home

Clinton Going On Bill O'Reilly's Show

I am with Kos, Fox should NEVER be legitimized.

Obama was wrong to go on Fox and so is Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5; Ras NC Poll: Obama By 14 | Study Examines Death Penalty and Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's only logical---she went on (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    the O'Reilly clone show.


    She's giving (none / 0) (#3)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    the clones equal time to look like fools.

    Parent
    AND SHE NEVER SAID SHE WAS BOYCOTTING (none / 0) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    FOX NEWS like obama, who once again looks like a flip-flopper.  Right now he is on MSNBC in full damage control over Rev. Wright's comments, going on and on how obama is a uniter not a divider, blah, blah, blah...this is his race speech redux.

    Parent
    I know she didn't say she would (none / 0) (#98)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    boycott. I give Sen. Clinton a lot of credit for her ability to go face to face with right leaning editorials boards and commentators. Did Obama ever show up at Scaife's editorial board? I think she is great when she doesn't let Russert get away with his attempts to smear Bill Clinton and won't let him interrupt her answers. She has all her facts at her finger tips without notes or a teleprompter when she goes to a press conference. She doesn't "um" or "er" every other word. Yes, she laughs and smiles... like she is enjoying herself. I love it that she is so accomplished. Good for her going on "O'Lielly" and I would love to see her take on Tweety (but I think should let him dangle a little longer).

    Parent
    She's got the wind in her back right now (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MonaL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    so it makes sense to try to do some bridge building. Faux News isn't going away anytime soon, and if she can build some good will on the right, she should take advantage of it.  They'll turn on her in the long run, but in the short, maybe she can steal some of McCain's support. Call me hopeful.

    Not only that... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Chimster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    but since KOS thinks it's a bad idea, that leads me to believe that it's actually a good idea.

    Parent
    Chosing Between KOS and Fox, hmmm... (none / 0) (#36)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    I can't stand either one.  Few people hate Fox more than I do.  But, she should do whatever is in the best interest of winning.  She ran circles around Bloberman, she'll made O'Rielly look just as dumb.  After the primaries, we can go back to hating fox, and they us.

    Parent
    When O'Reilly Turns Off Her Mic, You Will Know (none / 0) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    she has him by the ummmm short hairs!

    Parent
    Heh heh heh. (none / 0) (#82)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    That is the badge of honor indeed. Let's see what happens. :-)

    Parent
    And she's not doing the gig to dis her own like BO (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    ... did. He went there to kiss up and trash Dems and Liberals alike and Fox had him for brunch.

    Obama's apologists and media nannies hauled otu the excuses for him, eg, he was tricked! Ooooh, damn those subtle folks at Fox -- in a brazillian years you'd never guess what they're up to! (HuffiPo, MoveOn are in a snit about Fox's latest rascality.)

    HRC made Obamann look like a big chicken when he faced her, and only "bravely" trashing her when she was safely out of sight.

    O'Reilly is KO's equal in the sputtering poultry aisle.

    Parent

    bridge building? (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    excuse me while i mop up my coffee.  you do realize how that sounds, don't you?  i thought she was the loyal democratic fighter to obama's traitor-like promise of hope through bridge building . . .

    at least obama had the decency to go on a sunday talking heads program which is ostensibly news.  she's pandering to the worst fox has to offer.

    Parent

    wrong way to view this (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    There is nothing wrong with talking to republicans about how democratic policies are best for them.  That is different than what Obama does.  What Obama does is suck up to republican frames and ideas to win over voters.

    Parent
    Ostensibly news? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Chimster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    I don't think you can have it both ways. "at least obama had the decency to go on a sunday talking heads program which is ostensibly news." Perhaps you saw a different program than I did. Was there actually any news when Obama went on? Did he fight, or did he play a game of softball?

    Barack's the one that claimed he'd never go on Fox. Then he flip-flopped. It looked as if his blue collar voters were nowhere to be found, so he went on Fox to make an appeal.

    Parent

    the program (none / 0) (#27)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    is ostensibly news.  not that particular interview or any interview conducted there in recent memory.  

    in case you haven't noticed, very little news is actually covered on any of the talking heads shows on sunday, but, out of respect for the past, these shows are viewed by many as "news" shows.  this is in contrast to Bill O's show, which is just drivel, but, like Rush on radio, is viewed by O's own brand of "dittoheads" as must watch tv and news.  that's all I was saying, since when i dropped by here before BO went on Fox Sunday he was being panned for doing so.  so who's having it both ways . . .

