An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Clinton On ABC’s “This Week”: Awkward For Stephanopoulos

It sounds as if this morning’s special Town Meeting format “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC could give ABC’s — and Stephanopoulos’ — critics ammunition to say he and his network gave Senator Hillary Clinton an hour of largely softball interview airtime.

Several reports suggest Stephanopoulos looked awkward, and that the ABC show was not akin to the grilling Clinton rival Senator Barack Obama got on NBC’s competing “Meet The Press” by Tim Russert. At least 10 minutes of Russert’s show was devoted to asking Obama to comment further on the politically-toxic controversy involving Obama’s former pastor (complete with questions about why he didn’t distance himself further sooner).

A look at this account of the ABC Show on CBS’s From The Road blog suggests that the Clinton appearance likely helped Clinton and undermined Stephanopoulos’ reputation as an independent journalist who is tough on both sides. A journalist doing his/her job persistently asks follow up questions until the interview subject gives a substantive answer:

Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this morning in an interview filled with awkward moments and strange interactions between the two former colleagues (Stephanopoulos worked under President Bill Clinton for 4 years.)

The interview was billed as a “town hall” where Indiana voters would get a chance to ask Clinton questions. Minutes into the interview, Clinton decided to ditch her chair, preferring to stand and address the audience. What ensued was an awkward interaction between Clinton and Stephanopoulos when the ABC host was forced to ask a few questions from his chair while Clinton loomed over him. (In fairness to Stephanopoulos, oftentimes in seated interview settings the journalist and/or the guest have their microphone cord taped to the chair, restricting one’s movement.)

Stephanopoulos tried to recover by standing alongside Clinton, but was forced to stand in a strange position as he remained tied to his chair.

On most NEWS shows the interviewer is supposed to set the rules about where guests sit and the format. And the interviewer/journalist is supposed to be the one in control of the setting.

After the first commercial break, the two were seated again, but within seconds Clinton decided she had had enough, forcing Stephanopoulos to stand, again.

But it reportedly got worse: Clinton reminded viewers that George S used to work for her and her husband. Just what Stephanopoulos and ABC need after being under fire from progressives who allege (with no proof) the debate in Philadelphia was set up to get tough with Obama and hurl softballs at Clinton (actually it seems to have turned out that way due to judgments involving news values and news story interest):

The interview took another unpleasant turn when Stephanopoulos tried to pin down Clinton over her position on NAFTA, a trade program introduced by her husband during his presidency. Clinton has come out against the plan saying it was not good for American workers. Stephanopoulos said, “The Clinton administration didn’t do enough to address the downside of globalization and therefore failed the workers in Indiana and the workers of the West?”

Clinton clearly took offense to the tone of the question and while answering, decided to take a jab at the host.

“Well I believe, George, in the 1990s we had a booming economy that created nearly 23 million new jobs, more people were lifted out of poverty in any time in our near history. It was an economy that worked for everyone, not just the rich, the wealthy and the well connected, but there were underlying issues that we didn’t understand fully. Now, you remember this, because George did work in that ‘92 campaign – George and I actually were against NAFTA – I’m talking about him in his previous life, before he was an objective journalist,” Clinton said to a visibly annoyed Stephanopoulos.

Some have speculated that Clinton prefers appearing on Stephanopoulos’ show because she can often turn a question around to include him as a former staffer for her husband.

The rest of the program involved questions on issues and questions from voters.

As noted in a previous post here, ABC would have been far better served if a DIFFERENT journalist had done the actual questioning of Clinton during this segment. It isn’t the same as a judge bowing out if he has a conflict of interest but Stephanopoulos and ABC would have come out a lot better with their reputations intact.

Russert finishes today still being perceived as Tim “GOTCHA!” Russert; Stephanopoulos finishes the day being perceived by some as a former Clinton employee still seemingly intimidated by his former boss.

  • akhajawall
    Dear Fellow Americans,

    Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
    is and will face very critical "Challenges" in coming,
    months, years, and decades. It is very essential that
    we pick out next President on following criteria.


    1. A candidate with "Vision and Statesmanship".

    2. A candidate with " Stable Character and Morality" .

    3. A candidate with "Presidential Temperament" and
    "sound Judgment".

    4. A candidate with "little Washington exposure" and
    "connectedness with New voters".

    5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
    "Tears
    us down".

    In my professional opinion there is only one candidate
    left, who bears all the above qualities aand that is
    Honorable Senator Obama.

    As an independent registered voter since 1974. I voted
    for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
    and second Bush in 2000. In the process last interest
    and stopped voting.

    This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
    let Washington stay the same.

    We can not afford our Greatgreat Nation to become less
    than what we are and can be.

    We need to send clear and candid message to the world
    and some 24 hour partisan hateful media. These media
    outlets are trying to deprive, dupe, and derail us
    from getting it right this time.

