ABC: America 'Completely Agrees' With Dems on Iraq

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
March 26, 2007 - 08:23 ET

Town hall or pep rally? Hard to tell, judging from the first half-hour of Hillary's appearance on Good Morning America today. Host Robin Roberts lavished praise on Hillary, suggested there's unanimous support for the Dem Iraq policy, and fielded only one audience question -- which came from someone who worked on Hillarycare in 1993 and beseeched Clinton to try it again as president.

GMA today kicked off its series of Town Hall meetings with the presidential candidates. This one, featuring Hillary, was located in Des Moines, Iowa. During the opening schmooze, Hillary, speaking of Iraq, stated: "I'm very proud that all the Democrats are saying the same thing and that's what we should all be working toward, and that's to begin to change this policy and get us on the right track."
ROBERTS: That is something that I think the country completely agrees on, on both sides about that.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Sorry, Robin, but not everyone "completely agrees" with the Democrats on withdrawal and surrender. Many people want to give the new policy for victory in Iraq, which is showing some hopeful-if-early signs of success, a chance to work.

Later, discussing health care, Roberts enthused: "what you said then, in '93, many people felt it was just in some way ahead of its time." Yes, tragically, too many Americans back then were insufficiently enlightened to embrace socialist utopia. But let's keep hope alive. The one audience question in that first half-hour came from a doctor who in 1993 worked on the Clinton Health Care Task Force. His heartfelt plea: "if elected president, Senator Clinton, would you be willing to try again?"

Talk about your hard-hitting question!

And yes, Hillary allowed that indeed, "I certainly would."

Can we expect to see similarly sypmathetic treatment when Republicans eventually get their Town Hall turn?

UPDATE: It wasn't until the second half-hour that ABC disclosed that 45 members of the audience had been hand-picked by Hillary's campaign. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that among them was that first questioner, the former member of Hillary's health care task force.

Every question was of the "how can government grow and give us more?' variety. Again, that first doctor wanted to know if Hillary would "provide" health care to all Americans. The second questioner, in the 7:30 AM ET half-hour, asked what Hillary would do "to make sure that no American has to choose between bankruptcy and basic health care?"

The next question was from a teacher who described herself as "a working-class woman, a typical underpaid teacher." She wanted to know "why do the people of Congress get the Cadillace of medical policies and pension plans whereas there's a lot of us struggling to get by?" Hillary answered that she wants to open the congressional plan to everyone.

Later, a college student, in a video clip, asked Hillary what she would do to provide health care coverage to students. Among other things, Hillary suggested forcing insurers to extend the period during which they cover children.

Turning to veteran's health care, a veteran asked "What type of a plan do you have in place to ensure that the overwhelming number of injured service members that they're going to remain a top priority in 10, 15 years?" Hillary proposed "guaranteed, mandatory funding for the V.A."

Every audience question was right in Hillary's wheel house. If this was as tough as it was going to get, Hillary could have stayed home on her Georgetown couch and taped another one of her chatty spots. Again, we'll see if things stay as copacetic when Republican candidates have their GMA Town Hall moments.

Note: the closest ABC came to tough treatment was running the clip of Hillary in 1993, from which the second screencap here is taken.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"..commpletely agree on.

March 26, 2007 - 08:37 ET by Edhenry

"..commpletely agree on.."   "some say"  "the debate on global warming is over"

How naked and weak are these journalists?

We'll see how nice and loving

March 26, 2007 - 08:40 ET by I am conservative

We'll see how nice and loving they are when it's Rudy's turn.....

Robin Roberts needs an enema...

Liberals will kill this country, it's what they want

"That is something that I thi

March 26, 2007 - 08:46 ET by Nortonalec

"That is something that I think the country completely agrees on, on both sides about that."
Replace "country" with newsroom or cafeteria.
Nortonalec

I'm sorry to sound sexist,

March 26, 2007 - 08:55 ET by motherbelt

I'm sorry to sound sexist, but women "reporters" should NOT be allowed to interview Hillary Clinton. They are SO into the idea of her being President just because she is a woman that they can't possibly hide it. Mostly they don't even try!

Talk about your hard-hitting interview! SHEESH!

I agree

March 26, 2007 - 11:00 ET by iveseenitall

Agreed, motherbelt. Look at Couric's "interview" with Edwards and his wife. I think Edwards is a fool and would never vote for him myself, but come on, they were crucified by Couric. Guess what , she supports Hillary and would never do that to her. But Couric's a liberal who would eat her own to get what she wants. Women who are rabid feminists only care about that and see nothing else.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

World View

March 26, 2007 - 09:07 ET by allanf

Sadly, the world view of most of these "journalists" consists of their friends, co-workers and acquaintances on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and their buddies inside the Beltway.

There is a famous New Yorker cartoon showing a drawing of Manhattan with the United States ending at the West Side of Manhattan. How true for these "reporters"

World View

March 26, 2007 - 09:08 ET by allanf

Sadly, the world view of most of these "journalists" consists of their friends, co-workers and acquaintances on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and their buddies inside the Beltway.

There is a famous New Yorker cartoon showing a drawing of Manhattan with the United States ending at the West Side of Manhattan. How true for these "reporters"

oh yah..., Hillary

March 26, 2007 - 09:20 ET by the mad pole

"Boxers or breifs"? 