    Parent

    She went on (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    MSNBC Drivel show with Olbermann why not FOX Drivel with O'Reilly?

    Just speaking for me I see no more reason to boycott FOX than MSNBC. IMO MSNBC is more sexist than FOX and that is of importance to me. FOX, again IMO is an equal opportunity hater so far as Democrats go. MSNBC just hates Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    Who's having it both ways? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chimster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    Answer: Barrack Obama

    He refused to be on the network, then he needed Fox to appeal to the non-elitist crowd. It likely didn't work because he tried to have it both ways.

    For the record, I could care less if Obama shows up on Fox, MSNBC,  Nick Jr., or the Bowling Channel. I also certainly didn't mind that Hillary went into the Lion's Den on Countdown.

    Parent

    Yes You Should See Your Backpedaling (none / 0) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    Bridge Builder on cable right now trying to cover his ass once again.

    Parent
    i am (none / 0) (#64)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    and have no problem with what he is saying.  respect him that much more for doing so.  You should go listen to what he's saying.  


    Parent
    Aren't there Like Millions of VOTERS (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    who watch FOX news?

    also-

    I never understand the argument that going there Legitimizes FOX

    Should we, as a country then, not open up dialogue with North Korea, Iran, and other "enemies" for fear we will legitimize them?

    Not many Democratic Voters (none / 0) (#96)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    According to a study by the University of Maryland

    "...in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers."

    These are the voters that BHO and HRC are throwing the Dem Party under the bus for by legitimizing Fox?

    Parent

    Where would you rather her go? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Chimster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    MSNBC?

    Olberman has been worse to HRC (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    and she went there.  I applaud her courage to accept the interview with Bill O.  I used to think like you BTD, but after the left blogs and most of the media trashed her, she has no choice but to meet the challenge.  Is ABC or MSNBC worse than Fox? If she made a rule not to meet with those that bash her, she'd be in cave.  She does not give legitimacy to Fox, the viewers do.

    True (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    unlike Obama, Hillary never made a vow to boycott Fox based on their misleading coverage of her.
    And she doesn't pander to rightwingers by throwing Dems and Democratic values under the bus!


    Parent
    Obama Just Threw Wright Under The Bus (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    Because it is politically expedient for him.  You will notice that Sen. Clinton hasn't done that to any of her former friends who defected to obama and are now trash talking about her, i.e. Bill Richardson.  Sen. Clinton will do just fine on O'Reilly's cartoon show.

    Parent
    Obama denounced Wright's recent comments (none / 0) (#75)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    but they're the same comments that have been circulating on YouTube since last year - and since Obama's "race speech."
    More likely - Obama polling down, Wright must be denounced.


    Parent
    Newdeal,That What Wright Says Goes Totally Against (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    everything obama has tried to do in his life.  That what Wright said was outrageous and he totally denounces what Wright's comments; and he shouldn't have tried to take over the campaign and distract from the issues, etc.  There's more but you will have to check it out....of course, Andrea Mitchell is making obama look like the hurt little sparrow, which is b.s. pure and simple

    Parent
    There are new threads on this please (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    discuss it on those.

    Parent
    Right...she hasn't done that, that's what (none / 0) (#84)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    she has James Carville for.
    Whatever

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#24)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    unlike Obama, Hillary never made a vow to boycott Fox based on their misleading coverage of her.
    And she doesn't pander to rightwingers by throwing Dems and Democratic values under the bus!


    Parent
    Fox Is Better Than MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by JoeCHI on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    There are many independent viewers who watch Fox.

    It is in the interest of the Democratic party for our candidates to make their case to these people.

    Further, Fox is much more fair and balanced than MSNBC.

    Bob Somerby has been saying some interesting (none / 0) (#80)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    things about MSNBC. And about KO in particular: that the show is liberal propaganda.  I agree with Somerby that the way to counter the media's right wing anti-Dem tilt is not to counter it with liberal propaganda, but the truth.

    The MSNBC network in genereal has a bias towards the GOP and against Dems (KO is the exception, except for his HRC hate). In the case of Fox, we are not talking about  bias, or even conservative propaganda. We are talking about a major news organization that is a direct arm of the RNC. For Democratic legislators or candidates to appear on it is foolish and destructive as it legitimizes a GOP propaganda/dirty tricks op.

