Bill Clinton's "Macaca" Moment

Yesterday during the rush of news and the initial rollout of NewsJunk.com a story flew by that Bill Clinton had said some pretty nasty things about Todd Purdum, the author of a Vanity Fair slam piece about him.

This morning, I heard for the first time that:

1. There's audio of his remarks.

2. It was recorded on a rope line after a Bill Clinton campaign event.

3. They didn't allow reporters on the rope lines, to avoid BC getting quoted saying the kind of thing he was quoted saying yesterday (apparently he talks candidly with people on rope lines).

4. The person who recorded his comments was the same person who recorded Barack Obama's controversial comments about poor people in Pennsylvania, a person they identified as a "citizen journalist."

Now, I hope to get the audio (got it, it's part of the Huffington Post report, below), and I found the reporter's name, Mayhill Fowler, but I had to search for it. In the report this morning on MSNBC, they didn't identify her. I kept waiting for them to say her name, but they never did. I think it's not only disrespectful, it's unethical to cite a source without identifying it, unless there was a prior agreement that the source was off the record. As you can see from the report, the reporter clearly wants credit.

In the next segment Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, argued with passion that HRC lost, at least in part, because of sexism. I thought this was an incredible contrast. Where is the respect? Just because someone isn't a credentialed member of the press corps, she must remain nameless? Why didn't KVH tune into this (Fowler is a woman, in addition to being an amateur reporter).

They talked earlier, on the Morning Joe show about how Bill Clinton is old school and hasn't learned how things have changed since his last campaign in 1996. KVH asked if everyone remembered "macaca"? I do, of course, it's how Jim Webb came to be the Senator from Virginia. Did we ever hear the name of the reporter who videotaped it? I don't recall that I ever did. He not only shot the video, but he was the focus of the story, he was the one who George Allen called "macaca."

This should be a lesson to all handlers and would-be political leaders. You're basically always on the record, unless you're talking with one or two people who have agreed in advance that you're not, and even then you have to be careful. I've learned this in the blogosphere, it's why industry parties are uncomfortable for me. I don't think of myself as a public figure, but every conversation is subject to reporting. I've even had conversations with people who were, without disclosing it, streaming video and audio of it, live to viewers on the net. It first happened when I visited the office of a competitor in the late 90s, believe it or not.

I don't like it, but this is the world we live in. But parts of it I do like. I think we should get behind the facade presented by the comfortable relationship between Washington reporters and the political leaders they cover. There's too much control of the political process by the press, and that's too easily manipulated by the candidates. We'll see that play out in the fall as two favorites of the press, Obama and McCain, compete.

Update: A report on the MSNBC's website by Mark Murray begins: "The same Huffington Post reporter who broke the Obama 'bitter' story got a new scoop yesterday..." Mayhill Fowler's name does not appear in the 8-paragraph report, though they take a swipe at her ethics ("she didn't identify herself as a reporter and said she disliked the article when asking for his reaction.")

Comments

[S1m0n]

If she's not there on a press pass, she's not a reporter and doersn't have to follow any of Bill's rules about what's on or off the record.

In fact, no reporter ever does (nor should they) unless the reporter has in person assented to an off the record conversation. Something being on or off the record is a deal a source makes with a reporter; not a rule the source gets to impose unilaterally.

And if Bill is saying one thing in private and another to the press, that's his problem.

[littlepuffycloud]

Vanity Fair always reminds me of Demi Moore posing with the painted on mens suit. Who takes it seriously?

[kira181]

The Bill Clinton incident was not a "Macaca Moment".

[GoodbyeKitty]

Here is some more insight, from a dailykos post:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/3/4351/12223

What Fowler said she said :

"The former president made the comment at a local campaign event after I asked him if Purdum's much-commented upon Vanity Fair story was weighing on his mind. Tightly gripping this reporter's hand and refusing to let go..."

What Fowler ACTUALLY said:

"Mr. President, what do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you at Vanity Fair at the end of the race?"

