In The Midst of McCain-Obama Iraq Sparring, A Debate Flashback: Did BriWi Step On Hillary's Line?

I wrote yesterday of the sparring between John McCain and Barack Obama, after McCain jumped on a remark Obama made during Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland. The spat has gotten major coverage over the past few days since then, and in addition to opening up debate about the respective foreign policy chops of Obama and John McCain, it has also been cast as the first real head-to-head for the candidates and as such, a preview of the potential general election. All of this is bad for Hillary Clinton for a few reasons: 1. It's a lot of face time for Obama, who has had a chance to show off some strong statements on the Iraq war (and have the networks show them off, again and again in instant replay form); 2. It casts Obama in the role of de facto opponent to McCain, the de facto Republican nominee. Which makes this skirmish the first de facto faceoff of the general election — and she ain't part of it. 3. No one is asking her opinion on what she would do, if she knew that al Qaeda in Iraq was different than al Qaeda from September 11th. It's not an ideal situation in these all-important days leading up to the March 4th primaries.

A quick recap: In the debate, Obama answered a question from Tim Russert about whether an Obama administration would re-invade Iraq if al Qaeda "resurged," and Obama answered in part like so: "[I]f al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." (See the full transcript here.) You know the rest: McCain schooled Obama saying al Qaeda was already in Iraq; Obama schooled him back, noting that "al Qaeda in Iraqa" did not exist pre-invasion.

Here's what I noted yesterday as a postscript to my post:

NB: By the way, this is classic Obama, turning a gaffe into a victory, like he did the other night with the Farrakhan question. He was wrong initially about al Qaeda being in Iraq -- presumably he was going for a slightly different interpretation, but he did misspeak.* This is also turning out to be classic Clinton, who has been left out of this exchange and missed her opportunity to jump on Obama's gaffe.

But did she miss the opportunity — or was it missed for her? I went back to the transcript to see what her response had been after the remark and lo and behold, she had tried to pipe up after — but it was at that point that moderator Brian Williams insisted on breaking for a commercial, saying "television doesn't stop." He told her to "hold that thought" — but when they came back from commercial, Williams kicked off with a change of subject and a question for...Obama.

See the transcript here:

SEN. OBAMA: ...Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator, I need to reserve --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but I have -- I just have to add --

Story continues below

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Senator, I've got to --

SEN. CLINTON: Now wait a minute, I have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I've got to get us to a break because television doesn't stop.

SEN. CLINTON: -- because the question -- the question was about invading -- invading -- Iraq.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can you hold that thought until we come back from a break? We have limited commercial interruptions tonight, and we have to get to one of them now. Despite the snowstorm swirling outside here in Cleveland, we're having a warm night in the arena. We'll return to it right after this. (Laughter, applause.)

Let's be clear here: First, I have no idea what Senator Clinton was going to say here. Second, whatever she was going to say she was free to raise at a later time. Third, I don't think Clinton has complained about the episode (not publicly, anyway). But in light of the hay made by McCain — and then Obama — over that remark, it's worth looking noting that this moment happened — especially if people like me are going to assert that she missed an opportunity.

But, television doesn't stop. Or does it? I wasn't sure so I asked. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust confirmed that while the decision to go to commercial break had not been determined by a hard break (i.e. a timed, scheduled cut to commercial), it fell to the moderator to make that call. "As the moderator it's Brian's job to keep the conversation moving and in a live TV environment it's important to do that," said Gollust, who noted that it was a 90 minute event with only two breaks, and the first segment had already gone longer than planned. Said Gollust: "There were two opportunities for a break and someone had to make sure that we got there." Williams said himself that "our first segment went long" when they returned from the break; that said, it was up to Williams how long, and by how much, and until when.

