CBS’s Wallace Mocks Bush’s Smarts and Belief in Freeing People --4/19/2004-- Media Research Center

1. CBS’s Wallace Mocks Bush’s Smarts and Belief in Freeing People During his 60 Minutes sessions aired Sunday night with Bob Woodward, author of the new book, Plan of Attack, CBS’s Mike Wallace mocked President’s Bush’s smarts and belief in freeing people from oppression. Wallace demanded: “Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world?” Wallace also jeeringly proposed: “The President of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people -- not just in Iraq, but around the world?” Woodward shared Wallace’s concern: “It is far-reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.” Having established Bush’s irrationality, Wallace moved on to wondering “how deep a man is President George W. Bush?” Woodward contended: “He is not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker.”

2. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Presses Tony Blair to Name Mistakes A few days after the White House press corps pressed President Bush repeatedly, at a news conference, to name mistakes he’s made in the war on terrorism, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair the same question in an interview featured on Sunday’s This Week. ABC apparently considered the subject the most important of the interview since it was the only exchange from it excerpted on Friday’s World News Tonight during a plug for Stephanopoulos’ upcoming Sunday session.

3. Washington Post Ombudsman Concedes “Political Bias” in PDB Story Focusing on how the Washington Post a week earlier had led a story with a very misleading reference to how “President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan," when the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in question made no reference to “Lower Manhattan,” Post Ombudsman Michael Getler conceded on Sunday that since the wording falsely suggested that Bush was warned about an attack in the area of the World Trade Center, “readers who believe this introductory paragraph was, or could be seen as, misleading and conveying a political bias make a fair point, in my view.”

4. Couric Delivers Giddy and Upbeat Session with Hillary Clinton
Katie Couric provided a giddy and upbeat session Friday night with Senator Hillary Clinton to promote the publication of the paperback version of her book, Living History. Couric gushed about how “she's received like a rock star,” hit her from the left on Iraq, “You say commit more troops. But that's the same thing LBJ did in Vietnam. Do you worry that this is another Vietnam?”, championed how “Hillary Clinton has a vision for herself. She's a powerful U.S. Senator, and something of a phenomenon in the publishing world” and asked Clinton to “play 'complete the sentence’” with her. Some of Couric’s set-ups: "My guiltiest pleasure is?", "I'm proudest that?" and “I would like my tombstone to say?" Dateline anchor Stone Phillips set the tone by insisting “that the title, Senator, fits Hillary Clinton like a glove.”

5. ABC’s Charles Gibson Still Dreaming About John McCain for VP ABC’s Charles Gibson can’t let go of his dream of John McCain on the ticket with John Kerry. On Friday, five weeks after he begged McCain to “let me imagine” such a scenario, McCain returned to Good Morning America and Gibson asked him again about the possibility.

CBS’s Wallace Mocks Bush’s Smarts and
Belief in Freeing People

During his 60 Minutes sessions aired Sunday night with Bob Woodward, author of the new book, Plan of Attack, CBS’s Mike Wallace mocked President’s Bush’s smarts and belief in freeing people from oppression. Wallace demanded: “Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world?” Wallace also jeeringly proposed: “The President of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people -- not just in Iraq, but around the world?” Woodward shared Wallace’s concern: “It is far-reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.” Having established Bush’s irrationality, Wallace moved on to wondering “how deep a man is President George W. Bush?” Woodward contended: “He is not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker.”

The second of the two April 18 60 Minutes segments promoting Woodward’s book ended with this discussion between Wallace and Woodward, who holds the title of Assistant Managing Editor of the Washington Post:

     Woodward, referring to Bush on Iraq: “The President still believes, with some conviction, that this was absolutely the right thing, that he has the duty to free people, to liberate people, and this was his moment.”
     Wallace: “Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world?”
     Woodward: “That's a really good question. The Constitution doesn't say that's part of the Commander-in-Chief's duties.”
     Wallace, acting astonished: “The President of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people -- not just in Iraq, but around the world?”
     Woodward “That’s his stated purpose. It is far-reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.”
     Wallace: “How deep a man is President George W. Bush?”
     Woodward: “He is not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker. He chastised me at one point because I said people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And he said, 'Well you travel in elite circles.’ I think he feels there is an intellectual world and he has indicated he's not a part of it.”
     Wallace: “Has a disdain for it.”
     Woodward confirmed: “He has expressed that. That’s right.”
     Wallace chipped in: “For the intellectual world.”
     Woodward: “The 'fancy pants’ intellectual world. What he calls 'the elite.’”
     Wallace: “How does the President think history will judge him for going to war in Iraq?”
     Woodward: “After the second interview with him on December 11th, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, 'Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war.’ “And he said, 'History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, 'History, we won’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”

With that, 60 Minutes went to Wallace for some final comments on the 60 Minutes set. After claiming that keeping the book’s allegations secret prevented them from getting a White House reaction, which they would welcome for next week, Wallace noted how Viacom owns both CBS News and the publisher of Woodward’s book, but his words betrayed his disdain for the suggestion of any improper influence: “Incidentally, for the record, though it had nothing to do with our reporting this story, Bob Woodward’s publisher, Simon and Schuster, is owned by the same company we are, Viacom.”

CBSNews.com has posted a text version of the Wallace/Woodward interview, but it only approximates what aired and many of the quotes do not match what aired (I found three differences, in just the short passages quoted above, between what aired and the CBSNews.com’s transcript.) See: www.cbsnews.com

For Amazon.com’s page for Woodward’s book: www.amazon.com

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Presses Tony
Blair to Name Mistakes

A few days after the White House press corps pressed President Bush repeatedly, at a news conference, to name mistakes he’s made in the war on terrorism, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair the same question in an interview featured on Sunday’s This Week. ABC apparently considered the subject the most important of the interview since it was the only exchange from it excerpted on Friday’s World News Tonight during a plug for Stephanopoulos’ upcoming Sunday session.

On This Week, Stephanopoulos set up the interview by saying that it took place on Friday, but he did not say where it occurred, though viewers could see that it took place in some sort of living room-type setting. (Blair met with President Bush in DC on Friday.)

     Stephanopoulos pressed Blair: “When President Bush was asked the other night, he couldn’t name a single mistake he had made in the war on terror. So do you think there are any?”
     Blair: “What I always say to the British journalists when they ask me about, you know, 'tell us about your mistakes,’ I say that’s for me to know and you to find out. You know, there no. I don’t doubt there’s all sorts of things we’ll look back in years to come and say-”
     Stephanopoulos had to reach back more than 40 years, skipping over his old boss, Bill Clinton, for an instance of a President conceding a blunder: “Well when John Kennedy went into the Bay of Pigs and it went wrong he came out and said I made a mistake. It helped him.”
     Blair: “Yeah, but I think most of us would say we probably underestimated the basic security threat that we face and we’re trying to tackle that now...”

CyberAlert items on the media’s obsession with getting Bush to apologize or admit mistakes:

     -- April 14 CyberAlert: Following President Bush’s news conference on Tuesday night, NBC News anchor Brian Williams pointed out to David Gregory how Bush refused to “admit” any mistakes and complained that “I didn’t detect a straight-on answer there.” Gregory agreed before he insisted: “This President could be accused in some places today of filibustering at times.” Similarly, over on ABC, George Stephanopoulos bemoaned how “the President was quite defiant tonight, even at times defensive. No apologies, no acceptance of personal responsibility.” ABC’s Peter Jennings acknowledged the agenda of the White House press corps in repeatedly trying to get Bush to admit mistakes and errors during his presidency and Stephanopoulos admitted reporters “want to see some concession of responsibility by the President.” See: www.mediaresearch.org

     -- April 14 CyberAlert, second item: At Tuesday night’s presidential news conference, White House corespondents for major national news outlets pounded away at President Bush in an effort to get him to identify errors he’s made either before 9/11 or in going to war in Iraq, and urged him to follow Dick Clarke’s lead and apologize for the September 11 terrorist attacks. New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller delivered the most obnoxious question of the evening, demanding in an accusatory manner: “Do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?” Similarly, John Roberts of CBS News recalled how Clarke offered “an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11" and queried Bush: “Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?” See: www.mediaresearch.org

     -- April 15 CyberAlert: The networks remained obsessed Wednesday morning with how President Bush couldn’t, at his news conference the night before, name a mistake he’s made, thus making the news media’s agenda, in pressing Bush repeatedly to name an error or apologize for September 11th, the news over what Bush said about other topics. NBC’s Today raised the subject at least seven times while CBS and ABC also focused on the topic with George Stephanopoulos declaring that Bush’s refusal to concede any mistakes “was the most striking thing, far and away, in the press conference.” On Wednesday night, NBC’s David Gregory highlighted how Bush “refused to admit any mistakes” and earlier in the day, on Imus in the Morning, Gregory defended his question to Bush about making “errors in judgment.” See: www.mediaresearch.org

Washington Post Ombudsman Concedes “Political Bias”
in PDB Story

Focusing on how the Washington Post a week earlier had led a story with a very misleading reference to how “President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan," when the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in question made no reference to “lower Manhattan,” Post Ombudsman Michael Getler conceded on Sunday that since the wording falsely suggested that Bush was warned about an attack in the area of the World Trade Center, “readers who believe this introductory paragraph was, or could be seen as, misleading and conveying a political bias make a fair point, in my view.”

The April 12 CyberAlert picked up on the distorted April 11 front page Post story: On Sunday [April 11], though the memo only talked about the possibility of plane hijackings, not of flying them into buildings, the subhead on a front page Washington Post story suggested Bush learned more than he did: “Aug. 6 Report to President Warned of Hijacking.” Reporters Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus opened their April 11 story with a very misleading sentence: “President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan.”

Not until four paragraphs later did the Post duo acknowledge that the “targeting of a building in lower Manhattan” had nothing to do with what actually occurred on September 11, noting how “officials said the photographing of the federal buildings was later judged to be 'tourist activity,’” by some Yeminis.

For more about distorted reporting of the PDB, along with a link to the Washington Post story in question: www.mediaresearch.org

The August 6 PDB referred to “recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York,” and while there are federal buildings in lower Manhattan, they are all over New York City and New York state.

“'A Building in Lower Manhattan'” read the headline over Getler’s April 18 Ombudsman column on the editorial page. An excerpt:

The White House release April 10 of the top-secret "President's Daily Brief" of Aug. 6, 2001 -- carrying the headline, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" -- made front-page headlines in all the Sunday papers....

The lead of the story by reporters Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus said: "President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan."...

Well, that is close to, but not exactly, what the document said. After a reference in the PDB to some earlier and uncorroborated reports about al Qaeda hijacking plans, the pertinent paragraph says: "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

The memo refers to "federal buildings" and not "a building," as the story's first sentence does. The memo does not use the word "targeting." It mentions "New York" but does not specify "Lower Manhattan."

There are federal buildings in Lower Manhattan, not far from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center, which were not federal buildings, once stood. But the way the lead was written can easily produce an image that suggests more of a specific warning about what unfolded a month later than was actually in the text. The words "targeting a building in Lower Manhattan" present a mental picture closer to the World Trade Center than does "federal buildings in New York," which could mean many locations.

Many readers, after reading the actual PDB text that was reproduced on Page A6, angrily objected to this phrasing; one described the story as "an egregious misrepresentation of what was presented to the president." Why do this "other than to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the words in the story, 'a building in lower Manhattan,' [were] meant to be the World Trade Center?"...

The Post story did report, toward the end, that the PDB item about surveillance grew out of FBI interviews of tourists from Yemen who were taking pictures of the Foley Square courthouse in downtown New York. This, reporters explain, is why their reference was to one building. And because that building is near what turned out to be Ground Zero, it was important because it gave at least some reason to expect an attack in that area.

Nevertheless, readers who believe this introductory paragraph was, or could be seen as, misleading and conveying a political bias make a fair point, in my view. This was obviously a big story and the top of it could easily have stuck to the actual language and content of the briefing, which was pretty dynamic on its own....

