
There was a truly fascinating event on Sunday's "Meet the Press" that could definitely have lasting meaning on the 2008 presidential campaign.
Not only did host Tim Russert bring up former President Bill Clinton's flip-flop on his support of the Iraq war, but also NBC's David Gregory said, "It's a reminder of what some people who don't like Hillary Clinton don't like."
Maybe Bill shouldn't have complained about how his wife was treated by Russert and Gregory during the October debate in Philadelphia.
Possibly recalling the former president's criticism, Russert started this fascinating exchange (video available here courtesy Allah):
Bill Clinton, one of the best campaigners in the history of American politics, an asset to the Clinton campaign, this week, even members of her own, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff got upset. He went out on the campaign trail and offered these comments about the Iraq war.
Russert then played the video clip of Bill saying, "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," and after which showed a quote of Bill's from May 18, 2003: "I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Moments later, Gregory stated:
Well, the question is what is the answer to what a lot of Democrats don't like about George Bush? You know, the certainty of George Bush, or the stubbornness of George Bush? Is the answer what a lot of critics of the Clintons say, a Clintonian way to approach issues, sort of too cute by half, a little calculating? And that's what his appear, his answer appeared to be on the Iraq war. It's what her answered appeared to be on the driver's license questions in the debate in Philadelphia. So, it's a reminder of what some people who don't like Hillary Clinton don't like.
How delicious.
*****Update: Allah's exit question..."Are we looking at Huckabee vs. Obama?"
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I think
December 2, 2007 - 13:24 ET by capavNBC is rooting for Obama. I've noticed in the past few months that NBC (especially the Today show), tends to talk about the downsides of Clinton and lean toward Obama. Matt Lauer really sounds like an Obama fan. Chris Matthews doesn't like her. Keith O.? He kisses every Democrat's butt!
Let's not forget Joe over on
December 2, 2007 - 14:00 ET by AJSHOPELet's not forget Joe over on MSNBC railing on Clinton and her campaign 2 or 3 days in a row.
Delicious, Indeed...too cute by half
December 2, 2007 - 13:32 ET by BlondeI particularly liked this comment:
Is the answer what a lot of critics of the Clintons say, a Clintonian way to approach issues, sort of too cute by half, a little calculating?
I think old drunken Dave has been reading NB's....and is quoting our friend Bigtimer. She's going to laugh her head off when she reads this one.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Thanks
December 2, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Jerry MackThanks for posting this Noel. I saw the program this morning and thought that I was hallucinating!
Don't ever get into a fight with media
December 2, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Lame CherryThe Clinton's when they had the protective panty shield of the cartel got away with lying, bashing the press and just being plain idiots. Now that they are on the outside looking in, Hillary and her people should have just smiled at Russert and said he really did a good job "HONING HER FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" and declared a Walter Mondale victory and moved on to defeat.
Instead NBC and it's spawn MSNBC has been chosen by the cartel to bring down Hillary, promote the undynamic duo of Obama and Edwards to stalemate to leave an opening for Gore.
Russert is an olde Irish (name usually followed in bars) who never forgets a slight like his dad taught him. Nancy Gregory who hates everyone will always join in on the hen fight seeking stardom.
If this was a military battle, Hillary's flanks have been turned, her middle is soft and she has about two wings that will crumple if you have another couple of weeks of Bill deliberately sinking her campaign.
Hillary is through and she knows it. I have no idea as I have not inquired who will win Democrat or GOP in 2008, but at least with Al Gore in there I know he will pull the trigger and kill American enemies with effect........while Obama, Edwards would try talking them to our deaths again and Hillary would just nuke the whole bunch and start real problems.
So go Timmy and Davey, they tried blackmailing you but the globalists saved you to be their shills........and now you get your pound of whopper Clinton flesh.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
MSM is starting to realize Hillary may be a loser....
December 2, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Missouri ConservativeFirst and foremost, the media wants a Democrat to win badly. Their first choice is probably Clinton, but really they'll take anybody as long as they are not a Republican. I believe that much of the drive-by media has begun to realize that Hillary may not be electable and they are starting to shift their allegiances and pull for Obama. Now, they can't be too overt about it, because Hillary keeps a good deal of their respective testicles in a lockbox, but little by little, there are hints of them pulling for Obama.
