By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources, (www.originalsources.com)
September 14, 2000
I seem to spend a lot of time these days reminding people that the treatment of news events by the major media sources of America is often geared to helping those they like, and keeping those they don't like in obscurity. The debate yesterday between Congressman Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton, who are actually in about the same age group, is a case in point. The Washington Post this morning reports about the debate:
"The debate gave him (Rick Lazio) a chance to demonstrate that he is a more consequential figure than the pleasant-but-hardly-commanding Long Island politician that he was regarded as before he landed on this stage by fluke--after New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani dropped out of the race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer."Lazio seemed to meet that challenge tonight, many commentators said afterward, and was clearly able to compete with Clinton on the factual arguments and in the theater of the event."
Actually, the debate was high drama, thanks in part to some surprisingly tough questions asked by Tim Russert which brought up some of the issues that Hillary Clinton and her friends would really like to avoid.
In the first minute of the debate, Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton:
"Mrs. Clinton, you have no voting record as such. People, in order to determine how you will behave as a legislator, look to your principle policy initiative: health care. I want to ask you a couple questions about that."In 1993-94 you proposed a health care bill that was very controversial in this state. The man that you want to replace, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, had this to say and I'll show you on your monitor and I'll show our voters: ``The administration's solution was rationing. Cut the number of doctors by a quarter, specialists by a half.'' And he went on to say ``teaching hospitals would be at risk. The finance committee passed a bill in `94 to provide financing for the medical schools and the teaching hospitals. The Clinton administration rejected the committee bill.''
"Why did you propose cutting the number of doctors by 25 percent, the number of specialists by 50 percent?"
Her answer was interesting. She used perhaps a third of her answer time to evade the question altogether, and then made a surprising admission: "You know, in 1993 and 1994 we did attempt to reform our health care system to provide universal health care coverage. Now as everyone knows, that was not successful. But we learned a lot and I in particular learned a lot.."
With that as a start, the Washington Post's portrayal that Lazio "seemed to meet the challenge" of a "stronger" opposition was a bit of a reach.
In the middle of the debate, Russert asked an even tougher question: "To both the candidates, Mrs. Clinton first. The issue of trust and character has been raised repeatedly in this campaign. Mrs. Clinton, I want to start with you. In January of '98 you went on ``The Today Show'' and talked about what had occurred at the White House. I want to play that for you and our viewers and our voters and give you a chance to respond."
And then he played the tape in which she said, on the Today Show, that Bill Clinton had not had an "adulterous" affair.
Russert asked:
"Regrettably, it was proven true. Do you regret misleading the American people? And, secondly, in that same interview you said that those who were criticizing the president were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Amongst those eventually criticizing the president were Joe Lieberman. Would you now apologize for branding people as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?"
Hillary not only did not apologize for branding people part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" she responded with the oldest "poor weak little me" female ploy in the world: "Please feel sorry for poor little me." She said:
"Well you know Tim, that was a very, a very painful time for me, for my family and for our country. It is something that I regret deeply that anyone had to go through. And I wish that we all could look at it from the perspective of history but we can't yet. We're going to have to wait until those books are written. But from my perspective, you know, I'm very hopeful that we can go forward in a united way. That certainly is what I've tried to do. And I've tried to be as forthcoming as I could given the circumstances that I faced."Obviously I didn't mislead anyone. I didn't know the truth. And there's a great deal of pain associated with that and my husband has certainly acknowledged that and made it clear that he did mislead the country as well as his family. But you mentioned trust and, you know, I'm standing here running for the Senate. I didn't cast the votes that Newt Gingrich asked me to cast. I've been a steady, consistent voice on behalf of children and families and what I've worked for for 30 years. And I want to try to put that experience to work for the people of New York."
In two paragraphs she portrayed herself as a victim who, in spite of her husband's well established philandering past, was totally taken by surprise at his philandering present; claimed to be "forthcoming", attacked Rick Lazio for voting the same way Newt Gingrich voted on issues, claimed to be a "voice" for children and families. And, even though she had just admitted she really didn't know what she was doing when she was trying to socialize medicine in America, which is 17% of the economy, she wants New Yorkers to believe that her bumbling gave her the "experience" to be their Senator.
Russert asked Lazio for his response and Lazio said:
"I think that, frankly, what's so troubling here with respect to what my opponent just said, is somehow that it only matters what you say when you get caught. And character and trust is about well more than that. And blaming others every time you have responsibility? Unfortunately that's become a pattern, I think, for my opponent. And it's something that I reject and I believe that New Yorkers reject. We can do well better."
However, perhaps the most dramatic moment of the debate, which by then had taken on the qualities of a show, was when Russert challenged Rick Lazio on soft money in the campaign:
"A question from Mark Hamister who is here in the audience. Much of America's watching this race, can both of you set an example to the rest of the country and renounce the use of soft money ads for the rest of this campaign? Mr. Lazio?
Lazio promptly shot back:
"Absolutely! As somebody who has twice voted for McCain/Feingold, who's a strong believer in campaign finance, who's got the support of the leader on the campaign finance movement, John McCain, I think it's my responsibility to try and lead on this effort. As America looks to New York, this is an opportunity for us to be able to say we don't have to rely on soft money."And my campaign has not aired one commercial nor raised one dollar in soft money. My opponent has raised soft money by the bucketloads. And I guess they've learned how to raise soft money over many years."
"Let me say this though. We have an opportunity to do something important here tonight. I have right here a pledge that I sent over to my opponent. It's a ban on soft money pledge. I'm willing to say we will neither raise nor spend a dime of soft money and ask all outside groups to stay away if my opponent is willing to do the same. And you know what Mrs. Clinton, if you agree to do this, we'll be making a huge statement about character and trust to the rest of the country. And let's get it done now and today. Let's make sure we bring all the press in and actually nail a deal down that we can be proud of.
It didn't seem to be a set-up between Russert and Lazio. Russert seemed genuinely surprised. Lazio had just taken control of the debate with a clear, on air challenge to Hillary.
Russert responded:
RUSSERT: No soft money and no outside groups advertising on New York television?
LAZIO: Yeah. As my opponent is willing to agree to the same, I'm willing to not raise a dime of soft money, not spend a dime of soft money and call on all outside groups to stay away from this race and not spend any money in furtherance of my campaign or -
RUSSERT: And you'll make phone calls to Governor Pataki, if need be?
LAZIO: Or make any phone calls.
RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton?
Hillary promptly introduced a new issue - independent ads. No one explained the exact difference between "soft money" and "independent ads." Russert asked Lazio: "Do we have a deal, Mr. Lazio?
Lazio responded: "I'd like to get it done today," and with the agreement in his hand, pressed his case so strongly that in the end, not only was Hillary stammering, but so was the very experienced Tim Russert:
RUSSERT: Will you get those signed agreements?
LAZIO: Yeah, I'd be happy to. But I want you to be the - I want to get it done right now. I don't want any more wriggle room. I don't want any more evasion. The truth is, Tim, is that Mrs. Clinton has been airing millions of dollars in soft-money ads. It's the height of hypocrisy to talk about soft money when she's been raising soft money by the bucketloads out in Hollywood and spending all that money on negative advertising. Height of hypocrisy. Let's just get this deal done right now.
RUSSERT: Can I give Mrs. Clinton? LAZIO: Right here, here it is. Let's sign it. It's - it's the New York Freedom of Soft Money Pact. I signed it. We can - we can both sit down together. We can all get all the media in here. We will make sure it's an ironclad deal. And - and I'm - I'm happy to - to abide by anything that we all agree on. But let's get it done now. Let's not get any more wriggle room.
RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, yes, I certainly do. You know, I - I - I - I admire that. That was a wonderful performance and I -
LAZIO: Well, why don't you just sign it?
CLINTON: And you - and you did it very well.
LAZIO: I'm not asking you to admire it. I'm asking you to sign it.
CLINTON: Well, I would be happy to when you give me the signed letters -
LAZIO: Well, right here. Right here.
CLINTON: When you give me -
LAZIO: Right here, sign it right now.
CLINTON: Well - well, we'll shake - we'll shake on this -
LAZIO: No, no, I want your signature. Because I think that everybody wants to see you signing something that you said you were for. I'm for it. I haven't done it. You've been violating it. Why don't you stand up and do something - do something important for America? While America is looking at New York, why don't you show some leadership because it goes to trust and character.
CLINTON: And - and this new radio ad from the Republican Party using soft money is not part of your campaign.
LAZIO: Oh, well, what are we talking about here? No, let's just put things in perspective.
RUSSERT: We - we are - we are out of time. We have to go out -
I used to live in New York, which is more than Hillary can say. Three of my six children were born in New York and the oldest of my children graduated from high school there. I know New Yorkers. Unless they've changed a lot in the last 25 years, they are probably going to admire Lazio's style.
If I was a betting woman, I'd be putting my money on Rick Lazio as the next New York Senator.
To Comment: mmostert@waveshift.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