Finally, contributing to what the complaining readers viewed as political spin, was the other half of the top of Sunday's front page, which featured an article by reporters Milbank and Mike Allen headlined, "Bush Gave No Sign of Worry in August 2001." This was a perfectly legitimate story -- revisiting the activities and the outward demeanor of the president around the time that secret briefing was being delivered. But its placement, and the choice of a small photo between the two stories of the president in a golf cart near his Texas ranch in August 2001, fueled the skepticism.

"Message conveyed," wrote one reader. "Fully aware of Osama bin Laden's plans to hijack an airliner and crash it into a building in lower Manhattan, Bush has fun on the golf course."

These are tense times. News, in its purest form, is very powerful. Maybe Post editors would edit the stories and choose the picture in the same way if they had it to do again. But it seems to me that these complaints, even if some of them reflect political views, are valid criticisms and worth learning from.

END of Excerpt

For Getler’s column in full: www.washingtonpost.com

Couric Delivers Giddy and Upbeat Session
with Hillary Clinton

Katie Couric provided a giddy and upbeat session Friday night with Senator Hillary Clinton to promote the publication of the paperback version of her book, Living History. Couric gushed about how “she's received like a rock star. She works on economic development in upstate New York, gives foreign policy and civil rights speeches, shakes hand after hand, signs book after book.”

Recalling how she was booed at a New York City concert shortly after September 11th, Couric empathized: “But it had to hurt your feelings.” But Couric found a positive spin, trumpeting how “by last week, some of those jeers had turned to cheers.”

Picking up on Clinton’s advocacy of more troops for Iraq, Couric echoed the liberal line: “You say commit more troops. But that's the same thing LBJ did in Vietnam. Do you worry that this is another Vietnam?”

Looking to the future, Couric championed: “Now, at 56, Hillary Clinton has a vision for herself. She's a powerful U.S. Senator, and something of a phenomenon in the publishing world. The hardcover edition of her book sold more than three million copies worldwide.”

To end the interview, Couric asked Clinton to “play 'complete the sentence’” with her. Couric’s set-ups: “If I weren't a politician, I would be?”, "The thing I hate the most about myself is?", "My guiltiest pleasure is?", "I'm proudest that?" and “I would like my tombstone to say?"

Dateline anchor Stone Phillips set the tone for the April 16 segment with this admiring introduction: “From the moment Americans met her 12 years ago, it was clear she was a woman to be reckoned with. Smart, tough, ambitious, she seemed tailor-made for the world of politics. So it should come as no surprise that the title, Senator, fits Hillary Clinton like a glove.”

Some excerpts from Couric’s session with Senator Hillary Clinton, taped at the Clinton home in New Castle, New York:

Couric began: “It's springtime in Washington. The monuments of the nation's capital are framed by the cherry blossoms. But like the blossoms themselves, this serene impression is fleeting, and fragile. It's always political season in this town, and this year the skies look angrier and more turbulent than ever. Washington is gripped by the political equivalent of war, and one of the Democrats' not-so-secret weapons is the junior Senator from New York. And just as Hillary Clinton is hitting the stump and hitting the Republicans, the paperback version of her best-selling autobiography, Living History, is hitting the bookstores.”

Couric began with a gentle challenge: “In the afterward to your paperback version of your book, you deplore the partisan atmosphere we've seen in Washington. 'Too often,’ you write, 'ideology and partisanship, not evidence or value, dictate policy choices.’ But it seems at times you yourself were as partisan as many Republicans. So aren't you being slightly hypocritical?”
Clinton: “Maybe. You know I hadn't thought about it like that. Because of course I think I've put forth evidence and facts. I mean I think that when you talk about the increasing deficit, and you say their economic theory is not going to work, is that a statement or fact or is it a statement of partisanship?”

Couric continued: “Many Republicans would say there are few politicians more partisan than the former First Lady. In fact, many Democrats have urged Senator John Kerry to choose her as his running mate to guarantee enthusiastic support among hard-core Democrats. On Wednesday, the two Senators campaigned for the first time together in New York. But now it's official. Hillary Clinton says this [video of two on stage together] is as close as we'll ever come to seeing a Kerry-Clinton ticket.”