As a conservative and loyal Republican, I think we should be rooting for Clinton. Obama would be a tough guy to beat.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
My thoughts exactly MC.
December 2, 2007 - 15:17 ET by JerryMy thoughts exactly MC. First and foremost, Russert & Gregory are Democrats. First and foremost, they want a Democrat to win the election. They have seen the polls that show Hillary would lose to just about any Republican. They realize that they need to ease Hillary out and then try and make another Democrat electable.
I don't know about Obama being that tough to beat. What does he bring to the democrat table that they don't already have. He would sew up the black vote, but they already have that. He would sew up the muslim vote, but they already have that. He would sew up the "Oprah" vote, but they already have that. He would sew up the liberally indoctrinated college vote, but once again, already theirs. Zero experience.. zero accomplishments.. Radical Islamic background to gloss over..... Let the games begin!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Secret Polling?
December 2, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Del DolemonteMy guess is that there are some internal poll numbers that show Mrs. Bill isn't as "inevitable" as she thinks she is.
Russert is a bum and Hairhat
December 2, 2007 - 14:12 ET by buddycRussert is a bum and Hairhat is a loser. I am glad they are eating their own.
This is what they do
December 2, 2007 - 17:56 ET by celatorThis is what they do. They detest each other are jealous of one another and constantly plot against each other. Wouldn't you like to see the opposition research (the dirt) they have one each other? Being democrats, they can hardly wait to throw the mud on other D candidates. This is going to get very funny before it's over.
"Delicious" is a delicious
December 2, 2007 - 14:43 ET by motherbelt"Delicious" is a delicious description of this situation. Would've commented sooner, but I had to look out the window and check for flying pigs.
I think that Mr. former President is going to become more and more a thorn in his wife's side before this campaign is over. His complete self-absorption simply makes it impossible for him not to construct every appearance and utterance around himself. In his speeches he buildes himself up. And the more he talks, the more he reminds us of all that we were glad to be done with when his terms were up.
Look at all the talk a couple of days ago...in a speech he gave, supposedly to build up his wife, he used the words "I" and "Me" almost 100 times, and metioned his wife less than 10. All the pundits were talking about it. I'll bet there was a lot of "colorful" language and lamp-throwing when the two of them got together in private.
And as much as she needs to do it, I think she is incapable of shutting him down completely. I know there was a lot of talk before about how she really ran things and told him what to do and not to do, but I think those days are past. And I think he simply can't help himself. It's who he is.
Look at all the talk a
December 2, 2007 - 16:08 ET by MidAmericaLook at all the talk a couple of days ago...in a speech he gave, supposedly to build up his wife, he used the words "I" and "Me" almost 100 times, and metioned his wife less than 10.
Billy has a problem with no good answer. He is already overshadowed by the Bush's as far as history is concerned. Hillarious is running as though she helped run billies term in order to tout her 'experience'. If she get's elected and has a more historical presidency than bill he will further recede in historical memory and suspicion will grow that his term was really hillary all along.
MidAmerica...when I said
December 2, 2007 - 17:56 ET by motherbeltMidAmerica...when I said she told him what to do, I meant politically, not in governance. I think he listened to her but made the big decisions himself. I don't think anyone will ever think that his presidency was really hers. But I think there is a great danger, and a great fear in her, that people will think her presidency, should she be elected, would be really his, with her as a puppet.
That's why she really needs to get him to shut up. If he can't now, there is NO reason to think he would if she were president. Frankly, I think it would be hilarious, but I'm not willing to put up with Madame President to be entertained by it.
I agree. They both have
December 2, 2007 - 19:52 ET by MidAmericaI agree. They both have the same problem because they have blurred the line on who did what. We'll have to wait till all the papers are released. But for a president to be remembered historically something big has to happen. A president has to alter the course of history. Which means, of course, jimmuh is a more historical president (and we are still cleaning up the mess) than bill. Being a good campaigner just ain't enough. So should hillary and the dems win and set us on the course of socialized medicine plus all the other schemes she has hinted at, in the future when somebody mentions President Clinton, it won't be bill they are talking about. He will be a footnote.
But Bill can't afford to shut up
December 2, 2007 - 23:12 ET by RJEvery time the Hildebeast says she helped Bill run the government, it diminishes his personal Presidental "legacy", and he knows it.