    It was stupid and wrong of BHO to do it. The same thing can be said of HRC's appearance.

    Parent

    I disagree! (none / 0) (#89)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    Calling Fox Network Illegitimate, does not make it so.  They have viewers--lots of them and I don't think you can denigrate all of the viewers as belonging to a group one detests.

    Hillary is right in trying to reach people wherever they may be.  This shows courage and confidence that she can maintain her views along the principles she has enunciated. This is the success story of her campaign.  She did not let anybody's opinion stand between her and the voters.

    Compared to MSNBC like KO and Mathews, I don't think that O'Reilly is any worse or better.

    Parent

    I am not denigrating the viewers (none / 0) (#94)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    I am denigrating Fox News.

    And as bad as MSNBC (or NBC for that matter) is, I find it astounding that Democrats think it's comparable to Fox.

    At the NBC networks, the highly paid talking heads and their guests parrot right wing talking points because they have learned their lesson well after 30+ years of conservatives bashing their networks for being biased towards libs...Fox News is different: it actually comes up with those talking points Matthews, et al spew. It is the RNC Network.

    Parent

    Fox's legitimacy comes from no one (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    on the left going over there and challenging them or holding their ground.


    If Clinton Goes On And Praises Republicans (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    to the extent that Obama did, I will be upset. If OTOH, she talks like a Dem I am O.K. with it even if I don't like Fox. Of course, I don't like MSMBC either and am beginning to believe it does propaganda every bit as well as Fox.

    Parent
    I think it's fine (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    This is about winning an election and convincing voters. She should make her case wherever she can.

    I disagree with the theory that people shouldn't go on Fox. I've appeared on their network dozens of times if not more as a legal analyst. My view is if I can convince one person of my position, or even to make them think about it, it's worth it.

    The problem with Obama's Sunday appearance was that he refused to admit he was going on to campaign for votes. He said he was going to take them on and he didn't.

    I thought it was someone from the campaign (none / 0) (#15)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    that said he was going on to "take them on"

    Parent
    While I Can't Say (none / 0) (#41)
    by The Maven on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    I would affirmatively support this decision, in this instance I'm certainly willing to withhold judgment until seeing/hearing what Clinton actually does in her appearance.  For example, Sen. Dodd's confrontational appearance on The Factor last August in strident defense of the (at the time, still sane) blogosphere was one of the things that won me over to him.

    So if Clinton's intention is not to win friends among the FOX commentariat, but rather to blunt any of their lines of attack, that's one thing.  If she goes to try to mollify them and play up her centrist positions, it becomes an exercise in futility and could well backfire.  I would hope for the former, obviously.

    Parent

    I think they both are right to go wherever (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    because minds are changed only if they see the candidate.

    I don't think Obama did anything different on Fox than he ever does (dogwhistle to selfish Independant creative class types that he won't burden them with an FDR type of real Democratic policy).

    Clinton clearly laid out her good domestic policy ideas on Fox a while back...so its not going on there thats a problem: its whether you get pushed around by crappy editing.

    Obama was not able to prevent that, even with an unedited interview. Clinton did herself far more damage by allowing 60 minutes to keep on pushing and pushing her in order to frame "As far as I know...?" as if that was her answer when her answer had already been her immediate: "Of course not."

    ...but on Fox recently she slayed them when unedited.

    She Legitimized KO (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    This idea that going on a show legitimizes it, who came up with that idea anyway?

    Shows are lame or good regardless of  who shows up on them.

    If Stephen Hawking goes on Jay Leno, that doesn't mean the astro-physics department at Cambridge starts thinking Jay's a smart cookie!

    O'Reilly is on opposite KO (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    and I've been watching O'Reilly (yes, hell has frozen over) instead of the Hillary hater KO. Fox News was banned in my home for the last 7+ years until MSNBC went to the dark side. Fox has been more evenhanded with Hillary than has MSNBC talking heads. I heard O'Reilly call Obama a "stand-up guy" last night. He thought Obama did a good job on Fox Sunday. I think he'll be kind to Hillary. Tune in! You may be surprised.

    The swamp (none / 0) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    Olberman,O'Reilly, Coulter are all from the same swamp. They just live on different sides. None has any business thinking they are "journalist". Or that their shows have anything to do with real news.