     Couric pressed her about becoming the VP nominee: “If John Kerry called you tomorrow, and said, 'Hill' -- whatever he calls you -- 'Senator, Hillary, I'd like you to be my Vice President?'"
     Clinton: “I'd say, 'John, I really can't do that. And I will help you, and support you in every way possible.'”
     Couric: “'But Hillary, the party really needs you.’"
     Clinton: “Well, you know, I don't think that will happen. I made it clear I don't want that to happen. And what my answer will be, no, if it does happen. I'm not prepared to do that.“
     Couric: “When you hear that people say, she can't really be supporting John Kerry. Because if he wins, that screws up her political future."
     Clinton: “You know, people make a lot of money talking about me, don't they?...”

Couric: “Do you think it would be appealing to you to be President of the United States? I'm asking a hopeless question-”
Clinton: “It's not the way I think. I never thought I would end up being the Senator from New York. I never thought that the long-haired, bearded guy I married in law school would end up being President. I don't think like that.”

Couric then announced: “Whatever her aspirations, these days she seems to be the life of the party -- the Democratic Party. And at times she's received like a rock star. She works on economic development in upstate New York, gives foreign policy and civil rights speeches, shakes hand after hand, signs book after book.”

But, Couric lamented, “much to her dismay, she's also used to help elect Republicans” who use her in fundraising letters.

     Couric soon recalled, over video and sound from the concert event shown by VH-1: “But when she first arrived on Capitol Hill, it was a rocky start. At a benefit concert for 9/11 victims at New York's Madison Square Garden in November of 2001, Senator Clinton was booed by the assembled firefighters and police officers.”
     Couric to Clinton: “And one report said you had tears in your eyes as you came off that stage.”
     Clinton: “Well, I felt terrible. Because for so many of them, it was a chance to, for the first time since September 11th, just to let loose. And, you know, I didn't take it personally. I took it as a sign that I had a lot of work to do.”
     Couric: “But it had to hurt your feelings. Come on.”
     Clinton: “No, it did, it did in the sense that it just showed me that, you know, there was a lot of pain.”
     Couric reassuringly asserted: “By last week, some of those jeers had turned to cheers. New York Fire Department and Firefighter Union officials praised her for securing an $81 Million grant for post 9/11 health screenings for rescue workers. And this week, a poll of voters in New York State showed her job approval rating as risen to 62 percent, up from 38 percent shortly after she entered the Senate. Even one-third of New York Republicans approve.”

     Couric turned to Iraq: “But in the middle of her six-year term, Hillary Clinton knows her political fortunes can change at any time, and the issues this year are fraught with political peril. She voted for the war with Iraq.”
     Couric to Clinton: “Are you sorry you gave the President authority to go to war?”
     Clinton: “I don't regret giving the President authority. I regret the way he used that authority.”
     Couric: “She says the administration should have built a bigger international coalition, done more planning, and sent more troops.
     Clinton: “We should've had more going in. The administration thought that they could win the war on the cheap with few troops and not much of a commitment.”
     Couric came at her from the left: “You say commit more troops. But that's the same thing LBJ did in Vietnam. Do you worry that this is another Vietnam?”
     Clinton: “I don't know whether it is or isn't at this point. Obviously, people who have a lot of experience, who lived through that in the Senate, in the military are raising those questions. I'm not prepared to do that.”

Couric moved on to the Clinton administration’s role in figting terrorism: “How do you feel when people say, 'Well the Clinton administration should've done this., they should've responded more forcefully to the USS Cole. There were many things that could've been done prior to the Bush administration taking over, things that weren't done.’"
Clinton insisted her husband was “obsessed” with getting al-Qaeda: “I think that is one of the questions that this commission should help us answer. It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaeda in particular. And they did a lot. But there's always room for analysis about what more could've or should've been done. And I think that's true with the Bush administration.”

     Couric: “Do you dislike President Bush personally?”
     Clinton: “No. Not at all.”
     Couric: “You seem like you do.”
     Clinton: “After 9/11, for example, I personally told him I would do anything to support him publicly or privately...”