It wasn't until the second ha

March 26, 2007 - 09:55 ET by Tom1969ca

It wasn't until the second half-hour that ABC disclosed that 45 members of the audience had been hand-picked by Hillary's campaign.

Here I go, waving my "I-have-a-degree-in-journalism" pedigree in front of everyone again...

... but there are two problems with the above statement:

  1. It should've been disclosed at the top of the segment as they were introducing the former co-president ("We're here with Hillary Clinton and a group of her supporters"), and
  2. If ABC was truly serious about journalism (save your comments for later, class), they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place.

If journalists want to be perceived as independent and non-biased, they cannot allow the subjects they are covering to stage-manage the coverage.

Aside from the obvious, how is this different from the actions of "Mr. Green Helmet" in Qana last summer?

~~~
If Hillary is the answer, it must've been a stupid question...

No bias though

March 26, 2007 - 11:39 ET by regimeofterror

No bias though

I'm holding my breath and wai

March 26, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Al Czervik

I'm holding my breath and waiting for the media outcry, worst person in the world....

Let us not forget the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over "invitation only" rallies held by W back in September of 2004.  This was such a grievous assault on our sensibilities that Helen Thomas opined that “George W. Bush is supposed to be president of all the people -- but apparently not on the campaign trail.".

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192162_thomas24.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=3

Don't think for a second that ABC was not complicit in this campaign infomercial and will unapologetically do it again.

Country does not agree !

March 26, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Gary Hall

"ROBERTS: That is something that I think the country completely agrees on, on both sides about that." ( the implication being that the Democrat's all agree on setting a timeline to withdraw from Iraq) I think not. Here's a summary of the last poll I read (my bold).

POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'
Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.

·  By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

·  By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.

·  Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

·  While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

·  By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.

·  27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

·  23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

·  32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."

·  17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."

The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.

Here's an experiment for you:

March 26, 2007 - 12:09 ET by mattm

Here's an experiment for you: Get a group of kids and bombard them with one-sided stories about a particular topic, throwing in 5% of "opposing views" but qualifying  them as doubtful whenever they're shown.  Then, after a week or so of this, poll them and see what the general consensus is. 

This is how the MSM works...

Bingo!This is the exact reaso

March 26, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Clear thinker

Bingo!

This is the exact reason why I never trust polls!!!!!!

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

No need for kids for this one

March 26, 2007 - 12:15 ET by lnthomp

No need for kids for this one -- As the MSM has proved, it works just fine on adults, as long as they don't have some other source for the opposing view.

Lee T.

U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon

I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.

Unfortunately --- and more om

March 26, 2007 - 12:15 ET by Galvanic

mattm: "This is how the MSM works . . ."

Unfortunately --- and more ominously ---- that's how many of our public schools "work", too.

I consider the public school

March 26, 2007 - 12:50 ET by mattm

I consider the public schools, the universities, and even the public libraries, to be included with the MSM as part of the Liberal indoctrination cabal - which I wouldn't object to, IF these institutions were not supported by public funds. 

Keep an eye on ABC

March 26, 2007 - 16:11 ET by nkviking75

The Republicans should demand that ABC releases the exact terms under which Hillary appeared. They should also study each future "Town Hall" scrupulously to make sure each of the other candidates gets the same terms ahead of time and that those terms are fulfilled. If ABC comes up short in any way, they should be reported to the Federal Election Commission for giving an in-kind contribution to Hillary's campaign. I'm sure Mr. Bozell et al. are thoroughly dissecting this commerical... er, news event... even now.

Yes, I would assume ABC wil

March 27, 2007 - 15:18 ET by dahliatravers

Yes, I would assume ABC will offer "equal time" to all candidates; otherwise, Hillary will have to declare this lengthy prime time campaign ad to the FEC on her finance report.

The one thing ABC will be constitutionally incapable of duplicating for the Republican candidates is all the BUTT-KISSING they administered to Ms. Rodham.

ROBERTS: "That is someth

March 26, 2007 - 17:35 ET by garvin

ROBERTS: "That is something that I think the country completely agrees on, on both sides about that".

I must not have been available for comment.

It wasn't until the second ha

March 26, 2007 - 23:32 ET by bigtimer

It wasn't until the second half-hour that ABC disclosed that 45 members of the audience had been hand-picked by Hillary's campaign.

LMAO!

That's where we get the lovely phrase the leftist media loves to use ad nauseum....

SOME PEOPLE SAY!

I think most viewers watch

March 28, 2007 - 02:02 ET by sarcasmo

I think most viewers watch for less than 1/2 hour, so this was almost-like not telling at all, but without having to take the consequences here & elsewhere. Nice dodge, ABC!! Question: 45 Hillary-hand-picks out of how-many?
JMR

The entire Lib-Dem-MSM circui

March 27, 2007 - 01:22 ET by Atomic Crusader

The entire Lib-Dem-MSM circuit is so blisteringly bloody boring.  They sit around and fantasize and posture and preen and pose in front of each other constantly, always so concerned that they are seen as speaking for "the people" and "the country" and "the world" and "the enviroment" and whatever other trend they can hijack.  They are so hollow, so fake and just plain dumb.  Who watches this stuff?  It's sick!!!