    Parent
    Audience (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Candidates need to be heard speaking for themselves.  I am sick of pundits and surrogates.  Since this is the system we have, they have to speak.  Fox has a bigger audience than MSNBC.  You have to go to where the "voters" are.  

    I hate all the Move-on huffing and puffing about Obama going on Fox.  They are politicians, they are campaigning.  All our media is equally bad.  

    I certainly (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    can understand why people don't think Dem's should go on Fox. Their main purpose in life seems to be to make democrats miserable.

    However, I do think there is a reason for going on Fox. I think that as long as you use the time you are given to make the case for Democrats then you should go on. Obama made the mistake of basically telling the Fox viewers what they wanted to hear instead of trying to sell them on voting for Dems.

    Oh? Is Kos cool with MSNBC? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by goldberry on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    I guess it's ok to go on a network where it's ok to casually discuss a superdelegate taking one of the candidates into a room and forcing her to drop out, method of coercion left to the viewer's imagination.  THAT'S OK because no one likes Clinton, right?  

    What does Kos really fear bout Hillary going on O'Reilly's program?  That she's acknowledging Fox as a legitimate media outlet?  (I doubt it) or that she won't end up pandering to his audience the way that Obama would?  

    In this day and age, the media is no Democrat's friend, no matter what the media outlet.  All you can expect is that you will commandeer their airwaves for a few minutes, just long enough to slip your message past the bloviating media filter.  

    Fox is no worse that msnbc... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    ...and have covered the Dem race fairer than msnbc. I don't say that lightly. Neither are "news" stations. Both are infotainment. That said, I don't see what the point of going on any of those cable news stations-- even O'Really, who has the best ratings, gets miniscule ratings compared to the networks. Although, alot of white catholic working class types watch that show--maybe she's trying to gin up support from them.

    Hillary's main target audience (none / 0) (#105)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:37:03 AM EST
    on Fox are moderate Republican women in Indiana, who might just grab a Democratic ballot and vote for her on May 6th - since nothing is happening on the Republican side.

    Parent
    I think we may have to give up on the idea. . . (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    of politicians not going on television.

    MessNBC (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Kinda blew it, didn't they?
    They carved out an audience by tilting to the left, then they proceeded to alienate half their new audience with their disgusting treatment of Hillary Clinton.
    Like it or not, Fox "News" has been more fair in their coverage of Hillary Clinton.
    No one has been more unfair and more vile in their treatment of Hillary Clinton than Keith Obamamann, and yet Hillary went on his show.
    As a direct result of MessNBC's disgusting treatment of Hillary Clinton, I'm kinda glad in a way that she is going on Fox "News", in that this is one way to tweak the the pundits at MessNBC.
    As a left leaning channel, they could have showcased and promoted Hillary Clinton, but instead they deliberately attacked her in the most vile manner. They blew it.
    Now she has to go on Fox "News" to be treated fairly, and in a somewhat dignified way.

    Neutral (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    I never will understand why they didn't stay neutral in the primary and focus their guns on the right instead of their own foot. They've succeeded in alienating half their auduence. (which wasn't that great to begin with). KO had a great thing going until he decided he could play king maker.

    Parent
    There are a couple of other theories (none / 0) (#106)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:42:54 AM EST
    about MSNBC's coverage of the primaries.

    (1) They made a conscious decision to push Obama to target a younger audience; and

    (2) Since all of their paychecks are signed by General Electric, their real goal is to "serve up" a weak Obama as the GE candidate - so that their true darling, John McCain, can win the White House.  Their corporate interests are protected.  And besides, if a Democrat actually won the White House, who would KO bash on a nightly basis?  I would imagine a Hillary Clinton Presidency is corporate America's worst fear.

    Parent

    By reporting on the Democratic primary in a more (none / 0) (#104)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    "balanced" way (never thought I'd write that), they are capturing a share of the market that MCNBC lost when they started trashing Senator Clinton. It's smart business for them, whatever their other motivations are.

    Parent
    Unlike Obama (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    Hillary will not be stuttering with all the disfluencies that Obama does in his interviews.

    Senator Clinton shows that she can go where she wants and says what she has to say.  Courage?  One could say that she's being brave facing her detractors (like Olberman).  

