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

[ljmck]

Hard to see how “neutrality” can be achieved, or even more than roughly sought.

For a Boy/Girl Scout, questions about adherence to organizational guidelines and about the appropriateness of the guidelines pertain. For an ex-felon, questions about the offense, the victim, and whether justice was done pertain. Surely Scout membership merits a different level of intrusion than does incarceration.

Necessarily, the actions of the significant other of each may be considered. One may complain of being grilled, the other of being ignored. Someone who claims thirty-five years of experience, whether or not some undetermined portion of the experience was through a spouse, invites and deserves questions, just as someone with a shorter resume ought to be asked whether or how less experience affects performance.

Candidates-- their past actions, proposed programs, the play of current events and opinion--and their explication of all that affects their situation and goals are open to question. Each may prefer to wrap prior acts in a gender camouflage, or in age, race, or church membership, but ought not expect to be allowed to do so.

There may be rough equivalencies in the questions that each invites, but someone (Scout or felon) with a possibly clouded or adroitly spun past ought not to be given a pass on the basis that the opponent is a relatively open book.

If the scoutmaster or the DA or the pundit failed to ask relevant questions, are those answers forever proscribed? Ask the questions that are relevant!

[loax]

This is why, one of many times over the years to come, we will miss Tim Russett. He held everyone responsible for the actions and their word. God Bless his soul.

[bodo]

Nobody has yet mentioned condolences from Bill and Hillary. I am sure that is only an oversight. Or are they bitter because he was the first to pronounce Hillary toast?

[booksnmore4you]

B and H issued a nice joint statement. You can Google for it.

[marthlois]

As an aside, where are H & B? I know they went away for a restful week/well-deserved rest. But didn't they plan on hitting the campaign trail to wholeheartedly support Obama???

[pilotinfla]

As an aside, Tim Russert's reputation and importance are the reasons that he was not mentioned in the new Clinton enemies list which was publicized earlier in the week.

[longislandlol]

The man of the Century-- Tim Russert- and he should be on the cover of Newsweek, Time, and the Nation mags-- and the National Review-- pure- simple genius- and yes- you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that he saw through pretension, phoniness, people feeling they are entitled and inevitable, etc... Olbermann, Matthews, Brokaw, Gregory, Mitchell, Williams- they'll carry the mantle- they know that gotcha is not really gotcha- it's the candidate, pols, and everyone else that should be ready not to lie and obfuscate -cause these journalists learned from the supreme Boss of Truth-- truth now- cause we know the truth- or else you got your own "gotcha-- "

[kcnativnla]

B.S.
You're talking about the same guy who the Bush administration used to roll out their pre-war propaganda, right. "Genious"? Not hardly. I feel for him and his loved ones, but let's cut the crap.

[JakeEasy]

Sorry, you are on the site of the personality. Whatever the MSM feeds, whoever is the current hot thing. Deeds. Thoughts. Contributions. These count for nothing. Only the cult of the personality. We are only interested in who's in and who's not.

I do feel for his family, but he lived a public life and he is just as accountable for this actions as any of the hundreds that he skewered. He did some good things. Then he did some things that I don't think he agreed with because that is what you do on MSM to get ahead.

Rest his soul. None of this bothers him now.

[Thinkingclearly]

Actually, though - in 2004 when he interviewed Bush - he really grilled him about the fact there was nothing there - and kept going back to it. They replayed that interview today entirely. And that SMIRK on Bush's face - makes me sick. They should replay that over and over next to interviews of McCain and Bush's plan for 50 PERMANENT BASES in Iraq and their excitement about going into Iran.

Please - why can't the media get together and say - NOT THIS TIME. We need more on that story - for goodness sakes - how can we afford 3 wars in the middle East right now - and what makes people think that Russia, China, Venzuela, and the Middle East are going to step back and let us do this!

Russert would be asking questions, where are the rest of you?

[NoSillyName]

So, is McCain YOUR nominee? Nader? Barr & Paul? Oh, wait, was it HRC and now you're not going to vote for Obama?

[Bliss]

Cut And Paste from MediaMatters.org (about Russert's biased debate questions):

...As bad as his performance this week was, it wasn't as bad as his handling of last fall's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. That may have been the all-time worst performance by a debate moderator. To cite just two examples: Annenberg's FactCheck.org agreed that Russert's question about the Clinton archives was "breathtakingly misleading­." Another question misrepresented previous questions Hillary Clinton had been asked (including one of Russert's own questions), misrepresented her answers, quoted her saying things she did not say, then concluded by suggesting that Clinton is a liar. Somebody was lying, all right, but it wasn't Hillary Clinton. I explained Russert's stunningly bad performance in greater detail at the time.

