so bill clinton's rant about Obama putting pfleger up to calling hillary a "white racist" -something Pfleger never even said- was ok because the reporter asked a loaded question?

Politicians get asked loaded questions all the time. Sometimes from supporters, sometimes from reportors.

As smart as everyone claims Bill Clinton is, he should know how to handle a loaded question with a sense of tact and responsiblity.

Isn't the first rule of public life to ALWAYS ASSUME WHAT YOU SAY IS BEING RECORDED?

Im sorry. Myabe Fowler was out of line. I don't think she was personally, but if you do, thats an honest difference of opinion, i guess.

But that still doesn't EXCUSE Bill's behavior.

Great critique, Deanie. If HuffPo like much of the new media is taken seriously and, so, has a responsibility to the public. The press is constitutionally protected because honest information is critical to a democracy. They must stop acting like so many in the MSM and actually uphold journalistic ethics. Unfortunately, Drudge has blazed the trail and sites like Politico follow his lead. HuffPo has so many talented contributors but they are all tainted by its partisanship and stooping to "gotcha" stories. The only thing I'd disagree with in your post is that CLinton had (another) "melt down" here. The VF article in question was a slimy, sleazy smear and he stated that pretty matter-of-factly.

Deanne:

Just a couple ofpoints:

1. Bill Clinton is one of the most astute politicians in history. If HE cannot figure out that the question being asked was 'loaded', maybe it's time for a long nap.

2. If that day was, indeed, one of the worst Clinton had ever had to live through (and given his history, I have a VERY hard time believing this), then perhaps he should have taken a break from the campaign trails and committed the phrase, "No comment!" to auto-answer for the evening.

Great comments as usual--I'm ducking out to run errands but wanted to say coupla things:

BEVD--WE AGREE!!!!! Stop the presses! Close the schools! Gather round! (ha ha I kid) Lieberman has just about driven me...well...insaner than normal. Maybe now "liberal bloggers" don't look so crazy for opposing his nomination for his Senate seat...

It's been pointed out, by GAYLTHACAN, for one, that Bill is an astute politician, should've known better, etc. I agree, but I do think Yoda is beginning to lose his touch somewhat. He seems ill-prepared for Blackberry/YouTube politics. He's also been more emotional, probably because it's not him running but his wife, but also because, I think, he is tired.

Also, whoever mentioned Matt Drudge--was it here on over on deaniemills.com? I'm in a hurry--yeah, I do think that this is one thing that has changed politics as well.

I just got to where I was feelin' for all the candidates after such a lengthy and grueling fight. Every one of 'em said things without thinking that made them look either evil or crazy or whatever, and I just know that it could happen to any of us any time--but with this hyper-vigilance of the Web et al, seems like somebody somewhere oughta give 'em a break once in a while.

I tried to, when Hillary made the assassinate comment, and other times. I thought the whole cling-to-guns-and-religion brouhaha was just mindless.

But buying tickets into fundraising events and pretending to be a supporter while looking for such a remark to publish just seems wrong to me.

Call me old-fashioned.

This is a well-thought out and reasonable post Deanie. I had read Mayhill Fowler's writing before her San Francisco report and had admired them. She had a nice way of establishing setting and asking some unusual questions. (Her profile of a poorly-organized Clinton rally in southern Texas was especially good.) But she's seemed increasingly infatuated with making the news rather than reporting it. This is no different than every tv interviewer who repeatedly fires the same question at a politician hoping to get a slipped-up (and thus revealing) answer.

But Fowler -- and apparently HuffPo in general --seems to want to exploit the supposed anonymity of the citizen to make a big splash. I don't feel the need to defend or attack Bill Clinton; if the piece had been written about me, I'd have used a lot stronger language than "scumbag." I mean, BFD.

But I wonder whether the advent of the citizen-journalist is the political equivalent of having security cameras installed on every street corner in the name of anti-terrorism. I know its a bit Foucauldian, but in the name of liberty and freedom, perhaps we're building a panopticon that actually regulates political behavior. (On the other hand, the discussions offered back-and-forth on this site and DailyKos may be a good antidote to that regulation.)

Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking piece. I'll look for your novel.

This one of the more thoughtful and provocative pieces I've seen on this board in some time. The Guerilla highly recommends. The comments are also mostly well thought out. MercerReader and Obamawon sitting right above me also earn the coveted seal of approval.

I don't have answers to your questions. Surely, politicians are entitled to unguarded moments. The prospect of having your every moment recorded and every slip or emotional outburst disseminated instantaneously over the internet and picked over by the 24-hour news channels is indeed a frightening one. What is more, by inhibiting frank and open discussion it hinders, rather than helps, our democracy. Some will undoubtedly say that this is a good thing; that it is in these unguarded moments that we see their true character. While that may be true in a tiny number of instances, more often, these type of stories arise, as you point out, from people deliberately seeking a provoke a reaction in order to earn their 15 minutes, or worse, to discredit someone with whom they disagree. Moreover, how a politician addresses his friends or supporters in an unguarded moment is rarely relevant - and much less so when the moment is fabricated by an undercover "citizen journalist" with an agenda. Politicians are human beings, with strengths and weaknesses. They should be allowed the space to be human - unless we want a political class composed of Mitt Romney look and act alikes. The commenter who claimed Bill Clinton, as an astute politician, should have known better, misses this point. (As an aside, I am constantly amazed that people ascribe such magical powers to the Clintons, usually after one of them commits a misstep.) Unfortunately, the situation is only likely to get worse in the culture of nonstop instant "news" on the internet and TV and the gaggle of "citizen journalists" seeking to make their mark.

You say at the end "(HuffingtonPost.com, perhaps understandably, passed on posting this, but with no hard feelings on either side.)"
Why "understandably," and why "with no hard feelings" on your side? A "news" site with any integrity would post this. The reason they didn't is obvious -- they don't want their ethics challenged.
I emailed Huffington Post and Jay Rosen after the fabricated report Fowler did on the elderly woman who supposedly chastised Obama for attacking Hillary (didn't happen -- anybody who wants to can see the whole clip on Youtube and realize that Fowler made most of it up). I also wrote a diary on DailyKos about this.
When the Bill Clinton incident occurred, I wrote another diary on DailyKos. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but ethical transgressions are ethical transgressions. I suggested that Huffington Post should get an ombudsmen.
I'm glad you wrote this column and I think you should write an op-ed about it for the NY Times or Wash Post or LA Times. I think these issues should be open for discussion.
And I think you should use Mayhill Fowler's name.

In this day and age of YouTube, cell phone cameras and all the rest, I think politicians have to be very wary of every single word that comes out of their mouths - as others have said, everything has to be "on the record". Didn't Obama (or Bill Clinton) learn anything from the "Macaca" episode? Nothing is sacred anymore. I'm not saying it's right (I think Mayhill Fowler is a sleazebag) but that's the political reality right now and I think politicians have to be on their guard at all times.

Proof that I am rusty -- carelessness. I do know better than to leave the "i" out of "definitely," and to use "weighted" when I mean "weighed." Also aware of gaping lack of transition to Buckley anecdote.

I totally agree with you conceptually, but believe that all politicians must understand that they are in a new age, where news is instantaneous and any comment can be unfortunately grabbed and quoted, even if it is not a properly sourced item.

All of us that post on blogs should understand that unless the blogger links to responsible sources, their comments are ONLY THEIR OPINION. These blogs should be read, again unless they include NAMED AND RELIABLE SOURCES, as informational, interesting and entertainment only.

Mayhill Fowler wrote that piece like a blogger and acted like a blogger and made HERSELF the news. Same with the awful outing of Obama on the elitist comment. When you have a blogger who thinks that they need no real strong source except themselves, we start to run into ethical trouble.

I am troubled, frankly, that The Huffington Post put ratings above scruples and decided to run her stories. She should be working for the National Enquirer. I hear Paris Hilton LOVES free press.

Ms. Mills, I agree with you entirely on this original post. None of our candidates are perfect. We are all human beings, and as a 50 year old I know I have said things in my lifetime that I certainly wish I could take back and/or would have said differently. I also agree that this particular woman seems to have a paparazzi/hit job slant to her "methods", if one can call them that. I am a Clinton supporter and I did not think her reporting of the Obama comment-the way it was obtained and without allowing the campaign to respond before print as a "regular" journalist would, especially knowing they had something so explosive, was fair or reputable on her part. My biggest hope, however, is that all of us, as Democrats, will be able to put the partisanship behind us and work towards putting DEMOCRATS IN OFFICE in 2008!!!!!

I am so glad to read this post. I've been complaining about Fowler, and her editors, since before her 'bittergate' coup. At that time I said that she was either unethical, or very stupid. I leaned towards stupid after I read the profile of her in the NYT, as she fawned that 'bittergate' was on par with her wedding and the birth of her two children as the most exciting thing that had happened to her. She's nasty, passive-aggressive, and regularly frames her work from right-wing talking points. She seems to think that citizen journalism is all about 'gotcha' moments without any ethical standards at all. She should actually work for TMZ. I was very surprised that they continued to provide her with a platform at Huffpost.
I responded the same way as you to her Bill 'gotcha' article, pure slime gossip writing. The original article lead the reader to assume that Bill knew he was talking to a reporter. She lied about the question she asked him, making it sound innocuous, when, as you point out, she was goading him on. She claims that after she asked the question, Bill grabbed her hand and wouldn't let go. We find out later that that was because she was in a ROPE LINE. His confused rant about Obmama's machiavellian manipulation of all the clergy and media in America was obviously part of an exhausted, angry unloading to a supposed supporter. It a was stupid thing to say, but potentially damaging to Obama as well, particularly Clinton supporters. If Bill thinks that Obama is that evil....

I'm really disapointed that they refused your post at HP. I complained many times about her, then decided to boycott her. If she didn't have the plaform at HP, nobody would pay any attention to her. But obviously, she's done it again. This has been a good campaign for Mayhill Fowler. She's made the NYT twice, and she's damaged the reputations of two politicians for stupid reasons. She's also given a bad name to citizen journalists, as the New York Times nailed her this time for her unethical standards. Maybe it's time the Huffpost did the same.

I am curious whether you think reporters should ever go "under cover"? It is my view that since the beginning of the Bush administration, there as been far too little investigative reporting and far too much reporting of exactly what the politicians want us to hear. Even TPM admits that it allows blanket claims of confidentiality from politicians in order to be on their journalist email lists.

While we might think a trained journalist might do a better job with investigation and look for something more important than ranting language, I think we are better served by journalists who actually think about their role as looking for the actual information, not "getting the story straight" when the story is being shaped by those who would lie to us.

Excellent post. Very thoughtful.

I am actually less concerned about the reporting of the comments than the stupid media "outrage" that explodes because of the comments. Yeah, Appalachians are bitter and Todd Purdum is a scumbag for writing that article. So what? Why all this hullabaloo for sentiments that are probably true?

i, too, was banned on huff post for writing a comment exposing who mayfield fowler REALLY is...

what i wrote was fully researched and documented.

fowler is an ethically challenged, sneaky bitch and if huff post weren't ethically challenged,