    But it shows that SHE has the fortitude of character because she is there, in their face, for them to call her out.  I doubt her interview will go the same way Wallace and WJC did.

    Hillary is very smart.  It's not like she's going to go on O'Reilly and say "G D America" or "we're giving AIDS to people of color"

    Obama supporters will say she's pandering while OBama was 'reaching out.'  Reaching down more like it with his aloof approach.

    Like it or not, Fox News is here and they aren't going anywhere.  Not going on is worse than showing up.

    Hillary/O'Reilly (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by STLDeb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    As a proud conservative, I think it is a good thing for her to go on FNC.  Now I know I am WAY in the minority here but please hear me out.  

    Say what you will about Fox but they do reach a pretty good size electorate a lot of people who can be swayed to vote for Hillary.  As never a Clinton lover (even though he did good things for the country) I am appalled at how she has been treated in the press & could see myself voting for her in the GE.  Personally I'm sick & tired of the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, etc. speaking for the conservative base only.  

    Speaking for myself only (hmmm where have I heard that before -- BTD hehe) I'm just sick of these "gotcha" politics.  I think the Repub went too far in going after the Clintons while in office.  

    Now I get my news from several sources on both sides of the aisle - NYT, WashPo, local paper - Post Dispatch, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, Foxnews.com talkleft.com.  

    Now I vehemently disagree with the republican base on a lot of issues (yes, rich people should pay more).  Sorry for getting off topic.

    I read an article awhile back  (can't remember where) that said people are only reading/watching from their own side's political perspective & not trying to understand the other side.  

    Sorry for rambling on.  

    No apology necessary (none / 0) (#107)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:55:55 AM EST
    I think there are plenty of moderate Republicans, especially women, who could be persuaded to cross-over and vote for Hillary in Indiana - and even possibly in the GE.  To me, it makes perfect sense for Hillary to take advantage of some free media and take on "big, bad" O'Reilly.

    What was amazing to me was the way Hillary laughed in KO's face when he - with a look of anguish on his face - asked her why she accepted Scaife's endorsement.  Hillary said, "I'm bringing people together AS WE SPEAK and it went right over KO's head.  After the interview, KO asked Richard Wolfe why he thought Hillary laughed at that question.  Wolfe astutely observed that it was probably a "nervous tick."  LOL, those guys have no clue.

    Parent

    This is brilliant politics (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    If she pulls it off, she will have a fully earned and completely irreversible reputation as a fighter that isn't afraid to stand toe to toe with anyone and will counteract some of the negativity thrown her way.  This is what, the third "omg she sat down with such n such situation."

    She's not going to win direct votes by this, but taken in combination with other actions it will amplify her positives and undercut some of the oft-repeated negatives.

    I usually don't feel the need to comment here (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    I really enjoy this site and the comments are almost always on the money.

    I think however, that BTD is right about  HRC's appearance on Fox. It has been correctly outed by Dems as not a network news outlet, but rather as a propaganda arm of the RNC, and thus should not be legitimized by Dems. Period.

    It was wrong when BHO appeared on Fox and it was a little bit ridiculous to see Omaba supporters in places like OpenLeft spin/rationalize his appearance. I feel the same about HRC supporters doing the same for her here. You are better than this.

    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    and MSNBC, KOS, Aravosis, Huffington and TPM are all propaganda arms of the Obama campaign.

    I see no difference between them and Fox.

    Parent

    I said this somewhere else (none / 0) (#90)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    on this thread, and I'm sorry to repeat myself again, but I'll say it again.

    With regards to network/cable news: they are ALL biased against Dems in general (except for KO who is biased towards Dems - except for HRC of course). That is just a fact and it makes it even more of an uphill climb for Dems at every election. But it's a climb that Dems can't avoid.

    Fox is different. It does not just a conservative network, it is not just biased towards the GOP. It is a propaganda/dirty tricks operation of the RNC. And when Dem legislators/candidates appear on Fox, they give it a stamp of legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Both BHOs and HRCs appearances on Fox will ultimately hurt the Party.

    You can't compare blogs with network/cable news divisions for a whole host of reasons, one of which being that blogs don't pretend to be "fair and balanced." I suspect Eric Boehlert will someday have a book devoted to this primary and what happened to the blogs in the course of it.