This post is pure conjecture — like I said, I have no idea if Clinton would have picked up on Obama's statement like John McCain did, no idea what it was she wanted to say but couldn't because television doesn't stop. I just thought it was worth checking the record to see what her reaction was. I guess we won't know — maybe she totally didn't notice it, because otherwise she could have dropped it later on; or maybe she didn't want to bother because the break had passed, the subject had changed and the moment was lost. And if the moment had just been one of many that passed during a 90-minute debate, it probably wouldn't have mattered. But, the fact remains that Senator Clinton was cut off after Obama spoke, told to hold her thought, and then was not invited to express it — on a matter that subsequently became a big deal between Obama and McCain. In a campaign as scrutinized as this one, it's just one more hair to split (hello, commenters!) but in light of what followed, I do feel like it's worth noting. Blogs have a bit more patience than TV.

The transcript is after the jump; decide for yourself. Here's the video:

*I maintain that Obama did misspeak here, because whether or not al Qaeda has much of a presence in Iraq the 2 - 15% of the insurgency that al Qaeda in Iraq can obviously be construed as a "base." So, at best Obama's statement needed clarification and at worst it betrayed confusion on his part.

Full transcript of episode:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort. I think we have to show that we are not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq because Secretary Gates, our current Defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq and I think even this administration acknowledges now that they are hampered now in doing what we need to do in Afghanistan in part because of what's happened in Iraq.

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator, I need to reserve --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but I have -- I just have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Senator, I've got to --

SEN. CLINTON: Now wait a minute, I have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I've got to get us to a break because television doesn't stop.

SEN. CLINTON: -- because the question -- the question was about invading -- invading -- Iraq.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can you hold that thought until we come back from a break? We have limited commercial interruptions tonight, and we have to get to one of them now. Despite the snowstorm swirling outside here in Cleveland, we're having a warm night in the arena. We'll return to it right after this. (Laughter, applause.)

Here is the return from break:

MR. WILLIAMS: We are back, and because our first segment went long and we are in a large arena -- (cheers, applause) --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mike) -- for Hillary!

MR. WILLIAMS: -- we are just now welcoming back both of our candidates to the stage and asking our cooperation of the audience.

We're back live tonight in Cleveland, Ohio.

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

Comments

[poppyseed]

Zyzz,

McCain didn't misspeak. If you watch video of his comments, he actually starts about by saying, "I didn't see the debates" but that "Senator Obama said that if Al Qaeda re-form, uh, forming a base..." clearly he was briefed about the entire statement and knew it was an answer to a hypothetical that assumed the US had already withdrawn from Iraq. The lying SOB simply chose to twist what he knew to conform to his smear.

Still Amused,

Read the Tapper transcript. You choose to read the transcript as "proof" that reporters were trying to "bait" Clinton on race and so provoked his comparison of Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson. You construct a justifying rationale that Bill Clinton never made and then seek to prove it - very Rovian of you. Clinton never claimed that he was "baited by reporters on race" as you oddly assert but Clinton asserted rather that he used the Jackson analogy only after "a reporter brought it up". Here's the actual list of question asked of Clinton before he mentions Jesse Jackson.

Reporter: How’s it going for you this morning, Mr. President?
Reporter: You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?
Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here.
Reporter: Mr. President, Senator Kerry that – had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week. He said being a former president doesn’t give you a license to abuse the truth. Just wanted your reaction to that.
David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
BC: [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere, he’s got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

If you're going to construct an argument, you have to start with an accurate premise, otherwise it's just sophistry.

[IndependentJones]

It seemed as though Sen. Clinton was taking issue with the fact that the question had been about re-INVADING Iraq and that Sen. Obama did not specifically answer that question. What I find curious about that is that Sen. Clinton was asked the question first and also failed to respond at all to the notion of re-INVADING Iras if necessary.

[roncraw]

Voter: Obama's whole campaign is about a speech he made against the war that was similar to hundreds made around the same time.He doesn't miss a chance to bring it up.But when he was in the Senate and would be on the record his votes are a carbon copy of Hillarys.He showed his judgement when in the last debate he said if AlQueda regouped in Iraq he would go back into Iraq.In the Ill senate he said on votes he hit the wrong button 5 times.I'm afraid what button he might mistakingly hit sitting at the Pres. desk.

