Clinton insisted she had opposed NAFTA during her husband's presidency, although there is little evidence to suggest she worked against it at the time. She even conscripted Stephanopoulos into service to support her story.
"Now, you remember this, because George did work in that '92 campaign, and George and I actually were against NAFTA," Clinton said. "I'm talking about him in his previous life, before he was an objective journalist and didn't have opinions about such matters."
Okay, the AP's Beth Fouhy wrote there is "little evidence" of Hillary's opposition to NAFTA. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton offered evidence in the person of George Stephanopoulos. So, what does George say? He certainly didn't deny it. Have any journalists interviewed him? Any of his ABC colleagues bothered to ask if it's true? I just did a google search, didn't find anything.
As John reported yesterday, Hillary played George today -- big time. George is now part of the story. Can anyone get the story? Or is George still too intimidated by his old boss to fess up? Stephanopoulos knows if Hillary is telling the truth. He owes his viewers an explanation.
I'm watching the video of the "Townhall Meeting" that ABC's George Stephanopoulos held for Hillary this morning and it's astounding how bad Stephanopoulos is. Let me give you two prime examples.
1. Gas tax.
Stephanopoulos' first question is about Hillary's plan to rescind the gas tax this summer. Does he tell the audience, or ask Hillary about, the fact that she opposed rescinding the gas tax - she opposed her own proposal - when running for the Senate in 2000? No. That would be the hardest question of all to answer, the question that goes to the issue of her credibility on this and every other issue, and Stephanopoulos doesn't even mention it. Here is George's really tough question for Hillary:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Good to be here.
Gas tax has become the defining issue in this primary and in North Carolina. You and Senator McCain called for suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax. Senator Obama calls it a gimmick. He says it's pandering. He says it won't really bring any help to consumers, and he also said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Same thing that John McCain's offering on the cheap. That means we're not presenting a truthful response to the challenges that we face in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: What's your response? He says you're not being truthful.
He says? How about "YOU SAID during your first campaign?" Jesus, George. Come on.
2. NAFTA.
Hillary totally rolled over Stephanopoulos on this one. She started by saying, oh George, during the 1990s you and I were in meetings where we both opposed NAFTA. Stephanopoulos says nothing. Not only does he tacitly agree with her claim that he was in meetings with her and that she did oppose NAFTA in those meetings - which is a lie - he doesn't respond by telling us what actually happened in those meetings, that Hillary was such a NAFTA booster it wasn't even funny (see the video below), and worse, he doesn't note that Hillary publicly embraced NAFTA during her time in the White House. They have her on film doing it. Stephanopoulos doesn't even note that she's again flip-flopped on the issue. Hillary lied in front of Stephanopoulos on national TV, invoked Stephanopoulos' name to "prove" she was telling the truth, and Stephanopolous said nothing when he knew for a fact that she was lying.
Here's a video showing just how much of a NAFTA booster Hillary was in the 1990s:
And here's the video of Hillary rolling Stephanopoulos, invoking his name to "prove" her point against Obama, and him saying nothing in response, including him not even noting that she publicly came out for NAFTA in the 1990s. Also note how 42 seconds into the video it seems, suddenly, that Stephanopoulos has come to life. He's going to ask her about her flip-flop, about the fact that she's lying, invoking his name to prove her lie, and he isn't going to stand for it! But then he doesn't:
Now here's the transcript of that video:
CLINTON: Now, you remember this, because George did work in that '92 campaign, and George and I actually were against NAFTA. I'm talking about him in his previous life, before he was an objective journalist and didn't have opinions about such matters.
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) opinion.
CLINTON: Yes, but we were in meetings together where we said, look, we think there's going to be a lot of downsides, and we're not really thinking through that.
But in the 20th century and until relatively late in the 20th century, we dominated the world economy. And we had an...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, what...
CLINTON: ... opportunity to really see our jobs grow here by being smart about how we traded.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator...
CLINTON: But then we've got to make changes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... you really have it both ways there. You talked about being against NAFTA in 1992, 1993. Yet President Clinton has said time and time again, NAFTA and free trade agreements were part of the economic success in the 1990s. How can you claim credit for the good things but not take blame for the bad?
Now do you understand why we have a problem with you, George? Now do the rest of you in the media understand what we mean when we talk about bias? When we talk about how you people have no spine whatsoever? How you've become court stenographers rather than reporters? You know the truth, you know these people are lying, and you say nothing to stop them, to contradict them, to put them on the spot. And in so doing, you are complicit in these people lying to the public with your stamp of approval. and you wonder why so many Americans have lost faith in the media.
Sixteen years after George Stephanopoulos worked so hard to bring you the first Clinton administration, he's clearly on board for round two. Ben Smith reports that Hillary and George are holding a town hall meeting during this Sunday's edition of "This Week":
Hillary is doing a "town hall" from Indiana on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous Sunday, Calderone reports.
