How Russert Impacted the Primary: A Footnote to History

Tim Russert has been broadly praised for his neutrality and objectivity questioning politicians on Meet the Press. Yet, even the evenhanded can skew outcomes.

For this primary season Russert provided an open invitation to all presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, to appear for an hour on Meet the Press. For the first half hour, Tim asked mostly substantive policy questions.

For the second half hour, he "Russerted" them, asking about prior actions or inconsistencies. He did this to everyone. Some--such as campaign contributions from questionable sources--seemed potentially relevant to a candidate's character and credibility. Others, such as questioning Richardson for mistaking when he was 17 years old a verbal offer from a scout for a contract to play professional baseball, seemed a bit tangential to his likely conduct of the presidency.

Everyone, but one. Hillary Clinton was still the "inevitable" nominee and had decided not to appear on the Sunday programs. But, the pressure mounted, and then, one Sunday, she appeared on all of them. All from her home, not the studios. One morning, similar questions, her in control, over and done with. Just one half-hour each.

There was an unmistakable message conveyed. The Clintons called the shots. Hillary Clinton was likely to be President, and networks that did not go along faced the prospect of 8 years of second-rate status for access.

Russert went along. He interviewed Hillary for a half hour, and it was all substance-policy. She provided sufficiently long-winded answers to questions such as why she voted against the Levin Amendment that would have required Bush to come back to Congress for war authorization if the UN inspections were deemed inadequate that there was not much time to pursue her mischaracterizations of the amendment, and it was not clear that Russert really knew, right then, what she had said was wrong.

That was it. Or, was it?

It so happened that the next "debate" of the cycle was moderated by...you guessed it, Williams and Russert. In that session Russert waved sheets of paper asking Hillary about her tax records, the Clinton Library/Foundation records and records from the White House that documented her activities.

It was also in this debate that the first chink in the armor of inevitability arose--Hillary's version of "I was for it before I was against it" on the question of drivers licenses for undocumented aliens.

That is, Russert was using the time in the debate for questions he would have asked on Meet the Press but could not because the Clintons had succeeded to that point in not playing by the same "rules" as all the others. Hillary would have been far better off if she had done the full hour on MTP, and handled those questions, before a much smaller audience, and without her comrades to pick up the ball and run with it.

Bias? It seemed to this observer that Russert was angry at being manipulated, and showing he had remedies even if his network would kowtow to Hillary's inevitability as they had to Bush in the run-up to the Iraq War.

I believe that is part of the larger story of bias in the media that arose, not entirely but in part, because of the heavy-handed manner in which her campaign treated the media. Under those circumstances, once one chink in the armor is revealed, others inevitably(!) emerge.

What part did Tim's pique play in the unraveling of the Clinton juggernaut?

A footnote to history.

Comments

[rubyrubyruby]

I find it weird that Iowa is under water...Kennedy has a brain tumor and Russert drops dead at work...Not saying there is any Obama connection...just seems weird though

[NoSillyName]

ruby, what, then, are you implying?

[quixoto]

Seems to be implying that no vengeance compares to that of a woman scorned, and that each and every entity that lead to the ultimate defeat of Hillary Clinton will pay a price in some way.

Sounds a bit too Hitchcock-like to me, and perhaps a bit insulting.
Whatever...

[S1m0n]

There's no support for this writer's claim that Russert was acting out of "pique"--that's pure projection.

[PaulAbrams]

Not projection, intepretation of Russert's body language while he was addressing her. I had that in the article and then removed it for the sake of brevity, but, FYI, this is it: non-threatening non-verbal communication involves gestures that are within the shoulders and from slightly above the waist to a little about the shoulders. When one waves one's arms outside of that "box", the gestures convey anger, emotion, threat, etc. If you recall Russert when he was asking those particular questions I mention, his arms were outside that box, coming forward in sweeping motions. His face was not relaxed, and one could see strain.

That is not projection. Had he not had such gestures and other non-verbal communication, I would not have reacted to it, so it is the reverse: it was his non-verbals that stuck in my mind.

[NoSillyName]

I'd have to watch that sequence again, but I studied non-verbal communication extensively as an aspect of one of my majors (Communications). It is not 100% accurate. Nothing is. You are very highly educated, so I'm sure you know that fact. Are you basing your entire argument on Russert's body language?

[Bliss]

I remember his body language too, he surely had it out for her. Not sure it was because she appeared on his show for half the usual time. If you're basing this on accounts from people who were there, that's different.
My thoughts at the time were that he must have a strange vendetta against her -- and if I remember correctly I think there were some earlier encounters many years ago that set a stage of resentment.
It just seemed very pointed that he wanted to bring her down.

[Grissom1001]

Great point and one that I would bet is right on the money.
The Clinton tweety heads just don't seem to get what the rest of the world understood after super tuesday. Russert got it and was glad of it. Clinton had lost and unless she was allowed to steal the nomination there was no way she could come out on top. She could not win fairly as she had already lost the numer game that democrats elect their nominee on. THAT was why many in the media appeared to be in the tank for Obama. They were fighting the only way they knew how without incuring the legendary Clinton paybacks. By supporting the other guy.

