ABC's Diane Sawyer Gushes: Can Hillary Win by Losing? --2/25/2008

1. ABC's Diane Sawyer Gushes: Can Hillary Win by Losing?
Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer found an astoundingly gentle way to ask Hillary Clinton about the possibility of not being the Democratic nominee. On Friday's program, the ABC journalist wondered if such a victory was even necessary. She soothingly suggested: "The question is, are you in a new place about winning? Have you decided that you can accomplish what you want to accomplish, even if you don't win the presidency?" Sawyer's question, in reference to a comment made at the debate in which Clinton claimed she would be "fine," whatever happens in the election, led to more softballs. The GMA host lauded the Democratic presidential contender for something as simple as having her daughter at the debate. "...We noticed that Chelsea came up and immediately slipped your hand into yours, last night. What was that about? What was going on between the two of you?"

2. Goldberg: NY Times Downplayed Broaddrick & Flowers Scandals
On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg pointed out the New York Times has historically had a double standard of reporting allegations of sex scandals by Republicans while downplaying or delaying reports of sex scandals by Bill Clinton. Before Bill O'Reilly clarified that while the Times did cover Gennifer Flowers, but "years and years and years after the fact," Goldberg complained: "The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broadderick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her. ...But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra." Goldberg further contended that at the Times, "they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases."

3. Neuharth Hails 'Shrewd' Castro, Recalls Meeting Him: 'Touche!'
In his weekly Friday column, USA Today founder Al Neuharth hailed Fidel Castro for how "he outfoxed 10 consecutive U.S. Presidents" and, recalling a meeting with him 20 years ago, Neuharth wrote that he found him "brilliantly briefed" with a "quick, slick comment" after Neuharth told him that profits from Gannett's other papers subsidized losses at USA Today: "Aha, your company and my country are both socialistic!" Neuharth's reaction to the oppressive communist dictator's contention: "I paused, said "touche" and lifted a glass of Cuban rum. Then we talked capitalism and socialism and sports until 3:55 a.m." How cozy.

4. FNC Highlights CNN's Memo Calling for Praise of Fidel Castro
Saturday's Fox News Watch featured a discussion on revelations that CNN staff were sent a memo advising them to make positive claims about Fidel Castro to balance out the regime's critics, crediting the communist dictator as a "revolutionary hero" to leftists who established "free education and universal health care." FNC's liberal contributor and NPR correspondent Juan Williams took exception: "I don't know what was going on there. ... what news man is at work and saying here is what we want to say nice about a man who was an oppressive force in his culture, in his society? A man who long ago left the heroic stance, the Che Guevara time period, and became somewhat of a hard hand that has left his people living at a low quality of life. I don't get it."

ABC's Diane Sawyer Gushes: Can Hillary
Win by Losing?

Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer found an astoundingly gentle way to ask Hillary Clinton about the possibility of not being the Democratic nominee. On Friday's program, the ABC journalist wondered if such a victory was even necessary. She soothingly suggested: "The question is, are you in a new place about winning? Have you decided that you can accomplish what you want to accomplish, even if you don't win the presidency?"

Sawyer's question, in reference to a comment made at the debate in which Clinton claimed she would be "fine," whatever happens in the election, led to more softballs. The GMA host lauded the Democratic presidential contender for something as simple as having her daughter at the debate. "...We noticed that Chelsea came up and immediately slipped your hand into yours, last night. What was that about? What was going on between the two of you?"

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Now, although Sawyer found time to air a question about holding hands with Chelsea (the segment was pre-taped), there was no time for a query about Clinton's thoughts on Thursday's New York Times article insinuating that Senator John McCain may have had an affair. During the segment's close, Sawyer explained, "And, by the way, I did ask about Senator John McCain and the stories that ran yesterday. She wouldn't comment on the substance, but said when asked if she felt for him personally, given the somewhat shared history of news of that kind, she said he is her friend."

For some reason, that question didn't make it into the piece. Over on NBC's Today, however, co-host Meredith Vieira did feature the query in her interview with Clinton:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Senator Clinton, before I let you go, at one moment during the debate last night, you alluded to a very personal crisis in your own life involving infidelity. So I want to ask you your opinion of what Senator McCain is going through now. This New York Times article where he's been accused of a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. He's denied it, his wife, the lobbyist have all denied it. Do you think that article is fair? And is that the kind of attack that should be part of a campaign?
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to comment on that. You know, Senator McCain is a friend of mine. I respect his service to our country, which is, you know, obviously extraordinary. And I wish the campaign were about what we want to do for America. I have big differences with Senator McCain. You know, he says he wants to leave troops in Iraq for 100 years. I want to get them out starting within 60 days. He says he doesn't know much about the economy. I have an economic blueprint. You can go to HillaryClinton.com and get a copy of it. And basically, you know, his policies are more of the same when it comes to President Bush's failed policies. That's what we should be talking about.

