Matthews mischaracterized Bill Clinton "fairy tale" quote
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews asserted that former President Bill Clinton "made a series of remarks about Barack Obama that turned off many Democrats and may have helped galvanize black voters for Obama." Matthews then aired an abbreviated clip of Clinton's January 7 comments, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," leaving out his preceding comments in which Clinton made clear that he was talking about Obama's statements regarding the Iraq war and not Obama's campaign.
On the March 2 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews asserted that former President Bill Clinton "made a series of remarks about Barack Obama that turned off many Democrats and may have helped galvanize black voters for Obama." Matthews then aired an abbreviated clip of Clinton's January 7 comments, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," leaving out his preceding comments in which Clinton made clear that he was talking about Obama's statements regarding the Iraq war and not Obama's campaign. In a January 13 piece for The New York Times' Week in Review section, reporter Mark Leibovich noted that in using the words "fairy tale," Clinton "was referring specifically to the perception that Mr. Obama was totally pure in his opposition to the Iraq war." Additionally, on the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Salon.com editor-in-chief Joan Walsh told Matthews, "I don't think it was a wise remark, but specifically the context of what he was saying was that ... the notion that Obama had always been steadfastly opposed to the war was the 'fairy tale.' Not that his candidacy was a fairy tale."
Media Matters for America has noted other instances in which the media have misreported Clinton's "fairy tale" statement.
In addition, Matthews aired a clip of Clinton saying, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama has run a good campaign here," but did not note that Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye wrote in a January 28 post on the Times' political blog The Caucus that Jackson himself said that he did not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation." The post also quoted Jackson saying: "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."
From the January 7 campaign event with Bill Clinton, as transcribed by Congressional Quarterly:
QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality.
For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," [sic: bounce] and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama.
CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance [sic] always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day.
But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor [sic: war] from the beginning, always, always, always."
First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel [NE] was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.
He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by [then-national security adviser] Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."
Give me a break.
[applause]
This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports.
[Former independent counsel] Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa.
But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.
[applause]
Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject.
[laughter]
Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead.
From the March 2 edition of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
SEN. CLINTON [video clip]: If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, whether it was misinterpreted or not, then obviously I regret that.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back. That was Hillary Clinton apologizing this week for comments by her biggest surrogate, Bill Clinton. He's made a series of remarks about Barack Obama that turned off many Democrats and may have helped galvanize black voters for Obama. Listen.
PRESIDENT CLINTON [video clip]: This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.
PRESIDENT CLINTON [video clip]: Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama has run a good campaign here.
MATTHEWS: Well, those words have played a big part in Hillary's current struggles. In fact, this past week, The New York Times reported, and I quote, "Engaging in hindsight, several advisers have now concluded that they were not smart to use former President Bill Clinton as much as they did." But Hillary's camp is not the first to realize that Bill may not be a plus in a campaign. [Former Vice President] Al Gore was asked about it back in 2000.
[begin video clip]
REGIS PHILBIN (then-host of ABC's Live with Regis): Has the president given you any advice during this campaign?
GORE: Not too much, no, because it's something that you really have to do on your own.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: That was for real, I guess. We asked "The Matthews Meter" -- 12 of our regular panelists -- would Hillary be better off right now if Bill hadn't played a big public role in this campaign? 9-to-3, the meter says yes, Hillary would have been better off.
Matthews didn'r say or imply that Clinton was talking about the campaign in general, so this isn't really misinformation within this isolated item. Except that the comment was framed that way in the past, and although that spin has been pointed out, certain audiences may have had the original seed planted, that Clinton was talking about the overall campaign.
WITH or NOT WITH?
Col,
You may be surprised but this just might be a valid WITH? Matthews didn't imply as you correctly point out, but he should have put the "fairy tale" comment from Bill Clinton in proper context, which he did not.
As for the Jesse Jackson reference, I wouldn't be highlighting that if I were MMFA - not one of the Clinton campaigns proudest moments, and it definitely turned alot of people off, including me.
I wouldn't be highlighting that if I were MMFA
Why not? Media Matters isn't campaigning for Hillary.
certain audiences may have had the original seed planted, that Clinton was talking about the overall campaign.
Yes quite few. I avoid the TV news entirely but sometimes listen to the radio. I had assumed until this moment that the "fairly tale comment "applied to the Obama campaign and NOT to Iraq policy. It was clearly and unambiguously reported that way on talk radio. Thanks MMFA for the correction.
This is pure SPECULATION, first off. Would somebody have been better off IF ... IF ...? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, these "reporters" and "experts" feel comfortable coming down hard that having Bill Clinton campaign for you IS A MISTAKE, and HARMS you.
Obviously, these are OPINIONS that were already in place, and would have been made regardless of what has occured in the campaign, because these biased "news reporters" and commentators just DO NOT LIKE Bill Clinton, resent his success, and are livid that he beat the Rightwing attacks of the 90's.
Now, to the "evidence". What evidence do they cite to bolster their opinion that Bill Clinton has HARMED Hillary's campaign? In each instance, they are CONTROVERSIES that were completely manufactured BY THE MEDIA. By taking comments out of context, by attaching false motivations, by introducing "RACISM" where none existed ... THE MEDIA attempted to make Bill Clinton a liability on the campaign trail.