Yes, the former staffer is doing a town hall meeting for his old boss. Is he letting Clinton pick the audience and the questions, too? Let's not forget that it was Stephanopoulos, in concert with Clinton, who made Rev. Wright and every other Swift Boat attack against Obama fair game. Big surprise he's now holding his very own town meeting for his former boss.
Earlier this week, even before this news broke, Jed wrote a post titled "Gibson & Stephanopoulos: Certified media whores for Clinton" -- complete with video to prove his point. How right Jed was. It's amazing the media thinks that any reporter can interview their former boss fairly, no matter how many years it's been (or if you want to get technical, their boss's wife, but as Hillary always reminds us, it was a co-presidency, so she was his boss too.)
Unless some new shocking revelation turns up, I think this is the last I'm going to say about Wednesday night's debacle. But the powers-that-be thought a post I wrote earlier today on my personal site might be of interest here too.
Now that the initial anger has subsided, bloggers and blog readers are taking a closer look at the bit players in Wednesday night's debate. Specifically flag pin lady Nash McCabe. Josh and a reader point out just how un-random this woman actually was:
Ask whom she might vote for in the coming presidential primary election and Nash McCabe, 52, seems almost relieved to be able to unpack the dossier she has been collecting in her head.
It is not about whom she likes, but more a bill of particulars about why she cannot vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
"How can I vote for a president who won't wear a flag pin?" Mrs. McCabe, a recently unemployed clerk typist, said in a booth at the Valley Dairy luncheonette in this quiet, small city in western Pennsylvania.
Josh's got more about why he thinks including McCabe was an ethical breach on ABC's part:
Now, as JL noted in his email to TPM, I'm not sure precisely what's any less ethical about finding Nash at random to come on and slam Obama about whether he believes in the flag versus seeing her in the Times and saying, 'Wow, this woman clearly has it in for Obama. Wouldn't that make for great TV giving her a chance to crap on Obama's head in front of a nationwide audience?
I think there's something wrong with it. And part of it is that you usually assume that these citizen questions come from people who are at least partly conflicted about their support if not undecided. But it does reinforce my sense that the disgraceful nature of the debate wasn't just something that came together wrong, some iffy ideas taken to far, but was basically engineered to be crap from the ground up.
Besides giving the impression they planned to stack the debate, here's what else is wrong with what ABC did:
1. They went into their debate prep with a preconceived notion of the topics they wanted to push to the forefront as opposed to taking the pulse of the electorate and prioritizing.
2. They took the lazy way out and copped a source from the NYT. How many registered voters are there in PA? How hard is it to do your own legwork and find someone to talk about the issues that matter to him/her?
and perhaps the most egregious of the errors...
3. They gave Nash McCabe and her stupid question an audience of 10+ million on prime time TV. ABC legitimized the dumb dumb dumb lapel pin discussion by default. If you couldn't find anyone but the exact same lady quoted by the NYT, then maybe that would have been a good indication that skipping the topic altogether was the way to go.
"You can't do a tougher question for Senator Clinton than 'six out of 10 Americans don't think you're honest.' "
Oh please. How about any question that starts with the words "Monica Lewinksy."
The fact is that ABC thought it would be rude and boorish to ask anything about Monica or Bill Clinton's affairs, even though we will most certainly be hearing about them in the fall should Hillary be the nominee. (And after all, isn't that ABC's standard for smut? If it's going to come up in the fall, we'll ask it first!) And it didn't have to be a sex question for Hillary, it could have been a character question.
For example... I spoke a short while back with a women's rights leader about Hillary, and asked her why she was upset with Hillary for not leaving Bill Clinton. I argued - believe it or not - that Hillary was right to get some return on her investment in this marriage in order to finally help her career too. The women's leader responded: "Your self-respect is more important than a job." That's the kind of Monica question ABC could have asked Hillary, one that would have been relevant to her character. But they didn't.
ABC went there with Obama - I mean, come on, asking him if his pastor loves America? - but ABC didn't go there with Hillary. I'm not sure going there with both candidates would have made anyone happier, but please don't insult our intelligence and suggest that there were no harsher questions you could have asked Hillary. ABC decided to make no topic untouchable in Obama's life. But they did in Hillary's.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos is arguing that he brought up the issues during last night's debate that Obama will likely face in the fall campaign. Now, no one thinks that John McCain is going to raise any of the issues Obama talked about - wearing the American flag, whether his pastor loves America - no, what will happen in the fall, and Stephanopoulos knows it, is some shadowy GOP Swift Boat organization will raise all of these issues. But in any case, the Stephanopoulos standard for questioning a candidate is what issues the bad guys will raise against that candidate in the fall. (Though, using this standard, it's odd that Stephanopoulos didn't ask Hillary anything about Monica Lewinsky last night, since that topic has come up too since the last debate, and it's a good bet the GOP will be making us all talk about Monica if Hillary wins the nomination (also, Chelsea has been asked about it repeatedly recently, and has claimed that the issue isn't relevant)). Okay, I'm game. McCain is going on Stephanopoulos' show this Sunday, so I'm hoping Stephanopoulos will be pushing McCain hard on the following issues...