Vieira pressed the point and followed up by asking, "So if you become the nominee, that will be off limits?" (Clinton declined to answer.) On CBS's The Early Show, Harry Smith also skipped the subject of the New York Times piece.

A transcript of the GMA segment, which aired at 7:07am on February 22:

DIANE SAWYER: And, in fact, it is the moment we started a conversation with Hillary Clinton about. And Senator Clinton and I just spoke and she was in Austin, Texas. Senator Clinton, good morning to you.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: Good morning, Diane.
SAWYER: I want to go back to last night's debate and the last thing you said. Because, everyone is talking this morning about the tribute you paid to Senator Obama. And then saying, whatever happens, we'll both be fine. The question is, are you in a new place about winning? Have you decided that you can accomplish what you want to accomplish, even if you don't win the presidency?
CLINTON: Well, I intend to win. Obviously, I'm working very hard. And Ohio and Texas are critical states. But what I was referring to is that, you know, no matter what happens in this campaign, Senator Obama and I have so many resources. We're blessed by all kinds of, you know, wonderful support systems with family and friends. And, you know, for us, it's not so much did about what happens to each of us individually, but it's what happens to the people that I see every day. You know, who come up and grab my arm and say I've got to have healthcare, I don't have it, or I don't know what I'm going to do because I'm losing my home to foreclosure. You know, running for office, especially nationally, gives you such an intimate look with what's going on in people's lives. And it just gets me up every morning and motivates me to try to figure out what I'm going to do to, you know, help people who are trying as hard as they can. I just get so overwhelmed by, you know, the stories that I was told. And that's really what I was referring to. You know, there are -- Well, you and I, Diane, I mean, we've had so many advantages and blessings in life. And I just think it's time that, you know, we pulled together as a country and made sure everybody had the same opportunities that certainly I was given.
SAWYER: A couple of quick questions about the news, though. President Clinton, famous political pro had this to say out on the campaign trail. I'm going to play it.
BILL CLINTON: If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she'll be the nominee.
SAWYER: Is his analysis right? Because he goes on to say, if you don't win, that he doesn't think you can do it.
CLINTON: Well, I think that Ohio and Texas and the other states that are coming up are obviously critical. You know, this race is very close. It's very contested. I've won some. He's won some. Each of us has to get to 2025 delegates. So, of course, every single race is important. And I feel good about my campaigns in both Texas and Ohio. I have a long history in Texas. You know, my first political job was here in 1972, registering Hispanic voters and I feel, you know, very familiar with the problems in Ohio. Because what I've worked on in upstate New York to revive the economy and give people, you know, a sense that the future can be better is what I hear about all throughout my visits in Ohio.
SAWYER: But was President Clinton right or wrong? Is it make or break, or was he wrong?
CLINTON: You know, I don't make predictions. And I'm just going to wait and see what happens. After all, we have to give the voters a chance to be heard.
SAWYER: Two quick questions, have you heard from Senator Edwards since you met with him? Have you been in constant contact?
CLINTON: Well, you know, I've known John for a very long time. And we occasionally talk. And obviously, I think a lot of what he did in his campaign is important. I said last night his criticism of Senator Obama's healthcare plan is exactly mine. Because Senator Edwards and I have plans that would cover everyone and Senator Obama does not. And it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said, well, let's make Social Security voluntary or President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary. That can't work. And Senator Edwards and I both know that.
SAWYER: So you have been in touch since you met with him? More conversations?
CLINTON: We've had conversations, yes.
SAWYER: One last question. We've counted. It's now 398 days on the campaign trail, you've announced. 398. Why is-
CLINTON: [Laughs] Oh, who's counting?
SAWYER: I was going to say, why is she laughing? But last night we look up there-
CLINTON: You have to laugh to keep from crying.
SAWYER: We looked up on the stage and Senator Obama alone was greeting people and we noticed that Chelsea came up and immediately slipped your hand into yours, last night. What was that about? What was going on between the two of you?
CLINTON: You know, I'm just so happy that she's with me. She was sitting where I could see her last night, and, you know, I looked at her often. And, you know, it just really gives me a lot of personal joy to have her with me. And I was just thrilled that she was there, and, obviously, giving me that support, which means everything to me.
SAWYER: Well, thank you again, Senator Clinton and happy 399th day.
CLINTON: [Laughs] Thank you, Diane.
SAWYER: And, by the way, I did ask about Senator John McCain and the stories that ran yesterday. She wouldn't comment on the substance, but said when asked if she felt for him personally, given the somewhat shared history of news of that kind, she said he is her friend.