[happytrails]

If Russert did indeed help sink the ship of Clinton inevitability, then we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. Especially if, as this blog states, it was brought on by Clinton arrogance. We have had enough arrogance from the WH and can only move forward with a different mindset.

[jackstpaul]

"impact" and "impacted" aren't verbs. Not a grammar pedant, I just couldn't let this one pass.

[catuskoti]

Copyright 2005 by Apple:

verb |imˈpakt|
1 [ intrans. ] come into forcible contact with another object : the shell impacted twenty yards away.
• [ trans. ] come into forcible contact with : an asteroid impacted the earth some 60 million years ago.
• have a strong effect : high interest rates have impacted on retail spending | [ trans. ] the move is not expected to impact the company's employees.
2 [ trans. ] press firmly : the animals' feet do not impact and damage the soil as cows' hooves do.
ORIGIN early 17th cent.(as a verb in the sense [press closely, fix firmly] ): from Latin impact- ‘driven in,’ from the verb impingere (see impinge ).
USAGE The phrasal verb impact on, as in: when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it despite its relative frequency, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. This may be partly because, in general, new formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact) are regarded as somehow inferior. As a verb, impact remains rather vague and rarely carries the noun’s original sense of forceful collision. Careful writers are advised to use more exact verbs that will leave their readers in no doubt about the intended meaning....

[nellie]

I think the failure of the Clinton campaign was the campaign itself, coupled with the stunning organization of the Obama campaign. I don't think the media served either candidate, or had a lasting impact on either's success or failure.

[Martha12]

You have that backwards my dear. The Clintons, especially Hillary, will be the footnote in history. At the very most, they will top the list of the scoundrels page. Tim Russet, along with Murrow, and Cronkite, will remain at the TOP of the page of responsible journalists. You should take note!

[RBChicago]

Laughable

[lafrance]

The Clintons always believed that there one set of rules for them and one for everyone else. And they expected everyone to accept that and deal with it.
However, not everyone is going to let that be the case. It should be one set for everyone including the Clintons. And Russert was telling the Inevitable One that message. That was the part of Russert that was the everyday man. The guy in Buffalo. The one who felt that since he was raised to believe in one set of rules and that is how you live. The Clintons demanding that the press play by the rules the Clintons set regardless if was different from what everyone else had to, insulted that average guy in Tim Russert and he was going to tell Hillary that everyone has play by the same rules.
Her hubris was what got her.

[leroybrown]

It's another revealing fact as to what the Clinton's are all about.I can still remember May 6th when Tim Russert told his audience that it was over for Hillary And the Clinton's attempted to bamboozle everyone right up to the evening of June 3rd.America will be better off that that the Democratic party has shed itself of Hillary and Bill's shenanigans.
I think it's great that the news media will in effect ignore the Clinton's as they are now irrelevant.

[vince405]

Dude, she made it pretty clear she thinks is Mississippi is backward.. from Time's website.

In October, Senator Hillary Clinton told the Des Moines Register newspaper that “I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here…when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That’s not what I see. That’s not the quality. That’s not the communitarianism. That’s not the openness I see in Iowa.”


This is just like, Michigan won't matter.... a remark she forgot about when Michigan did matter.. ie once New Hampshire was over.

[booksnmore4you]

This was COMPLETELY fair of Russert. He used the first opportunity he had to ask the same questions sorts of questions of all candidates. It was H who messed up by playing the manipulative game of "hard to get".

[Indubio]

Quite honestly, being a footnote to history is a hell of an honor. It is inevitable that the great majority of people are simply forgotten several generations after they die; even by their families. To have a footnote in history represents a form of immortality. Of course, Russert accomplished a great deal more than this one small detail but I expect this election will prove a watershed; perhaps the most important election since 1932 and so his roll in the primaries will likely be viewed as historically significant.

[becky]

The media should not be able to steer elections because they personally do not like a candidate.
That is not freedom, that is not democracy, that is not America.

[marthlois]

Agreed. Forward to George S and C. Gibson please.

[becky]

Yes, the only 2 out 150 who were not pro Obama.

[PaulAbrams]

You are of course free to interpret the situation as you want, but I suggest you consider another perspective on the same facts: not that Russert did not like the Clintons, but that he was professionally angry that they had manipulated him in that way.

[KarenKaren]

That is not freedom, democracy, or America when a person distorts their failures into some one else's fault, or allows the same to be done on his or her behalf. It's not a good sign of reading comprehension, either, when a person injects elements into articles that aren't there.

Newsflash: EVERYONE wishes the media would only show their candidate in a glowing light. But, that's not the role of the media. They need to ask the hard questions, and candidates should know better than to circumvent our free press.

Still, I think your candidate will find redemption based on her future conduct. Witness, Ted Kennedy.

[Piatt]

oops...make that worse for his loss.

[Piatt]

I loved and will miss his passion for and his intelligence about politics. The forthcoming campaign will be worth his loss. Thank you Mr. Russert and rest in peace.

[LoKeys]

Brillian brillant BRILLIANT point and article. I have been reading posts on the HP now for a year, and this one takes the prize for MOST insightful point taken. thanks paul for an amazing point well taken, that made me go " wow, yes, that is true, that is SO so true, and that was HUGE, and i never even thought of that , and NO one to my knowlege has harped on this point with such accuracy.