     Couric trumpeted: “Now, at 56, Hillary Clinton has a vision for herself. She's a powerful U.S. senator, and something of a phenomenon in the publishing world. The hardcover edition of her book sold more than three million copies worldwide.”
     Couric cued up this softball: “When you think about it, why do you think it did so well?”
     Clinton: “Well, as I wrote in the afterward to the paperback, I think a lot of it was just curiosity....”

     Couric raised Lewinsky and ludicrously claimed Mrs. Clinton was “candid” about the topic: “I noted in this book, you write quite candidly about the whole Monica Lewinsky affair. And I know you probably hate to talk about it, hate to think about it. But it is in the book. It is in the paperback. Is it hard for you to know that once again, that part of your life is out there?”
     Clinton: “Well, you know, Katie, I wish that none of that had ever been made public. But that unfortunately happened, for, I think partisan, political reasons.”
     Couric: “In the book, she writes of the scandal, 'I didn't know whether our marriage could -- or should -- survive such a stinging betrayal, but I knew I had to work through my feelings carefully, on my own timetable.’"
     Couric bemoaned: “You and President Clinton have a marriage that obviously survived the ultimate public test. Still people insist on analyzing and scrutinizing your relationship, in a way that I find fascinating. Lots of drug store psychiatrists out there with their take on your relationship.”
     Clinton: “I know. And you know, it's another one of those aspects of being in the public eye that you can't control....”

Couric treated them as a regular couple: “How would you describe your relationship with President Clinton? Do you guys get to even see each other much, because you're running around?”
Clinton: “All the time. And you know, this house has been just such a labor of love for both of us, because we've worked on it together. We've made all the decisions together. And it's been just a wonderful time for us.”

     To wrap up the session, Couric herself applied some drug store psychiatry: “Let me ask you to finish, let's play complete the sentence. If I weren't a politician, I would be?”
     Clinton: “A teacher.”
     Couric: "The thing I hate the most about myself is?"
     Clinton: “Hmmm. Probably my impatience from, you know, time to time. I just think I have to take some deep breaths, and just accept things the way they are.”
     Couric: "My guiltiest pleasure is?"
     Clinton: “Chocolate. Any kind, any time, anywhere.”
     Couric: "I'm proudest that?"
     Clinton: “I'm proudest that I raised a wonderful daughter, that you know, I got to be a mother. And had such an extraordinary experience doing that.”
     Couric: "I would like my tombstone to say?"
     Clinton: “I hope no time soon. She did her best to live every day, to the fullest.”

MSNBC.com has posted a transcript of the interview and an “MSN Video” box provides an audio clip of about four minutes of what NBC aired: www.msnbc.msn.com

When Hillary Clinton’s book was released last June, Barbara Walters promoted it. As documented in the June 9, 2003 CyberAlert:
In Sunday's Barbara Walters special promoting Hillary Clinton's new book, Walters did little more than deliver an hour-long infomercial for the book as she cued up items in the tome for Hillary to comment on, book-ended with plugs for a presidential bid. For Walters, bad things just seemed to happen to an innocent Hillary Clinton whom Walters repeatedly saw a victim: “You made investments in the commodities markets, you dealt in real estate -- Whitewater, you worked for the Rose law firm, all of which at the time you thought were very innocent. All these things came back to haunt you.” Walters concluded the hour by fancifully speculating on the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton and First Husband Bill Clinton.

For that item, and other items on book coverage that weekend: www.mediaresearch.org

Couric interviewed Hillary about the book on the June 10 Today. CyberAlert recounted: While Katie Couric often treated Hillary as a victim, just as did ABC's Barbara Walters, Couric also raised subjects not brought up by Walters, such as how many were disturbed about an un-elected First Lady taking a policy role and those who felt “dissed” by Hillary's dismissal of stay-at-home moms. Couric empathized with Hillary's plight because since her days at Wellesley College she's been “a so-called lightning rod, a term that would haunt you, really for the rest of your life,” prodded Hillary to run for President and delivered this doozy of a loaded question about negative reaction to her political activities: “Were you surprised at the backlash? The really vitriolic, violent backlash against you in many ways? Do you think it was good old-fashioned sexism?" See: www.mediaresearch.org

ABC’s Charles Gibson Still Dreaming About
John McCain for VP

ABC’s Charles Gibson can’t let go of his dream of John McCain on the ticket with John Kerry. On Friday, five weeks after he begged McCain to “let me imagine” such a scenario, McCain returned to Good Morning America and Gibson asked him again about the possibility.

The March 11 CyberAlert looked at how media figures were salivating for McCain to make another national run, with Gibson pressing McCain about forming “a dream ticket” with Kerry and when McCain demurred, saying such a scenario is “hard to imagine,” Gibson begged: “Let me imagine it.”

     On the April 16 GMA, the MRC’s Jessica Anderson noticed, Gibson recalled: "Last time you were here, I asked you whether you might be open."
     McCain knew where he was going: "The word was 'entertain.'"
     Gibson: "Well, you used that word -- I guess I used the word 'entertain,' yes. I asked you if you would entertain an offer of the vice presidency should Democratic Senator John Kerry ask you to come across the aisle and join his ticket and you said yes, you would entertain that, and funny, a lot of people have asked you about it since."
     McCain, laughing: "A lot of people have asked me about it, and the answer is no in that I will not be Vice President, I will not run for Vice President, I will not leave the Republican Party. What I was trying to say at that time is that John Kerry is a friend of mine and we've worked together for many years. And of course, I would listen to any conversation on any issue that John would talk to me about, but on the issue of vice presidency, no, no, and no, and I am running for reelection in the Senate, I'm happy in the Republican Party, most of the time [laughs]. No, I'm happy in the Republican Party and I will not, I repeat, I will not run for Vice President of the United States."
     Gibson: "So Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction, you just had a small word malfunction there."
     McCain, laughing again: "I guess, if you want to put it that way, Charlie. The more I talk about it, the more trouble I'm going to get in again."

     The rundown of the March 10 GMA session, as recounted in the March 11 CyberAlert.
     Gibson: “Before I let you go, couple of quick political questions. A lot of Democrats say a dream ticket would be if John Kerry would reach across the aisle, take you as a vice presidential candidate. Are you going to say no, no how, no way, won’t do it?”
     McCain via satellite with the U.S. Capitol building behind him: “Charlie, it’s impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist deficit hawk. There’s, it’s hard to imagine. They’d have to be taking some steroids-”
     Gibson jumped in to plead: “But let me, let me imagine it. If he asked you, if he came across the aisle and asked you, would you even entertain the idea, or will you rule it out for good and all and ever right now?"
     McCain: “John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We’ve been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it, but there is, I see no scenario, no scenario, no scenario, where, I foresee no scenario where that will happen.”
     Gibson: “And will you campaign actively against him? He’s a good friend, but obviously you are a Republican. Will you campaign actively against him this fall if he doesn’t ask you to be a Vice President?”
     McCain: “I have campaigned for and will continue to campaign for the President of the United States. I think we ought to spend a lot more time in politics campaigning for the people we support rather than against them. This, so far, is the nastiest campaign so far that we’ve seen, and the American people deserve a lot better than what they’ve gotten so far.”

For several other examples in that CyberAlert of media figures yearning for another national McCain candidacy: www.mediaresearch.org

The March 22 CyberAlert documented more instances: Network news stars just can’t let go of their dream of a Kerry-McCain ticket. On Sunday’s Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer waxed about how “John Kerry’s high command” has “not dismissed the idea” of McCain for Vice President and so “the possibility of John McCain as a running mate for Senator Kerry is still alive and is still operating.” Last Thursday morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer and CBS’s Hannah Storm pushed McCain to say that he’d accept an offer from Kerry. See: www.mediaresearch.org

-- Brent Baker

Sign up for CyberAlerts:
Keep track of the latest instances of media bias and alerts to stories the major media are ignoring. Sign up to receive CyberAlerts via e-mail.

questions and comments about CyberAlert subscription

You can also learn what has been posted each day on the MRC’s Web site by subscribing to the “MRC Web Site News” distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mrc.org/cybersub.asp#webnews