Goldberg: NY Times Downplayed Broaddrick
& Flowers Scandals

On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg pointed out the New York Times has historically had a double standard of reporting allegations of sex scandals by Republicans while downplaying or delaying reports of sex scandals by Bill Clinton. Before Bill O'Reilly clarified that while the Times did cover Gennifer Flowers, but "years and years and years after the fact," Goldberg complained: "The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broadderick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her. ...But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra." Goldberg further contended that at the Times, "they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases."

[This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was posted Friday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

O'Reilly hosted the segment with Goldberg and, to argue the liberal side, FNC contributor Jane Hall of American University. The FNC host began by asking Goldberg what he thought of the situation. Goldberg: "Well, first, unless this lobbyist is a secret agent working for al-Qaeda, this is going to help John McCain a lot more than it's going to hurt him because nothing unites conservatives more than their visceral distrust of the New York Times. But let me put this into some kind of historical perspective. The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broadderick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her.
"They had no interest in those stores, virtually no interest. But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra. And they got that from a Kitty Kelley book that didn't have one fact to substantiate it. And now, we have a page one story based on two people whose names we don't know, whose motivations we don't know, who think that John McCain might have had a romantic affair with a lobbyist. This is really thin stuff to put on page one of any newspaper."

After O'Reilly asked Goldberg why the Times does such things, the former CBS reporter continued: "Well, I'm not one of those people who says the New York Times gets its facts wrong. I think the New York Times has a problem that they will not admit to. And that is that they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases. They think that they're pure and noble and above it all. But I just gave you some examples. If they have no interest in a story about a credible woman saying that Bill Clinton raped her when he was attorney general, but put Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan on page one, that shows their agenda, their biases."

Before getting to Hall, O'Reilly made the liberal argument in defense of the Times: "But the reason they do that is they say that anybody who's a Republican, or a conservative is a family values person, and anything they do is hypocritical and has to be exposed. Whereby the secular progressive, liberal arm, hey, anything goes. Their conduct should not be scrutinized."

Hall disagreed with allegations of bias at the New York Times, but she did at least agree that their McCain story is "very flimsy." Hall: "I disagree about whether the New York Times reported on Bill Clinton's affairs, but I think that this story was very flimsy. They didn't have the goods. If you read the New Republic story, and if it's correct, Bill Keller, the editor, had a lot of questions about it. They didn't ultimately have the goods."

During an exchange with Hall, O'Reilly soon clarified the Times' history of covering Clinton sex scandals:

O'REILLY: I have to correct the record. Bernie stated that Juanita Broaddrick, okay, who was out, not an anonymous source, basically you're out, okay, and Gennifer Flowers, not an anonymous source, out, told the world certain things happened. Told the world.
HALL: Yeah, and it was on the front, Flowers was on the front page of the New York Times.
O'REILLY: Not Juanita Broaddrick, and that was-
HALL: I don't know. Let's don't argue [about Juanita Broaddrick](?).
O'REILLY: Flowers was on, but Flowers was on years and years and years after the fact.

Neuharth Hails 'Shrewd' Castro, Recalls
Meeting Him: 'Touche!'

In his weekly Friday column, USA Today founder Al Neuharth hailed Fidel Castro for how "he outfoxed 10 consecutive U.S. Presidents" and, recalling a meeting with him 20 years ago, Neuharth wrote that he found him "brilliantly briefed" with a "quick, slick comment" after Neuharth told him that profits from Gannett's other papers subsidized losses at USA Today: "Aha, your company and my country are both socialistic!" Neuharth's reaction to the oppressive communist dictator's contention: "I paused, said "touche" and lifted a glass of Cuban rum. Then we talked capitalism and socialism and sports until 3:55 a.m." How cozy.

Neuharth argued that "our government could have captivated Castro with smart communication rather than castration."

