Oh, stop whining about ABC

WOE IS ME!
WOE IS ME!
ABC IS MEAN!

Well, yeah.  ABC was mean to Obama.  They treated him like, dare I say it, the frontrunner.  They treated him like they are going to treat him every day from now until November.  You saw him, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, get the same sort of treatment Clinton has been getting from day one, and your feelings are hurt.  Why?  Because it’s not fair?  Hell no.  Not a darned one of you cared a whit about “fair” when the shoe was on the other foot.  No.  You’re offended because you thought, for what reason I can not even imagine, that the media would continue to give Obama the same ride they always give McCain.  And under it all, in the backs of your heads, you are finally acknowledging the echoes of what Clinton supporters have told you all along - that the media would turn on Obama once Clinton was out of the way, and the free ride would be over.

What do I mean?  Why don’t you take the jump and find out.

Did you hate Stephanopolous and ABC last August, when they warmed Obama up and threw HIM, not Clinton the first question about her negative, and premised the whole thing with a Karl Rove quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn now to the second question I raised, the topic question about Senator Clinton. And outgoing White House counsel Karl Rove opined on that this week. He was on Rush Limbaugh. Here’s what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE: There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you’re looking at, in the high forties on the negative side and just below that on the positive side.

And there’s nobody who’s ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you’re loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: “Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates”; “Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket.”

Are they right to be worried?

Did Clinton at least get the follow up?  Nope, the next question was also to Obama:

But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?

after he answered it, Stephanopolous let Edwards chime in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?

OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.

EDWARDS: Well, let me just say — I have a slightly different view. Here’s what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.

America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that’s a loser.

followed by more follow-up, TO EDWARDS:

And you’re seeing that Senator Clinton is not?

Clinton was never asked to address the question.  Instead, the next question to her was a shift, based on something Edwards said, and clearly another shot at her:

EDWARDS: Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve asked the other candidates to join me in that.

(APPLAUSE)

And at least, until now, Senator Clinton’s not done it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, will you do it?

and he stayed on the attack:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton…

CLINTON: So I’m looking forward to going up against whoever the Republicans nominate.

(APPLAUSE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you’re taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you’re part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.

and the follow-up?  Senator Edwards, please keep attacking Senator Clinton:

Back to you, Senator. She says the distinction is artificial.

But wait, you might say, the real problem last night was trivial questions.  Newsflash, folks, that is nothing new:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We’ve got a question — we’ve got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah.

And he said, “My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

I’d like each of you to answer it. Let me start with you, Senator Clinton.

Now look at this exchange, then find a SINGLE DEBATE where any other candidate was asked this sort of follow-up question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused. It was a very difficult decision, and I tried to weigh it as carefully as possible, talking to a lot of different people and being assured, both publicly and privately, by President Bush and the people close to him that they would use the authority to go in and get inspectors and try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction and pursue diplomacy.

So, you know, looking back on it, I wouldn’t have voted that way again, certainly, because obviously President Bush had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do. And obviously for me that is a great regret.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you tell the whole truth when discussing it?

CLINTON: Well, as I saw it, yes, you know, similar to John. You know, when the president of the United States says, as he said publicly, and then as people around him said privately over and over again, “We’re going to use this authority to get inspectors back in, “We’re going to go to the United Nations,” you know, at some point, you do have to make that evaluation.

How many people here griped about ABC or Stephanopolous then? Did we start a boycott then?  

It wasn’t over, there, by the way.  All the debates until the last one have been huge pile-ons, and the candidates and moderators have been in it together.

In the October 30, 2007, debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams went after Clinton, and invited the other candidates to do it too (and by the way, introduced the first use of the “Rocky” theme to the race by Obama, not Clinton, for those who piled on with the ridicule lately):

You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.

To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues.

WILLIAMS:  And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.”  That is a strong charge, as you’re aware.  Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?

OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-hyped.  In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I’m Rocky in this situation.    

The next question invited Edwards to attack Clinton:

Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran.”What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?

Here is a later question from Russert.  On its face it looks innocuous. Too bad the whole thing is a sham:

Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let’s talk

about Iraq.  One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General

Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was

recently quoted saying, quote, “I don’t oppose the war.  I have never

heard Senator Clinton say `I oppose the war.’”

Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Why do I say it’s a sham?  I’ll let Bob Sommersby tell you:

As it turns out, Russert was working extra hard to frame that insinuative question. Kennedy’s “recent” statement was made on October 6, and it was instantly disavowed, that same day, by Clinton and her campaign. (Spokesman Blake Zeff, in the October 7 New York Daily News: “Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will, She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”) But so what? Twenty-four days later, Russert could be found on stage, calling this a “recent” statement and pretending there was something troubling here–something slippery that needed to be resolved.

So what did Kennedy actually say that led to the question?  I’m glad you asked, because it was most definitely NOT what Russert insinuated:

KATZ (10/7/07): A top military supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid says she doesn’t “oppose” the Iraq war–and neither does Clinton.

Oh yes, she does, Team Clinton said yesterday, rushing to overrule its own backer.

“I have not ever heard [Clinton] say, ‘I oppose the war,’ ” retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the first woman promoted to three-star Army general, told the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader newspaper as she visited the early-voting state to stump for the New York senator.

“I’ve heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal…I’ve heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq,” Kennedy continued.

“That’s a much more sophisticated thing than saying, ‘I oppose the war.’”

Kennedy’s statements could be seen as a marked break in the tightly scripted campaign helmed by Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but later said the Bush administration had deceived Congress and the public about the conflict.

“Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will,” spokesman Blake Zeff said. “She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”

And how did Russert and Williams follow it up?  By inviting Obama and Edwards to pile on to his lie:

Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton’s answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

Senator Edwards, same question.

After that debacle, a commercial break.  Where did they pick up after the break? Again, on attack against Clinton.  Here was the first post-commercial question:

And we’re going to start with another subject at the top of this segment.

Senator Clinton, it will go to you.  It speaks to electability.

Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, said this about you, quote, “I don’t know Hillary’s experience.  She’s never run a city.  She’s never run a state.  She’s never run a business.  She’s never met a payroll.  She’s never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less, even hundreds of people.

“So I’m trying to figure out where the experience is here,”  end of quote.

Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?

Then Russert followed it up with another question to Clinton, one he knew was disingenuous, since he knew Clinton could not control release of National Archives documents:

Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Was this a continuous attack on Clinton, and an invitation to all the other candidates to pile on?  Let’s look at some more questions to find out.  How about this one?

Senator Biden, you said recently, “While Mrs. Clinton was meeting socially with the prime minister of a country, I was sitting down and negotiating with them.  I know my experience is considerably deeper and more relevant.”

Do you stand by that quote, and is your inference that she is less qualified than you to be president?

But wait, it gets worse.  From here Russert switched the debate to Social Security, and premised the entire segment on a lie about Clinton:

Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility.  You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security.  You said, quote, “It’s a no.”  I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.”  You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Let’s follow Bob Sommersby back to the New Hampshire debate to see if Russert’s question had any basis in fact, shall we?

At that gruesome New Hampshire debate, Clinton didn’t “say no” to raising the Social Security cap; she said she wouldn’t endorse any option until a bipartisan commission was formed. Sorry, but Russert was being baldly disingenuous here (as always). Here’s the question His Greatness had asked at that earlier debate:

   RUSSERT (9/26/07): Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people? “I’m going to tax your income. I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you’re a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”

According to Russert’s question this past Tuesday night, Clinton “said no” to this proposal. But here’s what actually had transpired, though Russert had seemed to forget:

   CLINTON (9/26/07, continuing directly): Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.

   First, I do think that it’s important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we’ve lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

   Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.

   And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

   And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ’90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

   RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97-5 off the table?
    CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

Did Clinton “say no” to raising the cap? What she said was: I’m going to move toward fiscal responsibility, then I’m going to form a commission. At that time, “you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done.” Maybe you like that answer and maybe you don’t; for our part, we’d prefer to see Democratic candidates explaining that it isn’t clear that anything needs to be done about this matter. (Though that may not be winning politics, given the insistence of people like Russert that we’re in a crisis.) But she didn’t “say no” to raising the cap–unless you want to embellish a bit, so you can imply she’s dishonest. And that’s what Russert did this night, as he’s done to Big Dems in the past.

Clinton said the same thing in response to Russert’s new question.  But he could not let the canard go.  He attacked again, and she responded again:

RUSSERT:  But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

CLINTON:  Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it.  I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap.  We’re playing on the Republican field.  And I don’t intend to do that.

Russert wasn’t done:

RUSSERT:  You call it a Republican talking point.  Georgetown University, February 9, 1998:  ”We are in a–heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.  If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.

RUSSERT:  That’s recent history.  Only two years to go in his term.  Is that a Republican talking point?

CLINTON:  No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus.  And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in `98, `99, 2000, 2001.

If you look at the debate transcript you will see that Russert’s follow was ALWAYS about Clinton - either AT her, or TO other candidates inviting them to attack her.  After letting Obama also answer the SS question, here was his follow up:

But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

We already saw how Clinton was asked a question based upon what Giuiliani said.  Was Obama asked a question premised by another Republican candidate?  Yup.  Let’s see if it was a fastball or a floater:

Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here.  A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position.  It’s about religion and misinformation.  Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.

Then they went to the second break, and only after that did they start asking questions of Dodd, Kucinich, and others.  What a farce.

So here’s my question - should I dig into the Daily Kos archives to see if the people so preoccupied with moaning and wailing about ABC had any of the same gripes on October 30, 2007?  No?  I didn’t think so.

Let’s go to the

February 26 debate in Cleveland, shall we?  How did that one start?  With two questions aimed directly at Clinton:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since — in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let’s begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your — (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we’re here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

and, quoting DRUDGE of all people:

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours — a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

Later in the same debate Tim Russert went on the attack:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

Do you remember this exchange, before the break?  They gave Obama a long opportunity to talk about invading Iraq, and cut Clinton’s response off because they needed to go to a commercial break.  They did it with a promise to return to her on the return:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

So, what was the first question on the return, and who got it?

Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we’ll take a look.

Something else funny happened there, too.  When they played Clinton videotape, they asked Obama about it.  When they played Obama videotape, they asked Obama about it.  Ain’t that grand?

Russert raised the FRAUDULENT National Archives argument again in this debate:

MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It’s now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that — again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

Look folks, the point is not that you’re all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.  The point is that this is how frontrunners get treated, and how Democratic nominees get treated.  If you had the absurd fantasy that it would be different for Obama you were foolish.  All that happened in the last year was that the media had Clinton in the cross-hairs, and Obama was their weapon of choice.  Once she’s gone, he’s next, and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  That, in a nutshell, is why the BELIEF that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he will lead us to a 50-state promised land, is nothing but a set-up for grotesque failure.

If you think what happened last night wasn’t fair, well, I agree with you.  But if you think it was any different from what has been happening for a year, well, you are kidding yourselves.