[bronceye]

The press was more than fair to Hillary when she was ahead by double digits on every poll and her campaign didn't grumble that she was getting preferential treatment. People talk more about the Giants than the Patriots. She isn't a winner, anymore. She is becoming a millstone on the neck of the DemocratIC party. She has dragged Bill down and will drag the whole party down with her because of her already overused and quaint rovian tactics. What I saw and what this article addresses is a feminine need to just get in the last word. Any married man would recognise the technique. Change is not the use of Goebbels/Rove tactics. She has adapted a repub-type campaign. It is damaging the debate and, obviously, ineffective with democrats.

[Blake Fleetwood - Huffpost Blogger]

The press was not fair when she was ahead by double digits.

The decline for Hillary started when the press jumped all over her for the immigrant drivers license answer in one of the early debates.

There was not a yes or no answer, and yet when she explained both sides, she was called a flip-flopper, it was all downhill from there.

She still has a chance, a small one.

What will happen I think is that Hillary will win Ohio, Texas, RI, by the popular vote. She may not win many delegates.

Then she has to win Penn..... Then she has a chance. It's a long, long shot. Obama is outspending her by a margin of 2 to 1

I think Obama should make Bill Clinton Secretary of State.

[zjemi]

Whether or not there is media bias, the Clinton campaign is certainly playing it up, telling us we should vote for Hillary out of sympathy. Should our vote really be a sympathy vote?

I noticed in the last debate that Hillary answered many of the questions with her eyebrows raised, as if she were scolding or telling someone off. Moderators should be above responding to such things, but perhaps Brian Williams and Tim Russert, who interrupted her several times, were not. I did notice that Obama tried to talk several times in response to Hillary's criticisms and she wouldn't let him. He didn't insist on interrupting and came off as gracious as a result.

Obama has not complained about the media when responding to deliberately misleading news. He only corrects the source (the RNC suggesting he was anti-Semitic because of his middle name) or ignores it (CNN taking a poll about whether he was "patriotic" enough). He seems to be better able to take unfair hits than she is. So much for her claim that she would survive RNC negative attacks better than he.

[MDTERP]

Still Amused, thanks for pointing that out about the true context of the remarks by Bill Clinto re Jesse Jackson in South Carolina. I was convinced he was slipping if he said what was attributed to him, the way it was reportrd.How is it that the MSM is allowed to flagrantly rewrite history and make history by manipulating people's perceptions rather than just printing the truth. It brings to mind how they made Al Gore look ridiculous with the out of context quotes about the internet among many other examples.
And for more selective reporting, during his campaign big story about Bill Clinton maybe smoking pot in the 60"s. I don't remember people referencing Bush's alcoholism and cocaine use, not in the main stream press, anyway. And Obama admits he did cocaine, a felony. Not a peep. Now honestly I don't care that he did, I understand the context. But Clinton's use of pot in the 60's was even more understandablle. Both adolescent/early adult experiments. Bush however was well into his 30's maybe his 40's. An adolescent only in the minds of his rich over indulgent parents. Is it the press being taken over by big corporations with their own selfish agendas that is driving this?

[ddlrid]

oh please...this so-called media bias thing against clinton is the biggest fairy tale out there!

who else could have lost 11 straight primaries/caucuses and still be called a contender at this point?

who was virtually crowned the democratic nominee up until the last few months by msm---up until she began losing to a virtual unknown?

who has lead msm by the nose in spinning that the current delegate/popular vote leader 'must win' all 4 contests this tuesday or else it's over for him? and msm reports it as such!!

stop the whining and get real...clinton had the world at her disposal to tie this race up. she is losing because she made very poor choices leading to (iraq war vote, etc) and during this campaign (no strategy after 2/5, etc). and because she is being challenged by someone who has made wiser choices, has articulated a clearer vision for our future and has run a brilliant, inclusive campaign that has energized our party. for clinton, everyone and everything else is to blame for her situation. that's a real leader, huh?

[Clarabell]

What is evident from most of the posts here, I'll say it again, there is nothing like a Hillary hater. Hillary has been stalked by Chris Matthews and most of the MSM -- which started even before she announced her candidacy. Now that Chris has helped destroy Hillary by dissecting her every thought, word and action (from day one), he will now be free to finish off Obama, thereby assuring that McCain (surprise surprise) wins the election -- just like he did for Bush. The Obama swiftboating has already begun. The MSM will take every "outrage" pointed at Obama and show them over and over, thereby assuring that knucklehead Americans "get it." What a sad, sickening union we have become.

[mansky]

Do you honestly think that Chris Matthews has enough clout in this culture to "destroy" Hillary or Obama? You're giving MSNBC too much market share. Look at the ratings. A drop in the bucket.

[WAdem]

Answer for mansky, DUH! Of course he does. Many people believe everything they see on TV. Go back and drink a little more Kool-Aid, vote for Obama, I will see you on the other side of the McCain Presidency. You have been played for a fool and won't even know it until it is too late. I am a strong Edwards supporter and resent the uninformed and let's-jump-on-the-bandwagon types who have fueled the MSM's propaganda to eliminate Hillary. She would make a much better President than Obama or McCain or even Bill Clinton. She has better instincts and, God knows, we're going to need the best we can get for the coming 4 years.

[Zyzzygowski]

Agreed, Williams cut off Sen Clinton to go to commercial break and said "... Can you hold that thought until we come back from a break?" And, then did not return to the line of questioning. Yep, that is all on Williams. But, I have several questions and observations.

What are the pads of paper and pens for? What are the candidates writing? If I had a point to make in response to what another said I would certainly write it down so that I could return to it and provide my input.

What does it say about a candidate that they can be taken off their game by not finishing a thought, or waiting for a question to return to their thought? Early on in the debate Sen Clinton repeatedly wouldn't let the conversation end on the subject of health care. Sen Clinton always had something to ad.

There is no reason for Sen Clinton not to have returned to the line of questioning herself. Why did she need an invitation? Both candidates, in this and previous debates, have said, 'I would like to comment on what so and so had said a while back.'

Bottomline, yes Williams may have slipped, but worse yet, Sen Clinton slipped, as well. The thing is we can not have a Commander in Chief slipping.

As for Sen Obama's comment that Sen McCain jumped on, the unfortunate thing for Sen McCain is that he missed the premise of the question and then mischaratcerized Sen Obama's response. I doubt Sen McCain's answer to the same question would be much different from Sen Obama's.

The question to Sen McCain (In terms he can appreciate): Sen McCain, after the Iraq war is won and the troops have come home, should Al Qaeda begin a resurgence in Iraq, what would you do?

[stupidme]

Good pickup Rachel - I think that in order to really find out if Brian stepped on Hillary Bush Clinton Bush Clinton's line we may have to check the msnbc feed in northern Aabama. Her line may have gotten through up there. They like fighters up thar. More on point though. I've watched the replay and she was so intent on monopolizing the time so she could show us the the fightin' Hillary, she came off looking like a palooka in the ring against a, let's say, Muhammad Ali. However, please address the fact that she is always surrounded by males at these events. Perceptually it's going to looked stacked, even if it isn't.

[StillAmused]

"But, television doesn't stop."

Neither does the MSM... not when it's on a roll.

The mainstream press carelessly (or carefully) cropped Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment in South Carolina, discarding the preceding ten minutes or so of Clinton being pressed by reporters about the historical role of race in S.C. politics. Clinton, an inveterate, encyclopedic wonk, responded as one would expect. In such a context, would it have made more sense if he'd referred to the last LITHUANIAN-American presidential candidate who ran in South Carolina, rather than the last African-American?

From the ABC transcript, posted by Jake Tapper (they managed to miss THIS when they scrubbed all preceding references to race): "Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here."

Sound, to you, like the REPORTERS — rather than Clinton — were flogging the race angle?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/false-pushback.html

Then, there's Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) -- an African-American who WITNESSED the exchange -- in an interview with CNN's Kiran Chetry, in which he clearly states that Bill Clinton was being engaged by reporter(s) about historic voting patterns in South Carolina, leading up to the Jackson reference:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn

Meek, it should be noted, virtually vanished from my tee-vee after this one interview, and I'm unaware of any anchors or moderators seeking him out thereafter to expand on his comments.

Instead, a lazy, pot-stirring press kept (and keeps) beating the cropped version of the event to death, fueling the more sensational -- and false -- narrative, namely, that Bill Clinton "injected race" into the South Carolina primary and, by extension, the campaign.