Which only goes to prove that Hillary DOES have a liability she's been fighting since day one, and that's the MEDIA which has been, and STILL is, continuously out to get her. This is just the TRUTH, although her critics (the self-same commentators who created the "controversies" in the first place) attempt to turn RECOGNIZING this media bias into a whine, a seeking of victimhood, making excuses, or an attempt at scapegoating. This way, of course, the MEDIA gets to have it both ways: They MAKE the smear, then they criticize Hillary for being angry that the smear was created. A "two-fer", in which the MEDIA takes no responsibility.
When Hillary emerges victorious, it will be after running against all Democratic challengers, AND a MEDIA determined to cut her legs out from under her.
Bill Clinton is perhaps the BEST politician currently on the scene in America. And Russert, Matthews and their cohorts are among the WORST "news" reporters in our history. The jackels are mocking the lion from their perch of "journalistic" safety ... no surprise there.
Finally, what would they be saying if Bill Clinton was NOT campaigning for his wife? Let your imagination go wild here, but it would be AT LEAST that the man who knows her best does not wish for her to win, does not support her.
TOMMY:
Everything you say is harmful to your cause, reveal you to be both sexist and racist, and shows you will do or say ANYTHING to get your side to WIN.
Try to remain calm about it, though. Mmm-K? :)
Tommy spun his daily persona wheel, and today's choice:
Patronizing!
With the usual sprinkling of arrogance and self-righteousness
In a perfect honest world, Bill’s campaigning would have helped Hillary. But the world of politics is neither perfect nor honest. Tex can argue all he wants about the facts in what Bill said or did and the intended meaning of any of it - and be 100% accurate in his assessment. But in the world of American politics, with America’s fixation and love of tabloid journalism and conspiracy theories – truth, facts, and intent take a backseat to sensationalism and spin.
“So-and-so said, ‘bla blah blah’– but what was REALLY said? For the REAL story, tune in to The Place for Politics at 7 for the details, Fair and Balanced, from The Best Political Team on Television, along with the complete analysis from a guest facial decoding expert, our own body language expert, staff astrologist, biblical prophecy theocrat, and special guest tarot card reader.”
Now THAT’s the “reality” of American political news. It’s all like one long pharmaceutical commercial – You’re not even sure what’s being sold, if you need it, or would ever buy it - but just seeing it is supposed to be enough to make you feel good enough about it to ask (your doctor) if it’s right for you.
I almost can’t blame any of the pundits – they’re only playing the supply and demand game of capitalism - I blame the American audience for being so gullible and allowing our political culture to be turned into such a joke.
Well Tommy IMO Matthews is a dork.
I'm not surprised how the mention of "fairy-tale" was left without an explanation. Matthews is a Hillary detractor, & an Obama cheerleader.
I think he keeps his Obama pom-poms under his desk.
Memo to Staff:
Any objective review of MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic primary race will have to concede that the coverage has been heavily slanted against Senator Clinton.
This bias clearly has the blessing of the management and/or ownership and therefore, is likely present at their direction.
Tweety's idiocies must be winning him bigtime kissass points.
They have been ripping clinton alot, but I dont agree with the idea that they are giving Obama a pass, that he hasnt been held up to the scrutiny that she has, I just think he doesn't have as long a record to missrepresent as she and Bill do. I think part of why they go after her so much is that it is easier. First off they are a little afraid of being accused of pulling the race card on Obama, and second there are plenty of rocks to through at the Clinton's that the reich wing blow hards have been storing up for awhile. I dont know if they are biased against her or just lazy and like to go after her because it's easier.
I gotta admit I've been impressed with Hillary as of late. She's been gracious under pressure and has not done anything for the critics to attack her. The problem is she isn't making any waves.
We'll see how well her machine works here in Ohio. I was tempted to cross over and vote for her for a variety of reasons. But then, I really don't like her and I'll be content to see both Hillary and her hubby ride off into the sunset tonight.
Having not consulted my morning polling data, :-) My guess is she'll narrowly win in Ohio but lose in Texas.
Then Matthews will have to find someone else to pick on.
HELPFUL CRITICISM:
Maybe someone at MMFA should take an "intro to journalism" class at some community college. I mean, the lack of understanding of the news media at MMFA is staggering.
Matthews was merely listing items that have caused problems for Hillary in the African American community. The fact is that that statement (and many others) have offended blacks.
The point was valid and fair. And MMFA needs to start honestly looking at it's own whiney crybaby ranting and just get over it already.
Tommy -
It's a good point. I do not believe that Bill Clinton (in this instance) was trying to make any kind of racial comment. However, many Blacks DID take offense, and that is the reality that the Clinton campaign had to face.
"Matthews was merely listing items that have caused problems for Hillary in the African American community. The fact is that that statement (and many others) have offended blacks."
No he wasn't. He was repeating the big lie that Bill Clinton was making a racist comment about Obama.
Really! That's great news! Is she the one who's HUSBAND was her own boss-- in violation of corporate policies?
Didn't she get sued by that blogger she harassed last year? (what was his name...?) What's the backstory???
Hmmmm...
Here's some insight about the media's coverage of Senator Clinton:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/03/most_media_obse.php
Hmmm indeed!