It's a rock and a hard place. He either helps the Hildebeast win or he toots his own horn. I think that dilemna is what caused him to lie about his support for going into Iraq.
Incomplete pass
December 3, 2007 - 11:11 ET by pbanks7I think a large part of the story is that they are no longer shaking their heads in amazement at what he gets away with while giving him a pass. NB influence, perhaps?
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
I'll bet there was a lot of
December 2, 2007 - 22:56 ET by FishFace222I'll bet there was a lot of "colorful" language and lamp-throwing when the two of them got together in private.
I'm not sure these 2 have ever had private time together--being they have a marriage of convenience and all. Hillary probably isn't afraid to throw lamps and such with people around.
-
December 2, 2007 - 14:26 ET by dahliatraversMaybe Bill shouldn't have complained about how his wife was treated by Russert and Gregory during the October debate in Philadelphia.
Not only was he wrong, he unnecessarily made enemies in the media. Big mistake.
dahlia, they are both like
December 2, 2007 - 14:37 ET by motherbeltdahlia, they are both like kids who have been accustomed to having their own way. When things change, it throws their whole universe out of kilter, and they react with a tantrum.
-
December 2, 2007 - 16:17 ET by dahliatraversYes, MB. Too bad they can't just call it as they see it more often.
... although in this case, it is kind of fun that they threw a tantrum.
dahlia, I was talking
December 2, 2007 - 17:46 ET by motherbeltdahlia, I was talking about the Clintons; I think you were talking about the media throwing a tantrum at them?
If so, I think we are both right...it fits both ways. And you're right..either way it's fun to watch!
-
December 2, 2007 - 20:37 ET by dahliatraversOops, my bad!
H'mm, how can we get the Clintons to tick off some of the newspapers ...?
Maybe Bill shouldn't have
December 3, 2007 - 04:06 ET by Intellectual HonestyMaybe Bill shouldn't have complained about how his wife was treated by Russert and Gregory during the October debate in Philadelphia.
The explicit complaints were not only from Bill but Hillary's campign manager (or PR person) and a couple other flunkies.
The moment I read about the complaints I thought, "This is dumb. You are only drawing attention to the points that Russert made by using some empirical data (direct quotes, clips).
It additionally came across as a "see what happens to women candidates" which is slowly but surely a defense that is losing ground in America.
Katrina Van der Hoor wouldn't call Bill Clinton a liar today
December 2, 2007 - 15:01 ET by RJon George Stephanopolis' show, but she was perfectly willing to flatly call Karl Rove a liar on lesser validation.
Van der Hoor also (unbelievably!) said that Mike Huckabee is unconstitutionally using Romney's religion against him....because, with no reference or allusion to Romney, he called himself a Christian in an ad.
Once again the smirking Van der Hoor proves that she's nothing but a mouthpiece for the most extreme element of the far left.....
That piggish smile
December 2, 2007 - 17:44 ET by celator"Once again the smirking Van der Hoor proves that she's nothing but
a mouthpiece for the most extreme element of the far left....."
For sure. She has a perpetual piggish smirk on her face which reminds me of Jack Nickleson in one of his crazy roles. She's an extremely strange human being.
It looks like the press has their man.
December 2, 2007 - 17:16 ET by pbthinkerIt looks like the press has their man, Obama, picked out as the favorite. It's interesting to watch the difference in how they're watching Hillary like a hawk and letting Obama slide.
If Hillary wins one, my bet will be the press will, once again, fawn all over her and leave Obama on the fence post.
Bill is still a liar, but we knew that. Isn't it funny how all those lies he told, that he thought he got away with, are coming back to look him in the eye!
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Selective honesty...
December 2, 2007 - 19:48 ET by Parker1227...should only be celebrated with due circumspection.
While I admit to a fair amount schadenfreude over this internal bloodletting, it remains a sad state of affairs when supposed truth seekers (reporters) decide to point out Bill Clinton's obvious duplicity (conman nature) only when they believe it serves their political agenda - defeating Republicans.
This selective honesty shines a spotlight on the MSM's everyday preference for ideology over truth.
Just look at the herd mentality over Al Gore's Global Warming fanaticism.
Outstanding Observation
December 2, 2007 - 20:44 ET by timzankparker1227...You make an excellent point....
Good observation, Parker1227
December 2, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Cape Conservativeand well stated! Those journalism schools are really turning out some doozies!