It takes a special kind of dishonesty to falsely describe someone's previous comments in order to accuse them of lying and breaking their word. There should be a word for that kind of behavior. In light of Russert's question to Clinton last fall and to Obama this week, perhaps it should be called "pulling a Russert."

After Russert was blasted by FactCheck.org for a "breathtakingly misleading" question to Clinton about the archives, you'd think he would be extra careful to get it right next time, wouldn't you? In this week's debate, Russert again asked Clinton about the archives -- and Russert again got the facts wrong.

[Roose]

Anyone who follows politics knows that Media Matters is and was part of the Clintons' machine, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what they have to say.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin074880328sep07,0,5183234.story

[Bliss]

Mediamatters began as an attack on Hillary Clinton. I believe she met with the writer and changed his opinion and provided inspiration to recreate the site as a forum to fact check media bias against all Democrats -- they've been fair through and through to Obama and every other Democrat. As far as I know the Clinton team has nothing else to do with the site.
It is very much worth putting stock in what they have to say about Obama.

http://www.mediamatters.org

And actual FACTS speak for themselves.

[NoLove4HillaryAnymore]

Cut and Paste from your own posting...­.

"Did you see Hillary or her campaign go negative? The negativity that you speak of WAS MANIPULATED BY THE MEDIA. If you hear her in context she always stays on message."

you truly must be delusional if you believe that...

Russert is a good man...don'­t be bitter because your girl lost...she was doomed to loss from the beginning because of her divisiveness, poor campaign strategy and many polarizing characters­...that is why she lost not because of Russert!!

You should read comments why most people don't want Hillary for VP let along a President at the petition drive website http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-to-hillary-for-vp

[vippy]

Hillary was on one message that is attacking the opponent. I did not see much of anything else. She ran yesterday's swiftboat campaign and people had progressed.
Obama stayed on topic, tried to steer the debate of hers into issues but she kept on
attacking. Glad the country saw it for what it was!

[barackobama4prez]

Hillary didn't get the votes that would lead to the delegates. PERIOD.

[Bliss]

huh?

Different discussion dude. Staying on topic creates CONVERSATION. Otherwise it's all shadows on the wall.

[Bliss]

Interesting revisionist history there... I'm not sure your slanted view will make into real history tho.
First you leap to a lot of conclusions. DO YOU REALLY THINK... ANY... NEWS SHOW would make a decision out of fear that one candidate would win the election and they'd be shut out? Shut out? Didn't Leno and Letterman try that with each other for awhile. How far did that go anyway? That's ridiculous.

You also are LAUDING Russert for one of the biggest blots on his biography! Mediamatters.org has done excellent work objectively debunking bias and they've written a lot about this particular debate and Russert's unprofessional hatchet job asking misleading questions to Clinton and insinuating unfounded accusations.

Check It Out: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290020?f=s_search

I'll cut and paste some of it... The mediamatters article starts out by exposing Russert's bias against Obama, worth a read now that he's your nominee, eh?

[PaulAbrams]

I am sorry as if it came across as "lauding" Russert. The intent was to be non-judgmental, and just to present the facts.

[Bliss]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I've been on the defensive for so long with the support I show the Clintons perhaps I assume bias in accounts which are only attempting to be factual. So I come here to comment and sort it out... both actively and receptively.

I have to say, it seems like you're holding her accountable for Russert's attacks against her. Is it "heavy-handed" for a politician - or celebrity - to decide when and under what circumstances they will partake in someone else's TV show? Doesn't this happen all the time with everyone? If she uses her powerful position to fairly create a favorable climate, isn't this only possible she has earned that powerful position which is why she's sought after in the first place?

Also it seems by appearing on all the Sunday shows at once - a feat obviously meant to garner attention in and of itself - the timing would create such a special circumstance to bespeak half hour appearances.

...continu­ed...

[Bliss]

...continu­ed...

You're saying she made an error in judgment: by submitting to Russert's standard format he wouldn't have been so focused on attacking her in the debate. Many at the time thought he was repeating Republican talking points in his line of questioning, even saying he was chummy with Cheney. I hope you've read the mediamatters.org account of that debate about Russert's offensive deceptions.

What you are revealing is a huge chink in Russert's own armor (R.I.P.) for clearly a newsman should be above partisan attacks and/or vengeance, and yes, sole vengeance manifests a certain bias all the same.

I do think Russert's attacks began the narrative that ended her campaign, she never escaped those insinuated accusations of character deficiency, and so this does go down as a large footnote in history -- I'm just not sure if it's non-judgmental to ascribe this ultimately to Clinton's own "heavy-han­dedness." (or to take a page from Russertian tactics by slipping in out of context your judgment that her Levin Amendment account was 'wrong' without delving into it - which in the way it's phrased to the casual reader could only further anti-Clinton bias. So it seems to me.

[BlueAsh]

An interesting article, though I feel you interjected too much intentionality into Russert. It'd be more convincing to me if you showed that Russert's "tough" questioning during the debate he moderated indeed reflected his "anger."

Nonetheless, this is an intriguing article about the dynamics between the press and politicians.

[BEHM777]

Politics, like life, is a contact sport. As HRC herself said, quoting "Give 'Em Hell" Harry Truman, "If you can't stand the heat..." Had she played by the same rules as the other candidates that were interviewed by the late Mr. Russert on MTP, she would have had opportunity to flesh out her answers more. Her bad.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Thank goodness she is not our nominee.

We would have had 4 more years of not only manipulating the press but the people as well.

[Yohomegirl]

Hillary was running for president, not Queen. Russert's job was to ferret information out of the candidates so that we, the people, will be able to make an informed choice. She was wrong to shut the media down.

[DrSue]

Blaming Hillary for Russert's man-handling is just plain wrong. He was in the role of moderator - a job that REQUIRES neutrality. It is essential that a distinction be made between his Sunday morning interviewing and that debate. Or you leave every journalism student with the impression that bias and attacking are laudable. Applaud him for what he did well but distinguish it from the opposite.

PLEASE POST!

[ProFromOre]

I agree DocSue, Russert had a tendency to let his love of the 'sport' get him too involved. His thinly disguised bullying of Sen Clinton on the NY drivers' license issue was weak. He attacked Sen Clinton for a political non-issue, which it was. (except in the fetid minds of the Failure Party's right-wing nut-jobs).

Russert's performance pushed the limits of debate moderator professionalism. Remember, that story went away right away - because it WAS a non-story in relation to Sen Clinton. She was merely a loyal member of the NY political contingent supporting Gov Spitzer.

The more intelligent and insightful political experts agree that Presidential candidates benefit greatly from being a governor as the role is frequently the only time a politician is forced to deal with reality.

Drivers' licenses for illegal aliens is common sense, reducing damage done to NY residents vis-a-vis traffic accidents and it gives the state a way to quantify the impact of illegals. It's a shame the Failure Party was allowed to use NY and Gov Spitzer as a tool of fear and division since the citizens of NY are the ones who pay the price.

It's also a shame Russert was allowed to frame the issue nationally, attack Sen Clinton with it, AND have it considered good 'journalism'.

[jp5472]

Illegal immigrants was not a "non-issue" at the time (it seems to have dropped hard off the radar in the last six months though as we had replaced it with such nation shaping issues as Rev. Wright and other absolute nonsense). Issuing licenses to illegal immigrants is just a cop out to an existing problem, not a solution. Secondly, states have always claimed that issuing drivers licenses was a "privilege" and not a "right"..s­o a Governor (former, thank god!) now wants to make driver licenses a right to anyone with a pulse? Driver licenses have never been a way to track population as everyone does not have one, and furthermore, many people who are illegal and wanting to continue hiding under the radar would not just race in tho the nearest DMV and sign up once available.

Tim Russert did not "attack" Clinton with this question. He asked her a "non-fluff" question or another "softball" question that she was used to receiving, about an issue (illegals) that was making the news in one sort or another just about every evening at that time. She was totally unprepared (and for such a self-proclaimed "policy wonk"!). What it did was make many intelligent people sit up and ask just what they were being sold - the whole HRC PR fantasy -commonly referred to as "being sold a bill of goods",

[NoSillyName]

DrSue, surely you jest. Russert did not "manhandle" Clinton. His role was to ask questions and have the candidates clarify their positions so voters could get a clearer picture of who they are and where they stand on issues of national interest. Was Russert supposed to give her the velvet glove treatment? Lob her softballs? Ask only pre-approved questions?

I really don't even see a big point to Abrams article. I read through it rather quickly looking for the "gotcha" moment and didn't even catch it. I went back to re-read the short paragraph about the "chink in the armor" and still don't see anything earth-shaking or reeking of "manhandling" about it.

The way HRC dictated how she'd "Meet the Press", so to speak, is the same way she tried to dictate the rules during the primary. Saying which votes counted & which didn't. Reneging on her agreement regarding FL & MI. Her pandering & lies, etc. Then not acknowledging Obama's magnanimity re Michigan.

No one lost that that race but HRC herself and yes, most certainly, she always believed she was the inevitable winner, For whatever unimaginable reason, aside from her arrogance, she believed the Presidency should be hers. Just as she expected to be Co-President when her husband was elected. I realize Obama may decide to chose her for VP in order to keep some of those disaffected women from "cutting off their noses to spite their faces", but many others won't have to like it.

[jp5472]

EXACTLY!!! Seeing him ask her the HARD questions and not the fluff she was used to made my wife and I sit up and take notice. Up to that point, all Clinton had lobbed at her was softballs, was controlling every interview and debate and was obviously, after realizing it after the fact, had been triangulating all of her answers.

Mr. Russert did us all a great service. He asked the hard questions that others were unwilling to ask as they were too afraid of the Clinton machine (why anger a candidate who was surely "inevitable" at the time, when you then stand a chance of being snubbed by them once in office). He exposed her for being more of a person whose PR surely was stronger than her knowledge of the issues and she ended up looking silly in her stuttering lack of ability to answer in a coherent fashion, if at all. We have had 7+ years of similar that has left this country on the brink and do not need more of the same.

Mr. Russert will be sorely missed as I cannot think of one name out there, perhaps Bob Sheiffer (but he's in semi-retirement) who even comes close to the highest quality he delivered throughout his career.

[bluevillage]

I also think that Russert's MTP interview of Obama 2 days before the Indiana/NC primaries helped Obama in Indiana at least. It came after the week of bad publicity following Wright's appearance at the Nat'l Press Club, and it was clear that Obama needed a forum to explain more fully his feelings and action relating to severing himself from Wright. Russert gave him that opportunity. The rest (2/3) of the interview focussed solidly on substance, giving Obama a chance he hadn't had elsewhere to expand at length on various issues. Obama is best in this environment (see his interviews on Charlie Rose). Russert knew this. I think he was giving Obama the chance he needed. Remember that this program received much higher ratings than Clinton's "townhall" with Stephanopoulos the same morning, which was much more negatively received (because all she did was filibuster ad nauseam). The Indiana primary tipped the nomination to Obama. I think Russert helped.

[harriscrl3]

I firmly believe Obama won Indidana if you look at those numbers he lost Indiana by 15-20,000. 20% of the republicans that voted in the Indiana primary for Hilary said they were going to vote for John McCain so that right there is her margin of victory. She won Indiana because of Operation chaos. So he won Indiana and NC but I dont think it was that interview per se I think it was the gas tax holiday. It gave Obama the opportunity to show that he is not like other politicians that he is not going to tell them what they want to hear rather he will tell them what they needed to hear the gas tax was the way to show this and he prove it to voters when he didnt jump behind McCain and Hilary.

Carol

[lainey]

Tim Russert always had a third person in his interviews--the American viewer. He asked the hard questions along with a follow-up and often left it there. It was in the "there" that we could come to our own conclusions. Mr. Russert played by the rules and in the end, the rules won. He is honored today as both a wonderful journalist and a true patriot.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Hillary's running as "inevitable" was a meme perpetrated by those who wanted to knock her out. Her campaign, stupidly, did little to counter it, and naively played along. But I dare say it didn't start within.

[PaulAbrams]

Then why did Hillary say, on several occasions, "this will be all over on Feb 5th"? She clearly didn't mean that she was going to get knocked out on Feb 5th. And, why did they have no plan B after Feb 5th? And, why did Hillary come to the netroots convention, where she was not the most popular candidate, and say, to the effect, "you may not like everything, but we will all be together after Feb 5th"?

The first thing that surprised them was Obama's fundraising. The next was that he, Obama, won Iowa. And, so on.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Paul, Thanks for the reply. I'm no pro, but I am not ready to concede. Checkidout, from DECEMBER 2007:

"Maybe it reflected the impression the Clinton campaign itself was trying to create; political reporters and pundits have long ascribed that strategy to the campaign even as candidate and staff insisted they weren't taking anything for granted.

But maybe it was something else. Take a look at how some of the nation's most influential journalists have described their profession in the past:

snip

Instead, media built her up as "inevitabl­e."

Were they doing so simply so they could knock her down? Here's The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, only moments after Tucker Carlson called Clinton "inevitable" on the October 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

KORNBLUT: I have to say we in the media are spoiling for a fight. Usually we are biased in favor of a good tussle at about this point. ... I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere between now and January 3, now that we know that's when the Iowa caucuses are going to be, to see some kind of reverse, some kind of Obama surge or an Edwards surge. Something that is going to knock Hillary down a few pegs. Whether it's a media creation, or something that actually happens on the ground. I would be shocked if there were nothing like that. "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712150003

[Dap]

Lost your religion, once again eh?