I think she may be Karl Rove in drag

[Joshuaack]

Well Vanity Fair might not be in the same league as, say, the National Enquirer, but apart from the odd good article they throw in amid the ocean of prattling celebrity gossip, when was it ever a bastion of serious journalism? For all the gloss and pretensions, it's still another mediocre magazine looking for another tacky "how the mighty have fallen" story, and those are always surefire hits, facts be damned. Mostly though, I would like to disagree with my fellow posters questioning Mayhill Flowers's integrity: personally, I draw a line when it comes to somebody's private life, but apart from that a reporter should always be able to report, no matter what, otherwise it's just one more step towards controlled news aka censorship. Sure I was mad at her for "Bittergate", but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have done it. It's called freedom of the press: it might be ugly sometimes, but it's still part of what makes democracies better than anything else

[asemeco]

I want Mayhill Fowler assigned to McCain's campaign, pronto!

[campgranata]

I loath the Clintons yet even I would not attempt to make his critique of the vanity fair reporter even close to that racist remark. there are enough reasons to dislike the Clintons without resorting to this kind of crap.

[2ez]

Back in the days of Clinton friendly media, the Vanity Fair story would have been squashed before it made it to press!

My how things have changed for the Clintons!

That what goes around comes around!

http://klintons.com

[Mickeleh]

You mean. the way the New York Times squashed the baseless Whitewater story? Oh, wait. No they ran that and ran that into the ground.

[2ez]

Early on in Hillary's campaign, the Clinton's were media celebrities albeit mostly because of their ability to influence it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html

Perhaps you would like to explain what happened?

Or perhaps just a snide come-back will suffice?

lol

[shockjock]

More appropriately,

His "BITTERGATE" moment

[Mickeleh]

Yeah, we heard plenty about the Macaca guy. He even has a Wikipedia entry. His name is S.R. Siddarth and Michael Scherer called him "Salon Person of the Year." Earlier this year, Siddarth was spotted working as a staffer on the Bill Richardson campaign (an office job, no video stalking). Sadly, outrageously, the headline on the Washington Post blog reporting the new gig identifies him not by name but as "Macaca."

[wwsword]

It is extremely irresponsible to compare in any fashion Clinton's appropriate outrage to Allen's racist comments. Clinton was expressing his feelings and telling the truth about the political character of Obama's break with Trinity United.

We have entered a strange period in American history. Go back and listen to the things Truman and Johnson said. Progressive liberals have a history of being blunt in responding to smears. Attacking Clinton over his response is political correctness in its worst form - you aren't even allowed to be angry anymore?

Wait. Of course you are allowed to be angry: if you are the candidate preferred by the noisiest people. Obama didn't get angry enough in breaking with the church that brought him to Jesus and taught him how to be a black man.

Clinton alienated me a bit during his presidency, but over the past several months I have come to see again what I liked so much about him in 1992. I like it when politicians are genuine - unlike Barack Obama, who will say and do anything to get elected.

[S1m0n]

"I like it when politicians are genuine.."

Genuine???

He gets caught saying one thing in private and another to the press, complains about it, and you call that being "genuine"? I call that being "two-faced".

[concern4civility]

Dave--this has been a grueling campaign. Bill Clinton's rough remarks about the reporter of the Vanity Fair article may or may not have it's basis in fact--yet it your commentary is out of line. You have chosen to make the language--spoken in more private moment after this grueling campaign--the focus of your article rather than the truth or falsity of the content. Yes. We need transparency, but this is not the way to get it. When a pro Obama pundits blow up minor incidents.. make inappropriate comparisons... we will be stooping to the demogoguery that Obama is so opposed to. It is Obama's caution in these areas that makes him so appealing.

[Chapmanp2]

Gotcha' politics is everywhere & I guess there are parts that are disturbing. But it very well may play a huge role in finally giving US some genuine people (in office) & weed out some total slime balls who have been really good at acting like they care & the turning on US & selling US out at every opportunity to line their pockets & further disenfranchise we the people for a few lousy bucks (which IMHO is nothing more than dirty paper that's good for blowin' our nose & wipin' our ass). Would be leaders should take note & act accordingly. NO MORE HYPOCRITES!!!

[Mandelay]

Let's see in eight years who is a two-term president.

[Mandelay]

Let's see in four years which of the nominees has wiped out the deficit.
Le't's see in four years who has a budget surplus.