Russert Leads Boys in Hillary Hit Job

by Taylor Marsh

The debate last night was something else. I've never been prouder to be a Democrat. But evidently Tim Russert felt that with Hillary Clinton the frontrunner it was his job to do what her opponents have been unable to do for months: attack her full out, no matter the subject or tactic. So Russert came loaded and ready last night, but not for bear, but for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband to drive the point home. For good measure he came equipped with documents, which he even held up at one point that seemed to reveal new information, but that was anything but. I'll get to that in a minute. But the predictable reveiws are out and the hack pack press is picking up where Russert left off last night.

The drivers licenses question at the end obviously surprised Clinton. But when explaining Spitzer's plan Clinton once again showed something that her opponents do not get. She is willing to go to bat for our guy in New York, Elliot Spitzer, who has been trying to deal with the immigration challenge he's facing as governor. The same cannot be said for the rest of the group on stage standing next to Clinton. What's Spitzer supposed to do when Congress shirks their responsibility on the immigration issue? Clinton absolutely got caught up in the subject, but she nailed, without flinching, what Spitzer is trying to do. It's obvious that most of her opponents not only weren't familiar with Spitzer's legislation, which lost out because no one would stand up with him, but were only interested in going after Clinton. As an aside, I think this issue will ignite the wingnuts, just like the anti gay marriage amendments did in '04. I'm against illegal immigrants getting licenses as was proposed by Spitzer (too cumbersome, for one), but I fully understand and appreciate Spitzer had to do something because Congress is not. However, that's no reason to throw Spitzer under a bus. Clinton is getting hammered today, which I predicated, especially on the drivers license question moment, which came at the end of a withering assault from The Boys. But make no mistake about it she stood up and fought back for Spitzer.

Richardson coming out to defend Clinton at one point was a gallant gesture, even if it was badly disguised as a pitch to be vice president. Clinton's opponents did everything to break Clinton down, including call her "unelectable." They insinuated she couldn't be trusted and was not fit for the presidency. Her opponents got personal, but the worst offender was someone who forgot his job. Tim Russert's play last night was not only nakedly sexist, but showed his immaturity and lack of respect for any woman standing up to be commander-in-chief. If only The Boys in the group would have gotten Tim's glare. But he was all in for Clinton. He's evidently been taking notes from Chris Matthews.

There were 52 questions asked last night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile.

Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.

Is Roger Simon, Andrew Sullivan or anyone else talking about these facts?

In contrast, Barack Obama got asked what he would do about air travel; whether there was life beyond earth; and the question on which all Americans' safety depends, What are you going to dress as on Halloween? When the air travel question drooled out of Russert's mouth I thought I'd accidentally hit the remote to the Travel channel. But Russert's softballs to Obama when compared to Clinton were nakedly obvious to anyone paying attention. When you couple Russert's penchant for his all boys panels on Meet the Press, there's only one conclusion to draw.

When you throw in the continual hammering by Edwards, who had his best night, not on issues, but because he played attack dog towards Clinton, not to mention Obama jumping in when he could get up the courage, last night's boy brawl showed more about Clinton than anyone is willing to say. She can take anything dished out at her. The innuendos didn't stop her. The attacks didn't phase her publicly, though at one point I thought she was going to really come out and call it what it was, nothing short of a two-sided attack, with Clinton the target, including from "moderator" Tim Russert who had no business taking sides. But he did anyway.

But one of the most telling moments was when Tim Russert held up a document and asked Clinton about National Archives documents:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.

If you saw Russert hold up that document you likely thought it came within the last year. Seeing Russert's chubby red face all flushed with excitement, in fact, you might have even gotten the impression that the document he held had just come through in a fax machine, specifically for the debate. Oh, how important the theatrics of the moment, especially when moderator turns into Meet the Press attack dog.

After spending time on the phone today with a source very familiar with archive procedures, the truth of the matter is quite different. The letter Russert held up was from 1994. It's also standard operating procedures for all presidents. Once documents start being produced by a president, something has to be decided about what to do with them in case something happens to the president. I was told it was standard for presidents to choose the 12 year maximum to hold the documents, which are put in categories like national security, senior administration, secret, etc. The highest level documents often stay secret, and with regards to Bill Clinton specifically, are then run by Bruce Lindsay to decide whether to make them public. What Russert didn't bother to add at the time of his document waving drama, was that right after Bill Clinton left the presidency he asked that his documents be released immediately. But after George W. Bush came into office, he decided that presidential papers would be kept secret indefinitely, something Bill Clinton openly fought against, including opposing Bush on the 12 year secrecy procedure, but especially on the new indefinite stand. So back and forth the conversation went, with Bush pushing back on Bill Clinton.

