Carter and Clinton running around undermining Bush even though it was a clearly inappropriate. It was especially tacky of Clinton since he had the same opinions about Iraq when he was President.
GHWB has stayed out of everything and acted with the way a proper ex- President should.
Chris, I watched the video,
January 21, 2008 - 12:54 ET by motherbeltChris, I watched the video, as you probably did. Did you notice that Stephanopolous referred to "the Clintons and their campaign" and later in his talk, Bill Clinton referred to "our principal opponent."
This is very a much a "buy one get one free" deal where anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton is giving tacit approval to having her husband back running things too. They are clearly running as a pair. No one should have any doubt about that.
I think Obama was being a little bit gracious when he referred to their respective spouses supporting their candicacy. Bill Clinton has a lot more clout than Michelle Obama, and he has every intention of using his clout to paint his wife as his chosen successor.
Or not.....well on his "pro-Hillary" days, anyway...
mb and db,I find the
January 21, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Chris Normanmb and db,
I find the fawning cheerleading by the media for both Obama and Hillary to be so absurd that I don't where to even begin. Any criticism of Hillary by the media is a "1" on the severity scale, especially compared with the way Republicans are treated at "8-10". It usually involves secondary issues or campaign tactics - nothing serious like seedy financing or huge money proposals. The most serious criticism of Obama would be probably along the lines of "he's too intelligent and eloquent" - that is, if there was any criticsm. We cringe at the thought of another eight years of the Punch and Judy show, but what really makes me cringe, is the fact that there are those out there who are actually fondly looking forward to it. That we have a media who checked their ethics at the door when it comes to Dem coverage is also cringe inducing.
Well said Chris
January 21, 2008 - 16:17 ET by Dee BunkThe crying by the Clinton's is justified though because the media won't ask Obama any hard questions or make him state specific issues. It's exactly what we have to deal with only the Dem Candidate is treated like Obama and the Republican is Demonized like Hillary is to a power of 10.
Just like so many naive citizens, the Press equates the Dem party as being altruistic and for the people and Republicans as people who only care about business and money. They just can't understand how business doing well is what actually helps the people. The Dems are all for the super rich (Hollywood,musicians, artists etc..) as long as their wealth doesn't trickle down. It's crazy.
Who's really in Charge
January 21, 2008 - 15:45 ET by richardDoes anyone actually believe that Bill is campaigning for Hillary?
Hillary is nothing more than a surrogate for him to get a third term as president because he is not legally able to run himself.
You can see how this is so, when they are together on the same stage speaking. He always takes front and center and she stands obediently back and to the side of him, shaking her head in agreement with his BS statements, like a trained seal. She won't take a dump without his approval.
Ready from day one, my ass. The only thing she'll be ready to do from day one is to ask Bill what to do next!
To which he'll reply, "Let's
January 21, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Chris NormanTo which he'll reply, "Let's get Carville to check on what the focus group says...".
Right on, Chris...
January 21, 2008 - 15:56 ET by richardHow foolish of me to think that Bill would ever make a call on anything w/o "Cue Ball" head and his henchmen first checking to see how the winds are blowing.
Thanks Bill Clinton
January 21, 2008 - 11:58 ET by deerjerkydaveI want to personally thank Bill Clinton for alienating Barack Obama. This means that Baracka will not want to join the Clintons on the ticket as a VP which is only good for Republicans.
BTW could you imagine Hillary winning, and Bill wandering the White House telling the VP and everybody else what to do? Bill would bark his orders "I was President of the United States, do what I say!" Even if I was a Democrat I wouldn't want to be a part of that thank you.
Old bill and hill and their helpers
January 21, 2008 - 13:30 ET by docbI have been on the Skype/net with foreign clients and there are some interesting thoughts coming out of the EU.
There is concern over a US recession but more to the point is the fear of our political candidates and what the perceived weakness's would mean to the stabilty of the world. Many of my clients[finance] have the jitters. The english and french hate clinton. Feel that McCain may be too much a hawk and Rominy too slick. Just thought I would pass this on.
Now I have the news on-- and have heard repeated comments on the fact that bclinton is out of control and distorting facts about his wifes opponent. US politics has been dirty historically but I am beginning to wonder if this is another clinton political ploy. Making bclinton the attack dog does two things: They get their point out and she gets to play the victim and get the sympathy of the voter for having to deal with a crazy spouse. Couple that with her victim stance regarding the Lewinsky anniversary appearance on a national talk show and it could mean big pity votes. Especially with the low knowledge base she is attracting.
Stepphie has been in the clinton camp for many years--he has never been able to help himself..Look how twisty he gets when Geo. Will makes a comment in truth and He immediately says: But don't you think....to protect clinton.
We must remember with the Media it is __ACCESS--ACCESS--ACCESS.
While I would not vote for Barack Obama
January 21, 2008 - 19:27 ET by R D HelmWhile I would not vote for Barack Obama if he were running for head garbage collector, I must reluctantly admit that I am kind of starting to like the guy. If for no other reason than he has thrown a really big, hairy monkey-wrench into Broom Hilda's expected coronation.
And the fact that Diane Sawyer, who I have no use for whatsoever, is tossing powder puffs at the guy must have Broom Hilda climbing the walls.
That is a good thing.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Oh, absolutely, RD. Her
January 21, 2008 - 20:20 ET by motherbeltOh, absolutely, RD. Her Royal Clintoness expected to cruise to the nomination just like she sailed into the NY Senate race by kicking Nita Lowey, who was set to run for that seat, to the curb. Then along comes Obama, who is not only bright, but clean and articulate, to quote Joe Biden.
New suits for the campaign.....XXX dollars
Travel expenses.....................XXX dollars
Campaign staff salaries..........XXX dollars
"Agita" caused to the Clintons.......Priceless.