[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Friday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

(Screen shot, which will accompany the posted verso of this CyberAlert, is from a 2004 Smithsonian event carried by C-SPAN, MRC CyberAlert article: www.mediaresearch.org )

"USA Today Founder Al Neuharth: Limbaugh 'Idiotic,' Bloggers Full of 'Stupidity,'" read the headline over a June 19, 2007 CyberAlert item: www.mediaresearch.org

For dozens of examples of journalists hailing Castro's achievements, check the MRC's Special Report, with many video clips, "Fidel's Flatterers: The U.S. Media's Decades of Cheering Castro's Communism," online at: www.mrc.org

Amongst the featured quotes, this from a ludicrous August 13, 2004 USA Today story, "Cuba pursues a 120-year-old future," by reporter Eric Sabo:
"There's a good chance that Fidel Castro, who marks his 78th birthday today, could keep going for another 40 years, the Cuban leader's personal physician says....Cuban officials say the same revolutionary zeal that has driven nearly five decades of socialism can overcome the ravages of time....At least 40 different Cuban research groups are said to be at work unlocking the secrets of aging. The research ranges from studying special diets to basic research on genetics."

In his February 22 column, "Fess up: We messed up with foxy Fidel," Neuharth called for normalized relations, trade and travel with Cuba before he reminisced:

Personal insight into what a shrewd, slick guy Castro has been in outsmarting us:

Brilliantly briefed, he opened our 10 p.m. meeting with this question:

"Mr. Neuharth, I understand your new newspaper lost a lot of money. How did you pay the bills?"

My honest but naive reply: "Our Gannett company has more than 80 very profitable newspapers. They helped out financially."

Castro's quick, slick comment: "Aha, your company and my country are both socialistic!"

I paused, said "touche" and lifted a glass of Cuban rum. Then we talked capitalism and socialism and sports until 3:55 a.m.

My hunch then and now is that our government could have captivated Castro with smart communication rather than castration. It's time to talk to Cuba's new leaders.

END of Excerpt

For the column inn full: blogs.usatoday.com

FNC Highlights CNN's Memo Calling for
Praise of Fidel Castro

Saturday's Fox News Watch featured a discussion on revelations that CNN staff were sent a memo advising them to make positive claims about Fidel Castro to balance out the regime's critics, crediting the communist dictator as a "revolutionary hero" to leftists who established "free education and universal health care." FNC's liberal contributor and NPR correspondent Juan Williams took exception: "I don't know what was going on there. ... what news man is at work and saying here is what we want to say nice about a man who was an oppressive force in his culture, in his society? A man who long ago left the heroic stance, the Che Guevara time period, and became somewhat of a hard hand that has left his people living at a low quality of life. I don't get it."

[This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was posted Saturday night on the MRC's blog, NewwsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Host E.D. Hill set up the story: "Castro's resigning, it was big news around the world, as the communist dictator announced he was stepping down in a letter. Castro has been a thorn in the side of every U.S. administration dating back to Dwight Eisenhower, has been known for his brutal repression of free speech and dissidents in Cuba. But, over at CNN, staffers were told in a note to accent the positive in their coverage."

She then read two quotes from the memo:

# "Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba -- namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration -- in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech."

# "While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftists in Latin America, for standing up to the United States."

Hill first turned to Williams, who responded with criticism of CNN: "I don't know what was going on there. I can only, you know, I'm trying to think, you know, what news man is at work and saying here is what we want to say nice about a man who was an oppressive force in his culture, in his society? A man who long ago left the heroic stance, the Che Guevara time period, and became somewhat of a hard hand that has left his people living at a low quality of life. I don't get it.

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas joked that because CNN and much of the media have already been "singing the praises of Castro" for years, sending out a memo asking for positive coverage is a "redundancy."

Jane Hall of American University, while conceding the memo didn't "say it well," still defended CNN's actions as an effort not to appear "way too pro-American" or "xenophobic" in the eyes of international viewers: "I think that this may have been aimed at the international coverage, which they're afraid, you know, sometimes can seem way too pro-American, and, you know, xenophobic, and I'm assuming it was in the context of, 'Remember, a lot of people still think he's a hero. A lot of people still think the embargo was our fault.' That's what I thought they were trying to say. I'm not sure they said it well."

Williams still stuck to his criticism: "Picking up on what Jane said, maybe they're just trying to remind people, you know, some who might view him as this romantic revolutionary. But I think, as news people, you have to look at the realities on the ground, and I just think, long ago, we've gone past that era in Cuba. And even the Russians have bought off of Castro, at this point."

-- Brent Baker