    Parent

    JohnS... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    I largely agree with you about Fox, but I suggest that there is one distinction you are failing to make. Yes, Fox and other networks are biased against dems. Yes, KO is the exception. But, what you perhaps are not seeing in the comments here is that there is NOWHERE that Clinton gets fair treatment. So, Fox hates all dems, while MSNBC and most blogs and other news outlets love Obama and hate Clinton. Same for Air America Radio and every other 'progressive' outlet. There is literally nowhere where Clinton gets a fair shake. So, in effect, she has to where no man dares to go..... Fox and everywhere else any chance she gets.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    And what makes it worse is that Bill will likely be pretty nice to her.

    Not for nothing, but I think Bob Somerby observed that O'Reilly was fairer to Al Gore in 2000 than others.

    I don't like it either. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    Tools on the air preaching to their tool shed.

    Let them spin into a vacuum.

    Hillary haters watch Bill (none / 0) (#13)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    My brother, a Republican (the dumb type), stops going to the out-house if Bill is on.  I know it might be the only time he gets to see Hillary being interviewed.  These people know about Hillary only  from the talking heads.  She will hopefully make a new impression to Bill's viewers.

    Strength (none / 0) (#18)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    Although I have deleted Faux News from my remote, it might even do her good. The progressive blogs loved Bill when he went in to the lions den and smacked down Chris Wallace. Maybe she'll get the same reaction if she takes on O'Reilly. (Though I doubt he'll try any gotcha tactics on her).

    Somebody didn't get the memo..... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    Fox is our friend, Fox has never been our enemy.

    MSNBC is our enemy, MSNBC has never been our friend.

    Or should I say Hillary's friend?  Or better yet, Obama's enemy?

    I'm so confused.....

    LOL, (none / 0) (#32)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    wouldn't it be awesome if she "took on Fox"? C'mon Hillary, show 'em how it's done.

    MSNBC's suckage... (none / 0) (#33)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    does not make Fox's any better. I have to agree with BTD on this, in principle. I think, though, that the "optics" on this would be bad for her if she were to decline. That would allow Obama to use the "she's not so tough after all; I went on Fox, but she's chicken" line of contrast.

    But in an ideal world, neither should appear on that network. Ever.

    Breaking News Obama Press Conf (none / 0) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    He's having a press conference in Winston-Salem North Carolina.  Talking heads don't understand why he is doing it.  MSNBC.

    Questions?  Answers?

    Didn't he do this yesterday (none / 0) (#38)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    to answer the Wright flap? Maybe he's got a big policy announcement or endorsement to take the attention off his pastor.

    Parent
    He Is Saying He Hadn't Heard All of Wright's (none / 0) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    remarks and after hearing them, he was appalled and had to make his cya speech today and answer some questions.  He is playing the martyr, as always.  Says he is separating himself from Wright.  His campaign is surely in trouble if he is doing this.  Richard Wolffe is giving his take right now, but he's a putz, so I don't put much credence in his analogy.

    Parent
    Maybe he's dropping out. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Chimster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    ;^)

    Parent
    no, maybe he's just addressing (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    the "issue" that seems to have captivated white america.  

    Parent
    Doesn't captivate (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    this white American.  The media, for sure.

    I've been hearing for weeks how Obama can handle anything that's thrown at him though.  Well, guess what?  He didn't handle this well at all.

    Parent

    you're obviously not paying attention (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    or listening to the press conference (or the replays -- not sure what i have going on CNN now).  He's doing pretty good, lest of course you want to keep defining him by words other people have muttered.  

    Parent
    Oh, dear. (none / 0) (#65)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    Well, that's your story and you're sticking to it.

    Parent
    it's not a story (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by po on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    it's the truth. the pastor thing is waaaaayyyy overblown and just red meat for scared (bitter?) white folk.  IF Obama was white and his pastor Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or some other Christian conservative nutjob, this would not have been news for longer than a day.  

    Oh dear, sorry, but some people actually are tired of "fighting" and want some "hope" and see in Obama someone who might change the tone.  Just listening to his press conference now and the tone invoked seems good to me.  Practical, common sense answers to insipid questions about things other people are saying.  Why, he almost sounds like the first person i ever voted for for president, Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    My Hope Is That Obama Will Stop Lying... (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    This is another case of obama backpedaling to cover his butt.  Wright made him look the fool, but who knows obama better than his mentor/pastor.  And obama's hurt little boy facade makes me want to puke.  His campaign is in trouble and that is why he had to come out against Wright, twice in two days.  