Russert played a card that was not only disingenuous and meant to bring in Bill Clinton into a debate where Hillary Clinton is running for president, but did so using innuendos and outright falsehoods, according to any objective player. Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune pointed out on MSNBC today (video up soon) that there was nothing whatsoever unusual about the Clinton archives issue. Warren then went on to say that when you speak of Rudy Giuliani, the same cannot be said. Warren's paper will have a big piece on the issue this Sunday. Wonder if Russert will be interested? Doubtful. By holding the 1994 document up, Russert acted like this was really a new event. It was a charade of monumental proportions.

It's time to ask what Tim Russert's behavior reveals. When you compare his questions to Clinton with the ones that were asked of The Boys, there is only one conclusion to draw. Tim Russert used his position as moderator to single out Clinton in a fashion that was inappropriate, highly targeted, unfair, especially when you consider the numbers of questions to Clinton and their negative tone, opposed to Obama's cutesy questions.

Russert didn't moderate the debate. He became part of the proceedings, coloring the questioning and supporting the attack dog theme, the brawl theme that the hack pack press wanted. Because if Clinton's Democratic opponents weren't prepared to go at Clinton, it is clear that Tim Russert had deemed himself the man for the job. He'd give his buddies in the media the headlines they wanted today. It was a disgraceful performance of outright grandstanding in order to fit the debate to the storyline put forth in the press all day yesterday.

Again, there were 52 questions asked last night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile. Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.

Can anyone imagine Obama standing up to an onslaught like that? What about Edwards?

Russert's goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband, Bill Clinton, to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I'd say Russert has a problem with a woman being president, but that can't be the case. Nah, he was just doing his job.

Comments

[MoNut]

Sexist?

Expecting answers versus another night of broad and sweeping vague rhetoric that essentially says nothing?

This supposed "assault", Ms. Marsh, was brought on by nobody but Mrs. Clinton herself.

She's the one that chose this feeble line she's been walking on.

She's the one that self righteously proclaims herself as "our girl with the goods on the Republicans".

She's the one that would rather pander and ride whatever and whoever has the popular position for the day than to lead with honesty, integrity, and of her own merit.

When is she going to end the illegal occupation of Iraq again?

Yesterday? No. Not really.

Loud, clear, and forceful from a mountaintop tomorrow? Nope again.

Nah... Hillary's taking that duck and weave pander-wire again. Only this time it's the very soldier's backs she sent to Iraq that she's going to set saddle on and ride for the next year and half as she awaits her crowning. The war is THAT urgent, wrong, and pressing to Hillary, ya know.

All fluffy rhetoric... but no votes or actions that consistently match up or follow that fluff.

And why should we care enough to ask about her intentions? Her donors? Her strategy?

It's not like there's a lesson to learn from the past 7 years and these hijackers Curious George and his Big Giant Head puppetmaster in bunker....

Sure. Poor, poor Hillary. Pass the glycerine drops and tissues please...

It's not her fault the magnet in her ass seems to attract Blackwaters and those similarly affiliated with the current psychophant.

It's not her fault her Iraq and Iran votes were misdirected, misused, and misunderstood.

It's not her fault our Presidents can't be diplomatic with anyone or any country until they get her vote of approval in Congress.

All excuses... All as ridiculous as pulling out this hollow "sexist woman hater" excuse when she's finally called to task on the obvious.

Reap, sow, and all that rot, Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps some better business partners/donors? New handlers?

Trust is earned, dearest... Case in point truly is right beside you: See BUSH, G.W.

[caltech]

So let"s just be honest:
Obama"s a pussy
Edwards a phony
Kucinich; kind of a goofball,
Biden, a loose canon, can go off any minute
Richardson, "here"s what I would do": (yawn)
Dodd; better as a senator
Hillary; not perfect, but the toughest, best leader, knows politics and can win an election which is the goal.

[caltech]

Tim Russert is the ugliest fuck I have ever seen. He is a geeky ugly ole school white boy who in previous election years introduced the debates like it was a sporting event to attract his male viewers. Maybe he should be shot as someone suggested, but he should definitely be fired then we won"t have to look at his creepy, ugly face or experience his twisted misogynistic views ever again!

[esprole]

I really didn't any questions tio Hillary that were out of line. The press has given her a free pass so far in this election by focusing on the Obama/Clinton horserace and fundraising instead of the issues. The problem with Hillary is that she won't give any clear positions on the issues. It reminds me of John Kerry who had trouble giving clear answers. I say that as a Kerry supporter. We should be trying to choose the best candidate based on the issues and electability.

[ihavenobias]

There are plenty of reasonable reasons to not support Hillary, but obviously gender is not one of them.

I care about her positions, and even more importantly, where she gets the funding for her campaign.

Are the fools out there who will dismiss her simply because she's a woman? Sure. But I hope some people don't go out of their way to vote for Hillary ONLY because they'd like to see a woman president.