Yeah... Bill Clinton was the culprit -- not the press and TV talking heads whose commentary is laden, daily, with ENDLESS calculations of the role of race in primary voting.

Indeed, television doesn't stop.

[PennP]

We have no idea what transpired during the commercial break, do we? Clinton did not revisit that question--and we all know that she'd have had no problem doing so, regardless of what was on the table, based on her behavior disregarding the moderator in the infamous 16-minute debate on health care.

We do know that Clinton authorized the use of deadly force and committed our country to the war without bothering to read the NIE that raised doubts about the validity of the claims bandied about in the oral briefings. She has said that she went on the strength of those briefings, without verifying their claims in the record. She had not, at the time that question was asked in the debate, expressed regret over her appalling failure in the most important decision she has ever made. If I were she, I'd hesitate to invite further consideration of my judgment skills and executive ability in the area of national security and foreign relations.

Also, I don't remember hearing her or her supporters complain of unfairness when, last summer and fall, Clinton was spoken of as the preumptive nominee, and other candidates were dismissed as so much chaff that would be swept aside by Super Tuesday. This kind of thing went on for many months, or until she began losing. Why do her supporters--and she--think that portraying her as a victim will strengthen her appeal as a candidate? It makes her seem as if she's playing the pity card, an absurd dynamic in a Presidential election. More than that, it makes it appear that she cannot stand up for herself and deal with her peers on equal footing. If the POTUS can't "get her back" herself, how's she going to get ours?

[polcomm]

I think there has been media bias and it is not a figment of the HRC crowd. Callers to NPR on Friday stated the same thing. Let's face it, Obama gets a pass on everything and Hillary gets battered on everything. Like the conversation that the Obama campaign had with the Canadian embassy on NAFTA. It was true and why wasn't it covered? Or, the Rezko trial that was delayed a week to start just one day before the Texas and Ohio primaries. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. But, things may be beginning to turn in favor of Hillary. It think McCain has helped Hillary in the last week. Because it is important that at least someone call Obama on his rhetoric and statements. What about the crossover voting in the primaries and caucuses by the Republicans (Time magazine article - Republicans for Obama formed in 2006) that are aimed at giving Obama Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Alaska, etc. What about the fact that (also featured in Time Magazine) about the three former fundraisers for Bush that gave to Obama early in the campaign to make it look like he was getting all of this financial support, when in fact, it came from the Republicans. Where is the Fourth Estate on this? Do you think it is a conincidence that Obama broke all fund raising records in 2007? Not if you look into the facts. The real facts. What about Austin's State Senator Kirk Watson who could not come up with one accomplishment that Obama has made during an interview with MSNBC? I think time is actually on Hilliary's side now because of all of the things that are coming out about Obama. The 11 primaries he won he was supposed to win because of the African American vote. In fact, if you look at 1988, Jesse Jackson won the primary in Virginia as well. No one is raising these points because it is not PC. There are also stories in the New Republic about how the Obama campaign was threatening black delegates who are up for re-election to come over to his side or face major opposition. Obama cannot win a national election and he will lose 40 states or more if he gets the Democratic nomination. He will crash and burn under real scrutiny and questions. A good question: Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 a.m. during a national crisis? Barack or Michelle Obama? Or Hillary or Bill Clinton? You decide.

[Fabienne]

Poor Senator Clinton can't get a break. She only began her campaign as the wife of a President of 8 years with most of the party machine behind her, so, of course, she's had to fight every step of the way.

[mansky]

Do Clinton supporters really think that such a minor issue hurts her? Really, what would they talk about if it hadn't happened?

Victimization by the media has become a central theme in their campaign.

Such complaining hurts them. If they gain a vote here and there, they lose more by continuing the victim card.

She ran a good ad in Ohio. He ran a good retort. That's where the action is today. Real issues.

[WAdem]

Do Clinton supporters really think that such a MINOR ISSUE hurts her?

How soon we forget. GOP slime works. The Swiftboaters alone beat Kerry and he was not nearly as good a candidate as HRC.