E-Mails Show CNN Analyst Paul Begala Went to State Dept. for Pro-Hillary Talking Points In 2009

July 2nd, 2015 9:14 AM

CNN has rarely shied away from hiring White House insiders as their political analysts, and have seemingly never wondered or cared if those insiders are still carrying water on air for their old bosses. Now new e-mails released from Team Hillary illustrate that longtime CNN analyst and longtime Clintonista Paul Begala went straight to the State Department for talking points.

Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple explored how newly released e-mails reveal the spin stream. The New York Times highlighted an exchange between Begala and State Department officials in advance of his appearance on CNN on April 29, 2009 for a  “report card” special  at the 100-day mark.

 

 

Begala asked Hillary aide/pal Capricia Marshall:

Who at State should I talk to about getting a briefing on what HRC has accomplished in the first hundred days? CNN is doing special coverage all night tomorrow night, and we’ll be rating HRC as well as the President. Any ideas who I should contact and how to reach her/him?

Thanks.
Paul.

Wemple then picked up the thread:

An official responded by CC’ing a number of State Department spin doctors.

The day after the “report card” broadcast, Begala checked in with his people: “I gave Sec. Clinton an A+ in our dopey CNN report card last night. So did Donna Brazile. The only two A+’s all night.”

According to Nexis, Begala actually gave Clinton’s foreign policy a plain old “A.”

....Aside from that, he said, the new secretary was cruising: “This is a job she did not want to take. And the president had to talk her into it,” said Begala in conversation with Anderson Cooper. “Now she’s traveled more miles than any new president’s secretary of state in history. She’s been 70,000 miles, all the way around the world. And a complete reconfiguration of American foreign policy, all in 100 days, without any feuds with Secretary Gates, a very strong defense secretary, General Jones, a very strong national security adviser, Susan Rice, a very strong U.N. ambassador, and these special envoys. This has been a remarkable team effort. illary ought to get a high grade for that.”

Wemple had an e-mail interview with Begala:

Anything wrong with all of this? “What — was I supposed to ask the Interior Department about what the State Department is doing?” asked Begala in a chat with the Erik Wemple Blog. Though he acknowledges he’s no reporter, “there’s nothing wrong with getting the facts,” he says. Fair enough, but what Begala got were talking points, which he showcased on air and then reported back to Clintonistas later on. Part of the reason for the research is that Begala, though an expert on White House political maneuvering, isn’t as steeped in foreign policy and diplomacy. “It’s not my beat,” says Begala, noting that sending e-mails to Clinton’s team at State was an “exceedingly” rare occasion.

"Exceedingly rare" is what Clintonistas say when they've been caught once. If there's anyone in politics to inspire cynicism, it's the Clintons. Begala also claimed “It’s dopey to assess anything after 100 days,” but “Believe me, I love this job,” he says of his CNN gig.

That didn't mean he wasn't helping Hillary on the political side, as the New York Times story noted near the end:

While an ostensibly nonpartisan figure as secretary, Mrs. Clinton clearly still worried about retiring her $23 million campaign debt from 2008. “Thank you so very much!!!” her chief of protocol, Capricia Marshall, wrote to Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton friend and Democratic strategist, in April 2009. “We raised 500K from the email contest!! You are all amazing — the world adores you!” She added, “You put a serious hole in HRC debt!”

Wemple found that while Begala would talk, the CNN PR team were quiet corporate mice: "CNN declined to comment on the record on this matter. We’re waiting for a response to our request for on-the-record comment explaining why they won’t comment on-the-record for this routine story."

They look about as stringent on blurring the lines between journalism and politics as MSNBC.