    Parent
    Legitimize Fox News? (none / 0) (#37)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    I'm not even sure what that means. That you don't like them is fair. But they are hardly the KKK or Al Qaida newsletters.

    For all the crap they have taken they have definitely been the most fair to Sen. Clinton as said by the head of her campaign committee.  

    It wasn't all that long ago (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    the trashers of KO here were saying that, surprisingly, Fox was doing a fairer job of covering the Dem. presidential primary contest.  What happened? [This question is posed by a non-TV watcher.

    Same Dems 4 b'cotting Fox have sabotaged HRC's run (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    The Dem "leadership" wrangling a solid Dem boycott of Fox are the same ones leading the home side's chorale telling HRC to fold.

    They've been throwing wrench after wrench into her campaign and she keeps going. They're the perma-loser braniacs I hope this campaign, GE and WH win or loss will -- oh pantheon of dearly departed great liberals and democrats please -- sweep out of power for good.

    (If uncommitted party support needs any comparison of who the loyal Dem is, they can compare HRC's appearance to BO's)


    OT OBAMA THRU WRIGHT UNDER THE BUS (none / 0) (#47)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    JUST HAPPEN ON TV

    Media (none / 0) (#49)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    is media to me.  Fox grabbed people with their "expose" style.

    Today, I see that MSN has followed the "yellow-journalism" path.

    I love reading about the press in our history.  It's always been about yellow journalism.

    Read about Billy the Kid.  That will convince you that nothing much has changed.

    The press has always had to be fully "self-supporting," which means.......it's a capitalistic venture.

    Obama going after Wright (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    yesterday was a spectacle, etc, this is not the man I meant yesterday.....  [He's getting coverage on 3 channels.  I don't think Clinton going on Fox is going to get attention.]

    Obama: when Wright equates US Govt involvement in Aids, Farrakhan a great voice, terrorism against US.

    I am denouncing clearly and unequicably.

    Comments resurfacing and expoitation of old divisions, whatever his intention that is what occurred.  Not our campaign not what i stand, for does not speak for me or campaign can not stop him from making these outrageous remarks.  When I say these remarks are appalling, I mean it. Distressed this has caused a distraction from what the campaign should be about the Amer people, They want some help is securing a better life for themselve and their children and for Wright to think it is appropriate to command the stage in the midst to of this debate not only saddens me, makes me angry.

    My guess, Wright has nothing on him and it was ok to throw him under the bus.

    Excuse typos etc.  Thought this was relevant to media coverage.

    too late (none / 0) (#54)
    by AlSmith on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST

    Fox is head and shoulders above the Microsoft love child MSNBC and much better than CNN on most stories. To pretend that they dont exist is like not eating at noon so you dont legitimize the concept of "lunch".

    I made the mistake of clicking on someone's link to a Kos about a story that Obama was holding a press conference in NC today and now my head hurts. How can those guys be so stupid "Wright is a non-story. When will the press do their job and bring up Hagee" . Kos and his nuts are what need to be denied legitimacy. The Internet started so promisingly and not it is a feedback loop for the crazies who used to wander around muttering and saving string.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    any of Kos or Huffington, or TPM, or Fox or MSNBC are legitimate anymore.  I think all candidates should diss all of them.

    The attitude about Fox=bad is old school.  They're all biased, use their platforms for bad intentions, say nasty, horrible things about Democratic candidates which work at destroying the Democratic party.  To say one is worse than the other is certainly a venture into koolaid drinking.

    Time to gain a new perspective.


    it's ridiculous to call fox out when other media (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycvoter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    outlets have been obscene during this primary.  Sure Fox will go back to beating up whoever is our nominee, but haven't the other stations just shown they are just as bad.  Maybe politicians should just stop doing television.

    I really don't have a problem with this (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    On either side.  Do what you gotta do.  Frankly, I don't really consider any U.S. news organization "legitimate".  Even CNN is tabloid news - anyone remember Anna Nicole Smith?  But you gotta work with whats out there.

    This is off-topic, but what do people think about the Gas-Tax?  I am a transportation engineer so I am a bit biased since I need that money for work, but I think it is a terrible idea.

    before this election season (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    I would have agreed.  the fact is they have been as fair to her as anyone.
    fairer than most.  if she can go on Olberman she can go on OReilly as far as I am concerned.