*If* someone honestly believes she's the best choice when not factoring in gender (or that she's least equal to some other candidate), I have no problem with it.

Well no, actually, I still have a problem with the fact that she's raised the most special interest money *by far* (I thought that job was reserved for republicans, which is largely why they have been so pro big business and anti middle class WRT policy).

Consider for example that she's received more money from the healthcare industry than any other candidate, democrat or republican. And we expect her to represent *our* interests when reforming healthcare?

People need to stop basing their love for Hillary on what she did *before* she had the need to raise all of these millions and millions of dollars and start paying attention to the reality *now*.

That money will influence her, despite her claiming it won't (what else do you expect her to say?). I realize special interests effect just about every candidate and while I can't advocate voting for someone who can barely raise any money (because he won't win, right or wrong), I still think there's a middle ground.

Of the Big 3, there's only one clear progressive candidate, as proven by his populist positions:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-with-c_n_70031.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/edwards-move-makes-trade-_b_70243.html

theyoungturks.com

[CosmicRocker]

here is a link to write Russert via MTP

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/

[Zhonni]

Why the complaining from Hillary fans?

She knows how to fight and deck her opponents. I did not see either, she looked quite confused at times- what would the polls say.

I would have less problem with Clinton if she is more forth coming.

Stop using the men against woman stuff, I think it would backfire. We've been told gender does not matter but the Hillary camp brings it up anytime she thinks it benefits her.

If she is complaining about this little scuffle, I don't think she is ready for prime time. She has never won a tough election and the Presidential one would be no cake walk.

[sej100]

Russert always shows his GOP colors.
I can accept going after Hillary IF ONLY Russert would act as vehemous when questioning Rudy, Mitt or McCain. But her never does this. Nor does Matthews who nightly questions Hillary including her marriage but never Rudy's many indiscretions and mistakes in the same manner and certainly never as often!!!

Bias of the media always shows thats the problem. Tough questions are fine, but ONLY when the opposition is treated to the same!

[bayman]

HRC has an overwhelming lead, yet we have no idea what she stands for. Why should we discourage an attempt to find out where she is on various issues, and why shouldn't we follow up when she's evasive when answering a question? She's the front-runner. People will come after her. That has nothing to do with gender. Did gender matter when Russert went after Kucinich on the non-issue of UFO's? If Hillary gets elected, we're going to have 4-8 more years of secrecy...4-8 more years of partisan vitriol...4-8 more years of a hawk in the White House...4-8 more years of pandering to the moneyed interests...4-8 more years of waiting for someone else that can lead a truly progressive movement. Before we give her the keys to the car...is it too much to ask to have her answer all questions openly and honestly? I think not.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

There are pages and pages of vitriol here between democrats who are for Hillary and those who are against. If she causes this much division within her own party, what on earth makes the democrats think she's the most electable candidate? I watched the debate, and the one person who everyone seemed to agree with was Biden. Why isn't he being seriously considered as a candidate? I think the man could even bridge party divides. Or do we just like fighting so much?

[bookerone]

Amen sister! As a result of the attempted gang bang of Hillary I sent her more money. It was so tranparent that this was a set up to make Obama look better than he is, although the good part was we saw the slimey part of lawyer Edwards.

[imademocrat]

Bravo for this post. I was incensed as I watched this debate. "Moderator" Tim Russert was the story. He wanted a brawl, not a debate. He served merely to cue the other candidates to denigrate Senator Clinton. I think anyone who follows MSNBC could see this coming. Russert, Matthews, Carlson, and Mika(from Morning Joe) have been openly disparaging Senator Clinton for weeks. Maybe they're upset that she doesn't play their little games with them. Of them all, Mika is worst--repeating over and over that "Republicans want to run against her". What this brawl did was get me off the fence--I gave the Senator my first contribution to her campaign.

[maryinbelltown]

"Oh, Boo-hoo! Don't cry on my shoulder," as the Brenda Lee Johnson character says in the TV show The Closer. Poor millionaire powerful New York Senator Clinton and former First Lady.

[Marrob]

This was a republican hit job lead by "Big Russ and Me". The plain and simple truth in this, the Republicans can beat everyone on that stage EXCEPT!!!!! Hillary.

[VivaZapata]

Tim Russert did the most damage to Kucinich, but no one's attributing it to the empirical scientists' club. Hillary can't take it. Russert may have been malevolent, but that doesn't change the fact that he would have had a right to go after her once she stonewalled him on the presidential libraries release-the-memo issue. Guiliani will go after her like a pit bull on a t bone steak and what's she going to do? glare at him? for those who think that this won't be effective, guess again. Her war positions will make her look two faced (which she is). The flip flop strategy will be rise again.