Oh, and before the outrage machine kicks in - ABC just asked a presidential candidate on national television if his pastor loves America. After that little ditty, what isn't fair game?:
1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain's second wife. America deserves answers.
2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?
3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. I want George Stephanopoulos to ask John McCain if he loves America as much as soldiers who didn't make propaganda tapes for the enemy while in captivity. Oh, and in case you think I'm kidding, here are McCain's own words:
Later, I made a second, feebler attempt at suicide. On the fourth day, I gave up. I signed a confession that "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pilot".
The guards ordered me to record my confession on tape. I refused, and was beaten until I consented.
Well, I'm sure a POW has never been beaten before, so it's totally understandable why McCain betrayed his country during his "hero" years in Vietnam. (Or are we to assume that all American POWs betray their country while in captivity, right?)
4. Old age. John McCain is old, everyone knows it. I love my parents, they're in their late 70s, they're great people, but they probably shouldn't be president at this age. John McCain would be the oldest new president EVER if he gets elected (and we all saw what happened to Reagan in his second term). I hope we'll be seeing some hard hitting questions about McCain being simply too old.
5. That enormous thing on the side of McCain's face. McCain had skin cancer a few years ago. He now has some enormous thing on the side of his face that no one is talking about. I want to know why we shouldn't be worried that John McCain is going to get sick and die in office.
6. Cindy McCain's drug addiction. What message does it send to America's children to have a drug addict, who actually stole drugs, as first lady?
7. Would John McCain quit a church that had his wife as pastor?
8. Is John McCain going to jail for 5 years? McCain has illegally pulled out of the public campaign finance system. That's a crime punishable by 5 years in prison. Is Stephanopoulos going to break media silence on this issue and ask John McCain whether he's too old to go prison?
9. Will McCain make propaganda tapes while he's in prison?
These are some of the questions I'm sure we can expect George Stephanopoulos to ask John McCain come this Sunday. And feel free to add your own questions for John McCain to the comments posted by our readers.
Politico's Michael Calderone spoke to George Stephanopoulos via phone today and reports George defended last night's debate:
“The vote for the president,” Stephanopoulos said, “is one of the most personal” decisions that someone makes.
“When people make that choice, they take into account how candidates stand on the issues,” he said, but also are concerned with “experience, character [and] credibility.”
“You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play,” he said.
Stephanopoulos explained that since the candidates are not far apart policy-wise, the “core of the nomination fight” has been about these issues.
“They’ve been fighting it out on this turf,” he said, adding that these are things that “came up between this debate and the last one.”
Experience, character, and credibility are not issues. Healthcare reform, how to stimulate the economy, getting out of Iraq...issues. In fact, if the candidates are not far apart policy-wise, ALL the more reason to hone in on what separates them. I'd like to know the details. A debate would have been a nice forum for that, no?
Spending 45+ minutes on garbage that has already been exhausted elsewhere - just BECAUSE it's been exhausted elsewhere - is inexcusable.
Then there's this:
I asked Stephanopoulos for his reaction to one specific piece of criticism — that of Washington Post critic Tom Shales calling the moderator’s performances “shoddy” and “despicable.”
“I think it just comes with the territory,” Stephanopoulos replied, adding, “I think you’re going to find a wide range of opinions.”
Sure. If you consider "unmitigated travesty" to "really, really horrible" to "the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years" a range.
One more thing: Even though it was a substantive disaster, ABC will tout last night's debate as a HUGE success. Why? Ratings.
NOTE FROM JOHN: I can't wait for ABC to claim that the ratings prove they did a good job. That's like saying I'm appearing in a one-night-only Broadway show. And the show is sold out. That proves that my performance that night was stellar. Uh, no it doesn't. It proves that people thought my performance was going to be stellar, it doesn't prove that it turned out that way after they had already bought their tickets.
Well, we just went from the worst debate ever to, I think, a full-fledged PR disaster for ABC generally, and for Stephanopoulos personally. I mean, conspiring with Sean Hannity on the best way to do an "I gotcha" on Obama, and then doing exactly what he told you to do? From ThinkProgress (they have the audio too):
HANNITY: There are two questions that I don’t think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don’t know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is – the only time he’s ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I don’t think we did enough.” When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?