    Question for Hillary Supporters (none / 0) (#76)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    In the last 2-3 weeks, do you think Fox News has been fair to Hillary Clinton?

    as fair as MSNBC (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    at the very least.

    Parent
    HRC supporters watch Fox News? (none / 0) (#86)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    Do BHO supporters watch it too?

    It surprises and shocks me how willing Democratic supporters are to forgive their candidates for appearing on and legitimizing Fox News as if it were merely some biased news organization like NBC or MSNBC instead of the propaganda wing of the RNC.

    I have to put the party's interests ahead of the candidates here.

    And even all that aside, appearing on Fox didn't help BHO any -- I'd have to say it was a net minus. I have yet to discern any tactical advantage for HRC to appear on O'Reilly, at least since we are still at the Dem primary stage. Which takes me back to my questions at the top. What Dems watch Fox, how many? Enough to justify throwing the party under the bus?

     

    Parent

    lots of Dems watch FOX (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    just because you dont know them does not mean they dont exist.
    FOX has the largest audience in cable news.
    its not rocket science to figure out why they go on.

    Parent
    This tells me nothing (none / 0) (#91)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    You have no idea how many Dems watch it, and esp how many hard core primary voting Dems watch it.

    Both candidates sacrifice the long term strength of the party for what?! What short term gain are they gaining by appearing on the RNC network?

    Parent

    Here's how many Democratic voters watch Fox (none / 0) (#97)
    by JohnS on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    Not very many.

    According to a study by the University of Maryland

    "...in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers."

    Sorry that I also just posted this upthread. But I think it's important to understand that both of our nominees just threw the best interests of the Democratic party out of the window for next to nothing.

    Parent

    It depends on how it goes/went. (none / 0) (#77)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:12 PM EST
    If O'Reilly attacks, she'll attack back, and it will be all right.

    If O'Reilly is sympathetic to her but attacks Obama, then she needs to defend him somewhat too. It would be bad to be seen as agreeing with FOX's attacks on a fellow Democrat.

    Baloney, the GE network NBC and MSNBC (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    and KOS have been far worse than Fox has ever been MSNBC yesterday allowing that Clinton is skanky.  But regardless these are talk shows nothing more.

    Lol (none / 0) (#95)
    by jarober on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    How exactly does MSNBC differ from Fox?  Is it enough for you that they share most of your views?  

    Diversity is fine for the left, so long as there's groupthink involved.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#99)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    O'Reilly?  This is a horrible idea.  I can't imagine what she's thinking.  This was so unnecessary.

    Both candidates seem to think they're going to get Republicans to vote for them in Indiana, I guess.

    FWIW, I really don't put much stake in what the big bloggers think these days.  I know it's always a bad idea to go on the O'Reilly show.  Again, UGH.

    This is true voter outreach. (none / 0) (#100)
    by uppity kitty on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    Clinton will mop the floor with him.  I can't wait to see O'Reilly try to interrupt her when she is speaking.  This will be a good opportunity for her.  Many liberals watch the Factor and their heads do not explode.  She is a great leader and this is just one more venue for her to shine.

    first time... (none / 0) (#101)
    by almondwine on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:49:37 PM EST
    ...I've ever agreed with you.

    Is Fox really all that different? (none / 0) (#103)
    by LCaution on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    Yes, FOX is basically an arm of the RNC.  But I haven't seen much in the way of honest or useful news on any of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN) or major "papers of record" like the NYT and The Washington Post for years.  Newsweek has been devoting an increasing number of pages in a shrinking magazine to Obama over the past month or so, practically declaring him saviour of the Universe.

    They all cover politics only when there's a horse race.  They are all, except for FOX, in the tank for Obama beyond all rhyme and reason.  They've let Bush trample on the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers with barely a complaint. Their definition of "substance" comes down to gotchas and neighborhood-bar opinions.

    Has anybody heard the TV networks apologizing for using the Pentagon's paid military advisors as "independent" military analysts? No, I didn't think so.

    I can't imagine that Hillary could possibly get less respect from O'Reilly than she could from Olbermann or Russert, so, again, what's the big deal?

    Look at it from another perspective: should she refuse an interview with the WSJ, another branch of the RNC?