    They are trying there best to deny us better rather
    than bitter future. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
    are
    persistently and constantly subjected to Psychological
    terrorism" thru these hatful partisan media outlets.

    We Americans are not going to allow them
    psychologically terrorized us and silence the masses.
    I am sure that we will get it right this
    time and elect Senator Obama our next President. let
    us not get dragged down into racism and sexism.

    Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
    family, fellowships, friends, faith, funds, fun,
    future with fairness and freedom and without fear or
    favor.

    We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
    up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
    centuries to come.

    God Bless our Great grandNation, its diverse people.

    Our future needs stability, security, safety,
    sustained progress and restoration of our due status
    in this perilous Global World at all levels.

    yours truly,

    COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall
    Forensic Psychiatrist.
    Disables American Veteran.
    Las Vegas Nevada.
  • JoyP
    I wonder if the opposite may be the case for Hillary. With her obvious dominance of the line of questioning and the interviewer, plus bringing up their once close employment relationship, maybe some people will see this as a "softball" line of questioning and giving her a friendly forum. I realize she is probably preaching to the choir, but it might influence some of those on the fence that she was given a "freebie".
  • vwcat
    The media is so intent on pushing Hillary these days to continue the 'drama' of the primary they are becoming obvious to even the average person.
    The last month the media has bashed obama 24/7 over the stupid and shallow. While some people do buy this, I think many are turning away from their influence.
    After 2000 and 2004 with the media interfering and skewing things to destroy the democrat and push Bush, after what we ended up with, I would think many are very skeptical of the media anymore.
    Especially since it was so sudden and with all of them acting like they were following the same instructions on the same day.
  • JSpencer
    The parodies of moderating we see in Russert and Stephanopoulis are exactly what we should expect in a country of citizens who blithely consume whatever is put in front of them and who have demonstrated themselves incapable of even determining the difference between a good government and a bad one. 2004 illustrated this in technicolor. Has the citizenry learned anything since then? I wish I could believe that to be true.
  • DeborahWhite
    I flipped back and forth between Russert's grilling of Obama, and Stephanopoulos' participation in what looked like an infomercial for Clinton.

    From what I saw, the Clinton interview was anything but an actual interview. I found it strange wen she stood up, faced the audience and went into what was obviously her standard campaign lines on any particular subject. George looked strangely awkward , as you say, and Clinton looked wooden... anything but authentic.

    Afterward, Cinton stood in a polite circle surrounded by middle-aged, suited white men. If I didn't know better, I would have thought it was a commercal. Most town hall s I've been had a semi-mob scene afterward, trying to talk to the candidate. This one was eerily organized and calm.... to the point of appearing posed.

    I''ve been a critic of Tim Russert and his gotcha style of questioning. but I htought his interview today of Obama was fair, if not a bit tilted toward harping on the Wright controversy. Obama came off as thoughtful and substantive.
  • Dave_Schuler
    I don't know whether the forum was uncomfortable for George S. but it was certainly uncomfortable for me to watch. First, I feel rather strongly that George S. should have recused himself from this particular assignment. Regardless of what his feelings about the Clintons may be, I see no way that he can remotely be considered objective on the subject.

    But first and foremost the session was a lengthy unpaid campaign advertisement for Hillary Clinton. That's manifestly unjust.
  • DLS
    "The media is so intent on pushing Hillary these days"

    I doubt it. They're just running with whichever Dem makes the news of the hour (the kind of MTV toddler-attention-span-level stuff we see on this site as well) so long as one or the other Dem wins (while they continue to lie about a "myth" of a liberal media along with their fellow liars elsewhere).
  • JSpencer
    DLS, you may want to try a little harder to make those words get up and work for you. Lately they seem to be lurching and tripping in some sort of attempt to become coherent.
  • debrazza
    The only thing one can take away from that episode is that Hillary emasculated George, she did it on purpose and George came off looking like a tool.

    There actually was however news made in that "interview"

    1. "i'm not throwing my lot in with economists", which quite a few people are talking about and I think Krugman must be have a bit of egg on his face considering how badly he has been looking for any all excuses to give her a free pass and bash Obama at every turn.

    2. And more importantly, she said that she would not release the donor list until after she is elected President. And no one is following up on that. It was like her "obliterate" claim, which no one bothered to follow up on until today.

    It's all so shameful. Secrecy, hidden financial conflicts of interests and cowboy diplomacy is so George Bush. If she was running this campaign back in January she would have never made it out of New Hampshire. But she was Hillary the crying empath back then in New Hampshire. That was in-between being Hillary "The Inevitable Commander-In-Chief" Clinton.
  • The donor egg is used when ovaries of the patient owing to the various reasons do not develop own eggs or at repeated unsuccessful attempts of methods of artificial fertilisation. The donor eggs also are used in medicine at risk of transfer to the child of hereditary illnesses.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC