Bill Clinton

Latest news on bill clinton

Boehlert: The Denver media migraine

I had to chuckle when I read about the newsroom-wide email New York Times executive editor Bill Keller sent out to his staff last week on the eve of his political team deploying to Denver, and then St. Paul, to cover the political conventions. In his electronic memo, Keller praised the newspaper's coverage of the just-completed Beijing Olympics ("dazzling"), and, like any good newsroom manager, challenged the rest of the newspaper to match that excellence. Specifically, he called on his political team to reach the same journalistic heights at the conventions that the Times' sports department had achieved in Beijing. I laughed not because I thought the Times' coverage of the Olympics didn't deserve a pat on the back. Indeed, the Times crew seemed to cover the Olympics with uniform skill and grace. Its pages were filled with often brilliant deadline writing, insightful analysis, gripping human interest stories, and eye-popping photography. (And the Times' Internet-based coverage was just as impressive.) My caustic chuckle sprang from the fact that Keller actually thought the Times' upcoming convention coverage was going to achieve some kind of greatness. That the Times team was going to gumshoe Denver like no other news team, drill down to the issues that were driving the campaign, break away from the news pack to uncover fresh angles, and set some kind of news standard for political reporting. The sad truth was that the coverage, not just from the Times but from virtually every traditional outlet I sampled, was a fiasco. And it made my head hurt. How 15,000 credentialed journalists could descend on Denver and produce such unvaryingly weak and shoddy coverage of a staged news event -- and do it with coverage that celebrated sameness and shallowness -- was a sad spectacle that newsrooms nationwide ought to ponder. What we saw beamed out of Beijing, both in print and video form, was often memorable journalism. What we saw seep out of Denver was a farce. Not content to simply cover what was, by every standard, an historic and fascinating political gathering, the press felt the need to embellish the storylines (when not completely inventing them), tell news consumers what to think and how to feel, and to hog the spotlight by turning themselves into the topic of news reports. The media hordes "got in the way of the story, because they made themselves the story," noted Brooke Gladstone at NPR. (Exhibit A.) Note that approximately 20,000 journalists covered the sprawling Beijing Olympics, and think about the wonderful journalism they produced for news consumers all around the world relaying headlines and capturing the emotions of that two-week epic event. By contrast, in Denver, 15,000 pros camped out and pretty much embarrassed their profession for nearly four days straight. First of all, why on earth would 15,000 journalists cover any convention? And why do major American outlets, as confirmed by Keller's email, view the staged political events to be as newsworthy as a global phenomenon such as the Olympics? Note that for this year's conventions, USA Today sent 34 journalists, compared to the 41 staffers the paper assigned to cover the Olympics. (The Washington Post sent 38 journalists to the convention, plus an undisclosed number from its website, for a total of more than 50.) I'm guessing the Times sent roughly the same number as USA Today to both the convention and to Beijing. Yet look how badly the Denver team underperformed as compared to the Times' Olympics reporting and commentary. Or did Times execs consider Maureen Dowd's Denver column to be an example of journalistic insight? That was the one where the first person she quoted to capture the "vibe" of the Democratic convention was a Republican consultant. (Naturally, the partisan pro claimed "submerged hate" permeated the event.) And what about Patrick Healy's August 28, page one article about Hillary's address to the convention where Healy reported, in the second paragraph, that she "took steps on Tuesday -- deliberate steps, aides said -- to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency." As the Daily Howler noted, there wasn't a single fact or quote in the entire article to back up Healy's fictitious claim that bolstered the "ill will" theme of the article's opening. Was that the kind of Denver gold Keller was hoping for? Imagine if a Times reporter filed a front-page story from Beijing about Michael Phelps and inserted a completely unsupported claim up high in the article that made Phelps look petty and selfish. Think Times editors would have printed it? And what about Times heavy hitter Jill Abramson, who wrote matter-of-factly on Friday that the Monday-through-Wednesday portion of the convention had a theme, and "its narrative was [the Clinton] soap opera." And specifically, the "narrative" was whether Bill and Hillary would "behave themselves" and "embrace Barack Obama." She wrote that after the convention had concluded, after Bill and Hillary Clinton had enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama and after Democrats ended the convention on an historic and united front. Even then, the Times was still pushing the media's beloved narrative of a Clinton "soap opera" and how the two nearly ripped the party in two inside the Pepsi Center. Question for Abramson: Who pre-selected that "soap opera" narrative? Answer: The press. What actual proof did the press have to support it? Almost none. (Hillary Clinton had already publicly, and formally, endorsed Obama months prior to the convention.) I suspect if a truth serum poll could have been conducted in Denver to find out how many professional pol watchers within the press corps actually thought that Bill or Hillary Clinton would refuse to "embrace" Obama at the convention, the answer would have been zero. But how many within the press pretended for days that that was a possibility? Almost all of them. Indeed, there was lots of pretending going on in Denver, like when Politico suggested Hillary Clinton might be booed by Obama delegates during her address. And when, prior to Bill Clinton's taking the Denver stage, MSNBC's Chris Matthews raised the possibility that he might get a Bronx cheer. (Apparently because they're such divisive figures within the Democratic Party.) Viewers who saw the rapturous welcome both Clinton's received will recall that those predictions were inaccurate. The Newark Star-Ledger was just one of many news outlets that pretended about Hillary Clinton's speech, claiming it "was the most anxiously awaited moment of the convention." Really? Twelve million more viewers tuned in to Obama's speech than watched Clinton's address. Yet the press, confusing themselves for actual voters, told us all week that Americans were fixated on the runner-up. And all week long, that passed as insight. What was behind that type of half-baked Times/Politico/Matthews convention analysis? The answer is that it was based on nothing. The concocted Clinton storylines simply reflected what some journalists wanted to see happen, which then made it slightly plausible, and therefore news. (Speculating now trumps reporting.) To suggest that approach demolishes decades' worth of American journalism standards would be an understatement. It's impossible to escape the conclusion that journalists for much of the week in Denver weren't informing news consumers about the unfolding event, they were purposefully misinforming people. (Bill and Hill might snub Obama!) Think about where journalism is heading when an entire industry knowingly adopts a false narrative and pushes it for days simply because it likes it; because it gives journalists a good storyline. Fifteen thousand journalists in Denver and they couldn't even report what actually happened there. Instead, they invented a storyline of their liking. And (surprise!) it was one that demeaned Democrats. And that's where the real harm came, because Denver wasn't simply a case of too many journalists chasing too few stories and having to fill up too much air time (i.e., being boring). It was a case of too many journalists embracing manufactured stories in order to fill up airtime. Like the insipid, day-long media boomlet, propagated by the GOP, about whether or not the columns constructed for the stage Obama appeared on Thursday night at Invesco Field would somehow take away from his speech or distract viewers. Or the incessant media mentions about the long-debunked myth that Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights. And guess what? All the bogus convention storylines poked Democrats. Do you think the same press trend will continue in St. Paul this week? Will journalists attach themselves to flimsy narratives that make Republicans look weak and divided? I have my doubts. What's so curious about the effusive, often breathless, convention coverage we see today is that not that long ago there was growing media momentum to shun the events. Remember back in 1996 when ABC's Ted Koppel famously packed up his Nightline crew after two days at the GOP convention in San Diego and went home, complaining there was no news to report at the tightly scripted pageants? (Koppel still feels that way, making the inarguable point on NBC last week that the conventions could easily be covered by 1,000 journalists instead of 15,000.) There was a growing feeling that took root in the late 1990s that the overscripted conventions were a joke in terms of news, that they insulted the intelligence of serious journalists, and that something needed to be done to change them (i.e., shorten them) because it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify lavishing so much time and attention on the quadrennial confabs. Fast forward to 2008 and ask yourselves: Have the national conventions become any less scripted? No. If anything, the conventions have become more controlled. But boy, the media's attitude towards them has completely reversed. Rather than pulling the cameras back as Koppel suggested, the amount of TV time devoted to conventions (well, the amount of TV time devoted to talking about the conventions on-site) has absolutely exploded. Thanks to cable television's nearly around-the-clock coverage, there were easily 150 hours set aside last week for the Democratic convention. Television's eruption of convention interest mirrors the widespread enthusiasm throughout the press corps for the political events. No longer seen as insulting, artificial events that had to be covered for tradition's sake, the press now revels in the conventions -- celebrates them! -- and treats them as wildly important, entertaining, and newsworthy. To me, that 180-degree shift from "Conventions are fake!" to "Conventions are awesome!" captures the disappearing standards within political journalism and how a new breed of shallowness has been embraced and become a hallmark trait. Prior to Denver's opening gavel, Slate's Jack Shafer, bemoaning the obvious press excesses surrounding the non-news conventions, wrote, "If the political press corps were honest, they'd start every convention story with the finding that nothing important happened that day and that your attention is not needed." His take was dead-on. And that was before we knew what kind of leaky journalism was going to ooze out of Denver.

Clinton Welcomed, Digg Tops, Dell Games

- Bill Clinton received a warm...and appropriate...welcome message from a local Denver strip club during the Democratic National Convention. - Want to quit your job in style" Check out Droga5's Quit in Style site they created for the YoungGuns...

AP noted criticism of Nagin and Brown for failed Katrina response, but not Chertoff

An August 29 Associated Press article noted that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was "widely criticized in 2005 for not evacuating his city before [Hurricane] Katrina" and that former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown "was forced to resign shortly after the storm as the extent of the agency's failings became clear." However, while the article quoted Michael Chertoff, head of the Department of Homeland Security, describing government efforts to prepare for Hurricane Gustav, it did not note that two congressional reports on the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina specifically faulted Chertoff, including his decision to appoint Brown to implement the federal response plan. As Media Matters for America has documented, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs issued a report in May 2006 that concluded Chertoff's agency "failed to lead an effective federal response to Hurricane Katrina" and listed specific steps Chertoff failed to take both before and after the storm. The report noted that "Secretary Chertoff failed to make ready the full range of federal assets pursuant to DHS's responsibilities under the National Response Plan (NRP)" and "failed to appoint a Principal Federal Official (PFO), the official charged with overseeing the federal response under the NRP, until 36 hours after landfall." Brown, the PFO that Chertoff eventually chose, "was hostile to the federal government's agreed-upon response plan and therefore was unlikely to perform effectively in accordance with its principles." Moreover, the Senate report stated, "Even when appointed PFO, Brown remained the Director of FEMA, an apparent violation of the NRP's requirement that a PFO not be ' "dual hatted" with any other roles or responsibilities that could detract from their overall incident-management responsibilities.' " Similarly, the House of Representatives' Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, which released its final report on February 15, 2006, found that "critical elements of the National Response Plan," parts of which Chertoff was responsible for, "were executed late, ineffectively, or not at all." The report also asserted that "DHS and the states were not prepared for" Katrina. The AP article quoted Chertoff saying of government preparedness for Hurricane Gustav: "What you're going to see is the product of three years of planning, training and exercising at all levels of government, starting with the local and the state level and leading up to the federal level. So we're clearly better prepared." From the August 29 AP article: "What you're going to see is the product of three years of planning, training and exercising at all levels of government, starting with the local and the state level and leading up to the federal level. So we're clearly better prepared," the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff said Friday on "Good Morning America" on ABC television. He was interviewed from New Orleans where he was coordinating storm preparation efforts. The administration of President George W. Bush is in regular contact with Bobby Jindal - the Republican governor of Louisiana, and Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans. Jindal has said he will skip the convention because of the storm. Nagin, widely criticized in 2005 for not evacuating his city before Katrina, left the Democratic National Convention early to return home. [...] But Witt's previous boss, former President Bill Clinton, drew Democrats' attention to the administration's Katrina failures when he spoke Wednesday at the convention. "What about Katrina and cronyism?" Clinton said, a remark that was followed by a chorus of "boos" from the crowd. "My fellow Democrats, America can do better than that." Clinton was referring to a Bush appointee, Michael Brown, who led the agency during Katrina. Brown was forced to resign shortly after the storm as the extent of the agency's failings became clear. Brown -- best remembered for Bush's comment, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" - is prepared for many "Brownie" jokes in the coming days as Katrina and hurricane response make their way back into the news.

Despite lack of evidence, Fox News suggested Clinton's speech was "more diss than endorsement for Obama"

On the August 27 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, during a segment about Sen. Hillary Clinton's August 26 speech at the Democratic National Convention, Fox aired on-screen text that asked: "Was Hillary Clinton's speech more diss than endorsement for [Sen. Barack] Obama?" But at no point during the segment did Fox News present evidence that Clinton's speech was, in fact, a "diss" of Obama. During the discussion, host Bill Hemmer played a video clip of Clinton's speech in which she said, "And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain." Hemmer then asked Josh Gottheimer, a speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton, "What did you think of last night?" Gottheimer responded: "I thought she hit it out of the park. ... Clear home run. She was unequivocal. She said, 'Obama is my candidate,' and as you pointed out, it was no way, no how, no McCain." Later in the segment, Hemmer asked: "Did delegates leave that hall last night saying, 'She should've been the one,' Josh?" Gottheimer replied: "[T]here are always a couple [of people] who are questioning, but I think overall ... the people I spoke to said, 'OK, it's time to get behind Barack Obama.' " Moreover, in response to Hemmer's statement that the Clintons have "taken a day and a half of the oxygen from this convention in Denver," Gottheimer stated, "I don't think that's an issue at all. I mean, I think Hillary Clinton last night was there for Barack Obama hitting his messages. Do you want more of the same or do you want to stand behind somebody who's ready for change on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy? There was no question about that, and Hillary Clinton was there to stand up for Barack Obama and that's exactly what she did." From the 9 a.m. ET hour of Fox News' America's Newsroom on August 27: HEMMER: That right there is the Pepsi Center where all the drama is going to go down eight hours from now -- potential drama on the floor of this room that you're looking at now. Delegates casting their votes for Barack Obama, or will it be a bit of subversiveness for Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton stood on that stage last night, gave what everyone is calling a home run speech as she tried to convince people unity, and to get behind Barack Obama. The question already today, though, is did she instead convince some of those delegates they picked the wrong candidate for president? Listen here. CLINTON [video clip]: And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. HEMMER: That is the line of the night. Former presidential speech writer and policy adviser Josh Gottheimer with me now. Josh served as special assistant and speechwriter to none other than president Bill Clinton and more recently was [Sen.] John Kerry's [D-MA] traveling speechwriter and senior policy adviser -- whew -- during 2004. Long title. What's happening? What did you think of last night? GOTTHEIMER: I thought she hit it out of the park. I think she -- HEMMER: Clear home run? GOTTHEIMER: Clear home run. She was unequivocal. She said, "Obama is my candidate," and as you pointed out, it was no way, no how, no McCain. HEMMER: Which is the line that most people remember. If you read the speech, it breaks down the following way. GOTTHEIMER: Yeah. Uh-huh. HEMMER: Three-quarters Hillary Clinton, one-eighth Barack Obama, one-eighth John McCain. The debate now is whether or not she did enough for Barack Obama. GOTTHEIMER: Well, I think any conversation she had about thanking her supporters was to tell all 18 million of them: Get on board. The answer is Senator Obama. Don't forget that when it comes to the economy and when it comes to health care, he's the answer. He's the best president that we're going to have. And I mean, I think she was unequivocal about that. HEMMER: To go to your point, Josh, roll this clip here. This is part of what she said about Barack Obama. Watch this. CLINTON [video clip]: And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. HEMMER: Well, I guess we're going to hear it twice. That was the wrong clip. We wanted to hear a little bit of an endorsement for Barack Obama. Did delegates leave that hall last night saying, "She should've been the one," Josh? GOTTHEIMER: No, I think all the delegates that I spoke to and everybody I saw leaving the hall last night made it very clear -- HEMMER: Everyone? GOTTHEIMER: Everyone. HEMMER: Seen some of the stories that have been written today? GOTTHEIMER: Well, but listen, there are always a couple who are questioning, but I think overall, the people I said -- the people I spoke to said, "OK, it's time to get behind Barack Obama." HEMMER: Why did she mention her husband's name once? GOTTHEIMER: Versus how many times? HEMMER: And only once? GOTTHEIMER: I mean, I think she played great homage to the '90s, which is exactly what she was supposed to do, but this is not about Bill Clinton or this is not about Hillary Clinton. This is about Barack Obama. It's about another eight years or four years of the same Bush policies. HEMMER: I think you're exactly right about that. The problem for the Obama folks is that they've taken a day and a half of the oxygen from this convention in Denver. How big of an issue is that? GOTTHEIMER: I don't think that's an issue at all. I mean, I think Hillary Clinton last night was there for Barack Obama hitting his messages. Do you want more of the same or do you want to stand behind somebody who's ready for change on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy? There was no question about that, and Hillary Clinton was there to stand up for Barack Obama and that's exactly what she did.

Boehlert: Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore. At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton." Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic. Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis. End of history lesson. Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee. Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain. Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab. Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality. This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too. Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?" What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy. Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm. But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions. Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine. But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books. Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.) When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on. On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions. Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article reporting the Clinton convention story, the Times miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination. Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals. But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom. Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts. Just take a look at a recent edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention role with barely containable contempt: Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts. "Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.") And this from Radar magazine: Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry? Note that Clinton's convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and precedent and history and all that annoying stuff. Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have "made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party. What's curious is that journalists who have actually bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes. Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony." The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule. Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line. Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com, who wrote, "My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters." She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party. ... We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team." Burton made several public pronouncements like that regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces." And then there was Washington Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton to be nominated, suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought Clinton's nomination would be good for party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning the event as a Democratic catastrophe. FYI, Birnbaum told The Wall Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accommodate their storyline." Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.) "Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News) "If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick Morris, on Fox News) "Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda Carpenter, at Townhall.com) Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.

NBC and MSNBC anchors ignore their own political director's criticism of media's "hyping" of purported division among Clinton supporters

On the August 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, when asked by host Chris Matthews about "this civil war" between "the PUMAs, the holdouts ... and the majority, apparently, of [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton] people who really want [Sen.] Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to win this November," NBC News political director Chuck Todd said of the story, "I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. ... And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, 'Why did we waste all of our time with that?' " Notwithstanding Todd's comments, during MSNBC's August 25 coverage of the Democratic National Convention, in interviews with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), former President Jimmy Carter, and Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, 18 of the 20 questions asked by NBC and MSNBC correspondents and anchors dealt with Clinton, her supporters, or former President Bill Clinton. Following NBC News correspondent Savannah Guthrie's interview with Schumer -- in which three of the four questions she asked dealt with Hillary Clinton -- Matthews asserted: "Savannah Guthrie there with Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, talking up Hillary's role in this. Of course, it is going to be the story of the week, no matter what we say. Will the Clintons get aboard? Will they be invited aboard with all the right protocols?" On Hardball, Todd asserted of Matthews' purported "civil war" in the Democratic Party: TODD: But, look, I think this is one of those stories that we're -- we're in the bubble. We are in the Denver bubble right now. And as [MSNBC political analyst] Howard [Fineman] said, there are Clinton people everywhere. You could find a PUMA, not just on your feet for shoes that you might need to be using to do all the walking that you do, but you can find a PUMA anywhere you want and you can write this story. But that doesn't mean it's a story. I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. MATTHEWS: Yeah. TODD: And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, "Why did we waste all of our time with that?" The big moment tonight is going to be [Sen.] Teddy Kennedy [D-MA], when he does something tonight. Does he speak? I think we all assume he's not coming out here to go on stage to wave. That's not -- that's not the Teddy Kennedy we've all come to watch over the years. That's going to be a bigger moment than any Clinton people who are bitter, arguing outside looking for cameras to get attention. They feel almost like -- they're becoming like Ron Paul supporters were back in the Republican primaries. I think they're a much smaller group than we make them out to be, frankly. All of the six questions Ann Curry, co-host of NBC's Today, asked Pelosi dealt with the Clintons or Hillary Clinton's supporters: "Should Senator Clinton have called on her supporters to back Barack Obama already?" "[H]as she [Clinton] hurt Barack Obama, given what the polls are looking ... like? ... Why not?" "[I]t's three months until the election, Madame Speaker, and what we have is -- you talked about 20 percent. There are a lot of disgruntled, some of them actually angry, supporters of Hillary Clinton." "What gives you confidence of party unity?" "What do you say to Hillary supporters who are now being wooed by John McCain?" "Hillary speaks tomorrow night. President Clinton speaks on Wednesday night. What do the Clintons want, and what role do you think they [the Clintons] will play?" Questions Guthrie asked Schumer about Hillary Clinton included: "I have to ask you, first of all, about that other senator from New York. A lot has been said and written about lingering division in the party. Do you see that in your delegation?" "Is there some aspect to this that Hillary herself has not been able to control? I mean, there are people who clearly feel strongly about it and, no matter what her signals are, want to make a stand." "What do you think her role in the Senate will be now? Is she going to be the lioness of the Senate, in the mold of Ted Kennedy?" Questions Curry asked Carter about the Clintons included: "Do you think that she [Hillary Clinton] should have thrown her support and asked her supporters to go to Obama before now?" "Have you spoken to the Clintons? Have you asked them to have a certain kind of message? In other words, have you tried to guide what they're going to do here?" "[H]ave you called to talk to them about what they need to do here?" All six questions Matthews and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann asked Gibbs dealt with the Clintons or Hillary Clinton's supporters: Matthews asked: "When are we going to see a real coming together of Bill Clinton, the former president, and the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama? When will we see them in the same picture together, having lunch together, hanging out together in a friendly environment? When will that happen?" Matthews asked: "I haven't seen a picture yet of Bill Clinton with Barack Obama. When will I see them together?" Matthews asked: Let me ask you about this very bad blood that went on during South Carolina, all the primaries in the beginning, when comments were made by former President Clinton, you know, 'this is a fairy tale,' comparisons of the success in states like South Carolina by Barack Obama with those of [Rev.] Jesse Jackson in the past in a way that seemed to minimize the success of Barack Obama, his dominance, if you will of this effort. Were they racist or were they just unfortunate? How would you describe those comments by Bill Clinton?" Matthews asked: 'Let's talk about the roll call. Keith has been raising it -- he may want to jump in on this -- he's been raising the question as to what's the choreography come Wednesday night? We've watched a number of conventions where the loser grandly and magnificently or magnanimously says, 'I ask that this be made unanimous.' Will there be a moment like that of unity?" Olbermann asked: "Mr. Gibbs, what's the best-case scenario? What do you see as the best-case scenario of these conversations, if we don't call them negotiations, between you and those supporters sort of running what's left of the Clinton campaign as we wait for the Kennedy thing tonight?" Matthews asked: "Do you expect Bill Clinton to barnstorm his way through those areas where he did well -- Southern white guys, if you will -- in the Appalachian area, states that can be tricky? Portions of Ohio; portions of Pennsylvania. Are you going to really surgically use Bill the way, for example, Eddie Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, was able to call in air strikes by the Clintons?" From the August 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball: MATTHEWS: Chuck Todd, give us analysis of where this civil war stands right now. Out here, it's pretty noisy between the PUMAs, the holdouts, and the people -- and the majority, apparently, of Hillary people who really want Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to win this November. TODD: I tell you, in here, they actually just started the convention, so I'm sort of confused. I do see the crowds out there going a little nuts, but they actually did start the convention behind here with -- Howard Dean just dropped the gavel, gave the opening remarks. But, look, I think this is one of those stories that we're -- we're in the bubble. We are in the Denver bubble right now. And as Howard said, there are Clinton people everywhere. You could find a PUMA, not just on your feet for shoes that you might need to be using to do all the walking that you do, but you can find a PUMA anywhere you want and you can write this story. But that doesn't mean it's a story. I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. MATTHEWS: Yeah. TODD: And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, "Why did we waste all of our time with that?" The big moment tonight is going to be Teddy Kennedy, when he does something tonight. Does he speak? I think we all assume he's not coming out here to go on stage to wave. That's not -- that's not the Teddy Kennedy we've all come to watch over the years. That's going to be a bigger moment than any Clinton people who are bitter, arguing outside looking for cameras to get attention. They feel almost like -- they're becoming like Ron Paul supporters were back in the Republican primaries. I think they're a much smaller group than we make them out to be, frankly. MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, it's a free country, but the noisiest people get the attention. Mike Barnicle -- TODD: They do. From MSNBC's August 26 coverage of the Democratic National Convention: OLBERMANN: Our correspondent Ann Curry is inside the Pepsi Center, in fact at the podium, with the woman we just heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ann, good evening. CURRY: That's right. That's right. Good evening, Keith and Chris. Good evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In your remarks tonight, you talked about Barack Obama being the man who will take America into a new future. Here's the question I have to ask for you. Should Senator Clinton have called on her supporters to back Barack Obama already? PELOSI: Senator Clinton, I think, has done exactly the right thing. It's very important for voters who have -- workers who have worked so hard in the campaign, they have to follow the lead of the candidate they are supporting. CURRY: But has she hurt Barack Obama, given what the polls are looking at -- like? PELOSI: I don't think so. I don't think so. CURRY: Why not? PELOSI: I don't think so. I think -- first of all, let's put it the way, this -- Barack Obama won the nomination with full confidence that he could win the general election. Now, 80 percent -- what is -- Barack Obama is leading among women right now, the bulk of Sen. -- much of Senator Clinton's support, by 20 points. By 20 points. So he is taking his message directly to the American people. Senator Clinton has emerged as a great leader in our country. She was before -- a greater leader now. And her support of course is very important -- CURRY: You mentioned the 20 -- PELOSI: -- but this is the natural course of events. CURRY: The natural course of events -- but it's three months until the election, Madame Speaker, and what we have is -- you talked about 20 percent. There are a lot of disgruntled, some of them actually angry, supporters of Hillary Clinton. PELOSI: Well, they are, but that is not the point. The point is, here we have come here together to be unified, focused, disciplined. We will leave here with a clarity of message of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. We will leave here mobilized to drive a grassroots operation, to get out the vote, and we are confident of victory. CURRY: What gives you confidence of party unity? PELOSI: It doesn't mean party unanimity; you never have that. This is my 12th convention, and I can say that this is a pretty enthusiastic convention because in those earlier days, sometimes you didn't know the outcome going into the convention when you came out. We knew the outcome going in, and we knew what one of those outcomes would be a unified, confident Democratic Party coming out. You know why? Because everybody knows what is at stake. People are concerned about their -- losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their standard of living, losing their purchasing power, and they know that we must have change. And that's why we're confident that with our message of an economic agenda for all Americans that we will win. CURRY: What do you say to Hillary supporters who are now being wooed by John McCain? PELOSI: Well, I would say to them that women have the most to lose with the election of John McCain and the most to gain with the election of Barack Obama. Take any day in Congress, whether you're talking about childrens' health or pay equity, equal pay for equal work for women, or talk about issues like Medicare where John McCain was wrong and Barack Obama was right. Or issues about our national security and going to war, or our economy, where, instead of investing in good paying jobs here, our economy is on the downturn. So on all of the issues, whether they're national security, economic security, or issues as personal to women as their right to choice or their pay equity or Medicare, whatever it happens to be -- children's health -- this -- the difference between the parties in policy and the individuals in terms of leadership on those policies are clear. CURRY: Hillary -- Hillary speaks tomorrow night. President Clinton speaks on Wednesday night. What do the Clintons want, and what role do you think they will play? PELOSI: Sorry? CURRY: What do the Clintons want, and what role will they play once this convention is over? PELOSI: Well, President Clinton is a former president of the United States. So his role is a very clear one, and I would like to hear Senator -- President Carter here. So he will always be a force in our country and certainly in the Democratic Party. So everyone is looking forward to being inspired by him, by hearing what his views are about the future and his support for Barack Obama and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE]. Senator Clinton, a candidate in her own right, brings a different credential. In some ways her speech is more important than President Clinton's because she was currently in this race and now her supporters want to take their lead from her. But she's been absolutely great. Our country, our party have been strengthened by her candidacy, and we're all very, very proud of it. CURRY: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, thank you so much for stopping to speak to us. Thank you so much. All right now, Keith, right back to you. OLBERMANN: Ann Curry at the podium. Thank you, Ann. MATTHEWS: And now to Savannah Guthrie, who is with New York Senator Chuck Schumer -- senior Senator Chuck Schumer. GUTHRIE: Chuck Schumer is with me now. I have to ask you, first of all, about that other senator from New York. A lot has been said and written about lingering division in the party. Do you see that in your delegation? SCHUMER: I don't. We're probably the most pro-Hillary delegation of all of them, and there is great unity. Hillary this morning spoke to the delegation, and she said, "We need unity," and that makes sense because Hillary cares about this country and knows we can't afford another four years of John McCain. GUTHRIE: Is there some aspect to this that Hillary herself has not been able to control? I mean, there are people who clearly feel strongly about it and, no matter what her signals are, want to make a stand. SCHUMER: There are a few outliers who will be never happy, but the overwhelming majority of Hillary delegates here at this convention -- and I was the first senator to be for her and last off -- but the overwhelming majority are going to be for her and for her big time. GUTHRIE: What do you think her role will be now? SCHUMER: Sorry -- for him, and for him big time. We were for her big time, now we're going to be for Barack big time. GUTHRIE: Old habits die hard. SCHUMER: Exactly. GUTHRIE: What do you think her role in the Senate will be now? Is she going to be the lioness of the Senate, in the mold of Ted Kennedy? SCHUMER: Well, you know, she -- you know, sometimes you lose an election. You hate to lose it. But you actually grow in stature. That has happened to Hillary, and I think she could on major issues be really a seminal voice. GUTHRIE: Obviously, the presidential election is what has brought us all here, but you're very integral to the Senate campaigns. How many seats do you think the Democrats will gain? SCHUMER: We're going to pick up a whole bunch. Now, 60 is the dream. It's hard 'cause there are so many red states, but it's not out of the question, and we're finding in places we never thought we had a chance -- Oklahoma, this week, Georgia, we're much closer than we thought in addition to other 11 states. GUTHRIE: Senator Chuck Schumer, thanks for your time. SCHUMER: Thank you. GUTHRIE: Chris, back to you. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, Savannah Guthrie there with Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, talking up Hillary's role in this. Of course, it is going to be the story of the week, no matter what we say. Will the Clintons get aboard? Will they be invited aboard with all the right protocols? [...] OLBERMANN: Let me do the -- run the risk of interrupting you because we don't want to keep a former president waiting. Ann Curry back inside the Pepsi Center with former President Carter. Ann? CURRY: That's right. Thank you so much, Keith. Thank you so much, Mr. President, for sticking around. Now, let me ask you, you know, you're the elder statesman, really, of this party. CARTER: I guess so. I think this is my ninth convention. CURRY: I need to ask you your feelings about why -- what is your sense about why this race is still so tight? CARTER: Well, I think the main reason is that a lot of supporters of Senator Clinton have not yet made up their minds. I noticed in news media this morning that only 46 percent of them so far are completely dedicated to Obama. But I think after this convention, you'll see a massive move by them to support Obama, and I think the polls will change very quickly. CURRY: In part that is probably because we will hear from Senator Clinton on Tuesday night and she will make her statements known. However, it is now three months until the election. You know how this rolls. Do you think that she should have thrown her support and asked her supporters to go to Obama before now? CARTER: No, I think this is working out quite well. You know, I know this from history -- you said I'm an elder statesman, and I know it from history. In 1976, when I got the nomination for president, there was an intense argument or debate between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan at their Republican convention. They divided horribly, and it was about four or five -- almost two months later before the Reagan people finally said, "OK, we will support Gerald Ford as a last choice." That's not going to wait this long this year. I think immediately after this convention, you'll see a massive move by the Clinton supporters to Obama. CURRY: Have you spoken to the Clintons? Have you asked them to have a certain kind of message? In other words, have you tried to guide what they're going to do here? CARTER: Not really. I don't think that's appropriate for me. They know a lot more about politics than I do and have been in it a lot more recently. CURRY: But have you called to talk to them about what they need to do here? CARTER: Yeah, in fact, Bill Clinton has called me. I think he called me last time. I called him earlier. But we stay in communication. And I don't think there's any doubt that Bill and his wife will be completely committed to Obama. I don't have any doubt about that. CURRY: All right. Mr. President, I know you've got to make it to another location. Thank you so much for staying. CARTER: Pleasure to talk to you. CURRY: It's a pleasure to see you, sir. CARTER: I think it's going to be a wonderful convention. CURRY: Well, you're looking very well and I'm very glad to see you. CARTER: Thank you very much. CURRY: So now back to you, Keith and Chris, back in the studio. [...] MATTHEWS: Robert Gibbs is the Obama campaign communications director. Robert, thank you for joining us. You're right near us now. When are we going to see a real coming together of Bill Clinton, the former president, and the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama? When will we see them in the same picture together, having lunch together, hanging out together in a friendly environment? When will that happen? GIBBS: Well, look, they're trying to get together real soon but they had a long conversation last Thursday on our campaign bus as we were rolling through Virginia. You know, Chris, this party is united. This party's going to be united coming out of -- coming out of Denver here on Friday. We're gonna -- we're united by a simple message, and that is: We need change in this country. We can't have four more years of the same George Bush-John McCain policies that have taken this country in the wrong direction. That's what unites a lot of different delegates that have come here supporting different candidates in the past. But it's important that people understand we are going to be united. We have to have change in November. MATTHEWS: Well, again, I haven't seen a picture yet of Bill Clinton with Barack Obama. When will I see them together? GIBBS: Real soon. MATTHEWS: Real soon. Let me ask you about this very bad blood that went on during South Carolina, all the primaries in the beginning, when comments were made by former President Clinton, you know, "this is a fairy tale," comparisons of the success in states like South Carolina by Barack Obama with those of Jesse Jackson in the past in a way that seemed to minimize the success of Barack Obama, his dominance, if you will of this effort. Were they racist or were they just unfortunate? How would you describe those comments by Bill Clinton? GIBBS: You know, Chris, I remember South Carolina. It was -- it all happened so fast. We were quickly off on to I don't know how many states for February 5th. We didn't have a lot of time to focus on this. Look, I don't think in any way, shape, or form were those comments racist. There's been no better advocate for the African-American community than former President Bill Clinton. We're a united party. Somebody -- a very exclusive club, former presidents, and we look to hope to use the wisdom and the campaign skills of Bill Clinton to good use in the fall to bring Democrats together, to bring independents and Republicans out in places like Colorado and all throughout the West, and win the White House for the first time since he occupied it a little over eight years ago. MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the roll call. Keith's been raising it -- he may want to jump in on this -- he's been raising the question as to what's the choreography come Wednesday night? We've watched a number of conventions where the loser grandly and magnificently or magnanimously says, "I ask that this be made unanimous." Will there be a moment like that of unity? GIBBS: Well, look, the logistics of this are in some flux and they're being worked out. But again, what I think you'll see after that roll call is a party that's united. Look, again, we understand that people came with strong passions. Look, Senator Clinton ran a fabulous campaign. She was an outspoken and eloquent voice for working families, for better health care, for better schools. That's exactly what Barack Obama wants to see in this country, and that's what we're here to advocate each and every night in this platform. OLBERMANN: Mr. Gibbs, what's the best-case scenario? What do you see as the best-case scenario of these conversations, if we don't call them negotiations, between you and those supporters sort of running what's left of the Clinton campaign as we wait for the Kennedy thing tonight? GIBBS: Well, look -- here's what I think is going to happen. I think you're going to hear a very passionate, a very eloquent speech tomorrow night from Senator Clinton, and she's going to tell the hall and all of America that the candidate that she most wants to see as president of the United States is Barack Obama. I think that's going to carry a tremendous amount of weight with Democrats that may not be as excited right now as we'd like them to be. But I guarantee that 10 weeks, a little over 10 weeks from now on election night, Democrats will be -- will come out in full force in numbers like you've never seen before. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the question as to the role they're going to play. Do you expect Bill Clinton to barnstorm his way through those areas where he did well -- Southern white guys, if you will -- in the Appalachian area, states that can be tricky -- portions of Ohio, portions of Pennsylvania? Are you going to really surgically use Bill the way, for example, Eddie Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, was able to call in the airstrikes by the Clintons? GIBBS: Well, look, former President Clinton has expressed a desire to get out and campaign. Obviously, Senator Clinton has been in key states for us -- Florida, New Mexico, and other places recently. They've both been fabulous. They've both been extraordinarily helpful. We couldn't ask anything more. And I think you mentioned it. Look, this race is going to be decided in places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, Ohio, and Macomb County, Michigan, and look, you've got a great choice between these two candidates, right? John McCain was asked last week fairly innocently, I would presume, by a reporter, "How many houses do you own?" And his answer was, "I'll get back to you. I'll get some staff to get you that answer." For your viewers, guys, the answer was seven. That's how many houses they own. But I think there are voters sitting here tonight in Scranton, in Youngstown, in Macomb County, that are just trying to make their mortgage payment for next month. They want a president that's in touch with their problems, that understands that this economy has to get moving again, and that choice is Barack Obama. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you for joining us over here at the MSNBC site. GIBBS: Thanks, guys. MATTHEWS: Robert Gibbs, communication director.

Hannity distorted Bill Clinton's comments about readiness for presidency

During the August 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted, "Bill Clinton says that Barack Obama may not be ready to be president." But Clinton did not in fact say that "Barack Obama may not be ready to be president." Rather, during an interview with ABC's Kate Snow, posted August 5 to ABCNews.com, Clinton said, "[Y]ou could argue that no one is ever ready to be president," adding, "I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in my first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different." Clinton went on to praise Obama, saying, "He's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn." From Clinton's interview with Snow: SNOW: Is he ready to be president? CLINTON: You could argue that no one is ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different. You could argue that. He's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn. From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: And welcome to Hannity & Colmes. We're glad you're with us. We get right to our 'Top Story' tonight. Remember that sunny day in New Hampshire when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stood hand in hand, the sun -- the sun was shining, the crowd was cheering, and all Democrats hailed from a town called Unity. [sound of glass breaking] Well, not anymore. Hillary Clinton wants a choice slot at the convention. Bill Clinton says that Barack Obama may not be ready to be president. And new polls suggest that Obama may still have problems courting the older white female vote that made up the -- well, larger percentage of Clinton's constituency in the primaries.

Bill Clinton on Africa and the Future

Interviewed in Africa, the former U.S. President discusses how African leaders can fight the food, energy, and climate crises and how the continent can unite.