Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An Open Letter to George Stephanopoulos
Dear Mr. Stephanopoulos,
As tomorrow's "This Week" will find you in Indianapolis hosting a live town hall meeting for Hillary Clinton, allow me to offer my congratulations and advice. I am crossing my fingers that the blogosphere, in its infinitely mysterious ways, forwards this to your inbox before sunrise Sunday.
First, congratulations on scoring a journalistic coup! It's not every day that a former White House press secretary gets to host an important pre-primary campaign event for the First Lady whose husband's first term launched his television career. After your performance moderating the Pennsylvania debate, you'll have a time of it squeezing this new feather next to the PRESS card in your fedora.
Speaking of the press, I understand it was not entirely kind to you after that last debate. In fact, many, many, many, many respected journalists were rather negative about you. And about your co-moderator, Charles Gibson. And your network, too.
But surely I digress by bringing up such an uncomfortable subject. Forgive me.
It must have been terribly embarrassing when other, far more experienced journalists took you to the woodshed and spanked you so publicly for harping on Sen. Obama's "electability" and failing to ask any substantive questions about "issues" for 45 minutes.
But again, I am dwelling on the unseemly and the irrelevant. I apologize.
You were right when you said public and peer outrage "goes with the territory." A pioneer such as yourself could see it no other way.
My advice is to resist the primordial urge that must be pounding in your brain by now. No, please don't subject Sen. Clinton to the same treatment as Sen. Obama received. Trust me, it won't prove you're a fair and balanced kind of journalist. That's obvious.
No, my advice is to stick to the issues with Sen. Clinton. Of course, her supporters at the rally will probably be hammering her with some tough questions, but don't let the grilling that she may take about Rev. Wright stop you from asking your own questions if you absolutely feel you have to and, of course, if there is enough time between the commercial breaks.
Ask Sen. Clinton about the Magnequench sale to the Chinese and why her ads never mention that her husband was the one who cleared the deal in 1995. Ask her about the Bayh memo relating to that deal.
And if you would, ask her about her husband's interest in TDS Logistics, the global outsourcing company, and what she would do as president to restore the 2,000 or so Indiana jobs that TDS helped its Indiana clients export.
Be sure to ask if she will pledge to release her family's income tax schedules showing foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and other items of interest.
Then go back and ask her about Magnequench again and if being commander-in-chief means sending more high-tech, military production work to China.
That's about it, Mr. Stephanopoulos. I wish you the best at Hillary's televised pre-election house party. Be sure to bring back some Tupperware for your wife. Or some handguns.
And if it goes poorly, well, you've still got Washington politics to fall back on. I'm certain tomorrow's demonstration of your talents will show you haven't lost your touch.
Comments (21)
Ouch!
May 4, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
YEEOWW!
May 4, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
My multicolor already blocks the faux news from FOX so...After the PA debate last month, I stop watching anything ABC or Disney.
May 4, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you didn't see the treatment Hillary got on the MSNBC debate prior to the ABC debate. It was much tougher than what Obama faced, and she handled it very well.
May 4, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but I did. Clearly, no one hammered her for 45 minutes straight about Monica Lewinsky, Norman Hsu, Travelgate, Filegate or Whitewater -- subjects of direct relevance to the Clintons' integrity, secrecy and style of governance.
May 4, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And by now you've seen the event. Want to tell us all exactly how George coddled her? Tossed her softballs? You just made a complete fool out of yourself.
May 4, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clearly unfair, this Jeremiah Wright issue, Rezko, Ed Rendell, LA mayor Ant. Villaragosa, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres.....Hillary and Bill Clinton knew these surrogates and support before Obama.
The classy act that Obama is trying to stay above the fray...he should've mentioned that fact...that they've all donated to the Clinton campaingns for decades.
Also the fact the Clinton's have sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church at least 1/2 doz. times. And you know it's so easy to research, but politics in media do not follow up on this side of the issue....does that mean anything? Absolutely....biased, perhaps racist...but unfair.
May 4, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I notice I keep getting the first question." &
"I don't know if you've seen Staurday Night Live, but maybe we should get Barack a pillow."
Oh yeah. She handled it well...
May 4, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but SNL redeemed itself a little with this one. Right on the money! Ouch :)
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/04/snl-on-petraes.html
May 4, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Morris is one of the few public people who makes me almost physically ill. Nevertheless, in the scatter-gun volley of his constant fevered theories, he once in a while gets something right.
Such an occasion is his oft-stated idea that the SUBJECT under discussion in a political campaign is often more important than the tit-for-tat details of what each party actually SAYS about the subject.
I think the subject under discussion here: (ie, "Who has more questionable associations?") is a dead-bang winner for Sen. Clinton. I'm not even counting-up who actually HAS more of these kinds of problems - that's not my point. It's likely the Clintons lose by that way of keeping score - if for no other reason, they've been around a lot longer, and have participated at a higher level.
Even so, Sen. Obama is bound to lose that kind of argument in real terms. A big part of his "brand" is fresh, incorruptible idealism. He is IMPLYING a kind of smug, santimonious perfection that he is then forced to try to live-up to. Not so the Clinton's - their "brand" is something else altogether. An accumulation of sucessful hits against them on these grounds doesn't add-up to much harm. Even ONE sucessful hit against Obama damages him in the area of his most important tactical asset.
May 4, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been no "90's era" Clinton hits against Hillary. If Hillary was the clear leader the Republican attack machine would have been using their "Clinton cue cards" to soften her up and inflame their base.
May 4, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are biding their time. Why do you think they are so invested in getting her to be the nominee? They desperately want to run against her. They have a treasure trove of dirt, you can bank on it.
May 4, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seorge is going to have a love feast with former employer HRC. Nothing but Rev. Wright and other openings to 'Break Obama". Call ABC afterwords with your comments
May 4, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
His reputation as a journalist will never be repaired.
May 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
George has a reputation as a journalist?
May 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not so the Clinton's - their "brand" is something else altogether. An accumulation of sucessful hits against them on these grounds doesn't add-up to much harm. Even ONE sucessful hit against Obama damages him in the area of his most important tactical asset."
But Hillary's brand was political savvy, and this ill-conceived, idiotic, incompetent campaign has harmed that. She seems still the clueless novice that screwed up healthcare. Hillary's brand - winning by any means -- is shattered because Obama ran circles around her. Even I am surprised at this outcome, since I believed the one virtue she had was political knowhow. In reality, she's a papertiger and Bill has lost his edge too.
Obama may be vulnerable if he strays from "new politics". He has occassionally, but then returned. His opponents slinging mud doesn't tarnish him, it only make his opponents look petty and old style partisan. Only when he slings mud is he tarnished.
May 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politico's description of the meeting made it sound like Hil played havoc with Stephanopolos's testicular fortitude. She cut him down to size literally.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Hillary_vs_Stephanopolous.html
May 4, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw this troll about 8 months ago in Georgetown walking with his kids. Clearly this man has a Napoleon complex. I shit taller than him.
May 4, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC AND STEPHANAPOLOUS ARE JOKES!
Obviously he is biased towards her and this "town hall" is some publicity-hungry thing staged to helping her in the primary. Oh yeah, and its on a mainstream network.
ABC stinks.
Stephanopolous doesn't need any adjectives, because you already get a flood of negative ones in your head when you hear his name.
May 4, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess he didn't read your letter. Perhaps it should have gone to Sean Hannity first.
May 4, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Disney owns both a sports & a major network I suppose that there should be some continuity in their branding.
If their sports network is called the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network or ESPN then perhaps ABC should be renamed the Entertainment in News Programing Network or ENPN.
After all, George is an entertainer like Bill O and Sean Hannity and folks should be able to determine what is an actual news product vs an entertainment product.
May 4, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment