Clinton’s surprising appearance on ‘Countdown’
It’s hardly unusual to think Hillary Clinton would appear on a popular, national cable talk show the night before a major primary, but her appearance on MSNBC’s “Countdown” was at least somewhat unexpected. For one thing, the Clinton campaign has done little to hide its disgust with the network’s coverage of the Democratic race, most notably at the hands of Chris Matthews. For another, “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann has been openly critical of the Clinton strategy for months.
But after some finagling, Clinton did agree to chat with Olberbmann last night, and it was actually pretty interesting. And given the context, there were probably more viewers than usual, many wondering whether Olbermann would be openly critical of the senator.
That didn’t happen. The very first question Olbermann asked was whether a president really has the ability to “do anything about the price of a gallon of gas.”
“Well, I think it’s going to be very much influenced by the economy. I don’t know what else might happen between now and then. But it appears to me that the economy is not going to recover, and, in fact, the price of gas is going to be a big issue. […]
“I do think there are things that we can do. In the short run, I would, if I were president, launch an investigation to make sure that there’s not market manipulation going on…. I would also release some of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve…. And I would do what I could to try to alleviate the cost right now. If we could come up with a way to make up the lost revenue with a gas tax holiday, like, for example, a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, on a basis to try to fill the highway trust fund, while we left people off from paying the gas taxes, I would consider that.
“But you’re right. Ultimately, we’re going to have to have an energy policy that actually moves us from our dependence on foreign oil and being literally over the oil barrel with the oil-producing countries and companies.”
Hey, everybody! Look, it was a substantive question! And a substantive answer! Hell, it was even newsworthy — Clinton seems to agree with John McCain about the merit of a “gas-tax holiday.”
It’s almost as if we were watching a broadcast journalist who understands how to conduct an interview with a presidential candidate. Be still my heart.
And it got better. Olbermann’s second question pressed Clinton to “clarify … hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by [the U.S.], and what constitutes massive retaliation?”
“Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
“And I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
“In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing, because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So, I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.
“In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”
I’m happy to leave this to some of the more fluent foreign-policy experts among us, but Clinton’s vision of extending Cold War-like deterrence to the Middle East sounds like a policy she hasn’t addressed in detail before. Expect to hear quite a bit more about this.
It wasn’t all high-minded substance. Olbermann asked whether Clinton’s new ad, which features footage of the Pearl Harbor attacks and Osama bin Laden constitute “scare tactics.” She insisted the ad “is about leadership.” Olbermann asked why she criticized Obama when he said McCain would be preferable to Bush, given her own praise for McCain. She responded by comparing McCain to someone with a law license, “but that doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody should hire you to perform certain services and take on certain cases.” Olbermann pressed Clinton on her newfound comfort with Richard Mellon Scaife, and after she stopped laughing, she cited the recent Pittsburgh Tribune-Review endorsement as evidence of her ability to win over conservatives in the fall.
It was, dare I say it, a good interview. And Clinton gave good responses. The questions were tough, but fair. There was a combination of substance and horserace.
As Jonathan Cohn put it, “Perhaps Olbermann, reacting to last week’s debate debacle, was trying to make a point about how journalists should interview candidates. If so, I think he succeeded.”
“If we could come up with a way to make up the lost revenue with a gas tax holiday, like, for example, a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, on a basis to try to fill the highway trust fund, while we left people off from paying the gas taxes, I would consider that.
This was the line that struck me as I watched it. We give people an 18 cent tax benefit. We tax the oil companies a windfall tax to make up for it. They charge their customers an extra 20 or 25 cents to pay for the extra costs incurred. Result: the price of gas goes up, and Hillary says, “you’re welcome” in advance.
Saw it, and I have to agree — a solid job all around.
The only weak part, I thought, was Hillary’s forced laughter throughout the Scaife questions. She really needs to stop doing that.
Now that interview provided George and Charlie with a real note taking opportunity, unlike Hannity’s radio show the other day! -Kevo
A breath of fresh air and, dare I say it, hope–but let’s not get used to it. Except in a few isolated cases such as this where the few remaining professionals are involved, true journalism isn’t exactly flourishing.
I agree with TR. That somewhat hysterical laugh was very off-putting. It seemed somehow disconnected in that context, as though someone had lifted something from SNL or Jon Stewart.
In the end, her performance supported my “elect a Democrat” stance, though I strongly favor Obama.
If we had not invaded Iraq, declared Iran part of the Axis of Evil, and had lots of speculation about attacking Iran and Syria in 2003, I doubt Ahmadinejad would have ever been elected. But while Hillary thinks Obama is naive for saying he would meet with controversial leaders because it would “send a bad message”, she’s out there stirring the pot.
And that laugh after the Scaife question was truly offensive, as was her answer. She essentially said Scaife was a born again Democrat. Who is she kidding?
I agree with Ed on this. Frankly, last night was Clinton’s best performance on the campaign trail yet. And I, too, was very impressed with Olbermann’s line of questioning– mostly about substantive issues, and, when he asked about the advertising, he did it in a way that allowed the candidate to explain herself, rather than doing it in a “play-gotcha-to-drive-up-ratings” way.
That cackle at inappropriate moments is reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of Oz.I’ve noticed that she has a pattern of pulling this trick when she is stalling for an answer,or is taken off guard. Wonder if she would have been laughing IF Keith HAD asked her about the video of Ed Rendell praising Lois Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam as a faith that is based on family and uniting people of different races and persuasions? HE DIDN’T ask her. (I am not saying Islam is a divisive faith,I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Clinton’s camp). Abrams DID report the story,AND showed the video—-HuffPo has it,too.
My apologies,that should have read LOUIS,not Lois!
Danp,
Apparently you don’t understand windfall profits tax. You can’t raise market prices to recoup those taxes because it just increases your taxes. Other than that if you call for a complete gas tax holiday then the infrastructure falters. An investigation into market manipulation would be a welcome sight but would likely do little because it is oil producing nations that are manipulation the market with their billions of new found money.
Releasing oil from the reserve is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. It is functionally equivalent to eliminating the tax on gas over the summer.
McCain was wrong.
Clinton was wrong.
If CNN no bias, how come every time they air segment on Tibetan monks, government cut away to duck documentary?
I have to admit, this was the first time in a long while that I could listen to Clinton without immediately changing the channel. She seemed to do better one on one than in a debate or a speech format….
I’m really not surprised either that Clinton appeared or that Olbermann wasn’t critical of her during the interview. If Clinton can do interviews with a variety of representatives of the “vast right wing conspiracy” she can certainly survive MSNBC. It wouldn’t make much sense for Olbermann to be hostile during the interview as doing so would both reduce his credibility as a journalist and make it more difficult to get people he’s been critical of in commentaries to agree to interviews in the future.
neil wilson:
Releasing oil from the reserve is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do.
Of course it is dumb. It is a “strategic reserve.” Not a pantry for panderers.
It is like seed corn. But our would-be leaders, McClinton and McCain will promise anything to get elected.
Here is some interesting math to place the whole argument in a different context:
Oil futures are now going for $118 a barrel. There are 42 gallons per barrel. According to this exposition you can get 20 to 28 gallons of gas from one barrel. Assume 28 gallons. Do the division… that’s $4.21 a gallon without transportation and markups.
Tapping the reserve, or eliminating the tax will have marginal effects.
The bottom line is that Americans will have to stop driving tanks very shortly…
And no amount of pandering will alter that…
Olbermann’s hysterical rants against HRC have pulverized his credibility with me and other HRC supporters. The guy is insane.
All I can think of regarding deterrence is that Israel has plenty of nukes already, and that Iran surely knows this as well. So Clinton’s just acting tough for the sake of looking tough as far as I’m concerned. But there is a difference between Obama and Clinton when it comes to dealing with Iran, with Obama being more open I think to a possible reconciliation with Iran and Clinton not being open to same. And if Clinton isn’t open to it, it’s going to be more likely that she’ll keep U.S. forces in Iraq, if not as many troops as are now currently there.
Her continuous laughter through the Scaife question was particularly annoying, and I suspect to Olbermann too—he tried to bring her out of it and make a point about how serious he considered the question by mentioning that “Seriously, Senator. I quit this job the first time around because of Richard Mellon Scaife and people like him…”
And she laughs the whole way…
Watching two adults talk intelligently – makes for poor ratings in today’s Broadcast America…
#16 – Sometimes the bright light of truth is mistaken for “hysteria” and “insanity” to the partially blind.
ROTFLMLiberalAO, your math is incorrect — $4.21 is much too high. While it is true that a barrel of oil can only yield a portion of its volume as gas, virtually none of the rest is not wasted. It is instead converted to various other (some quite valuable) petroleum products and sold.
correction — “virtually none of the rest is not wasted”
Clinton won over all the conservatives voting in a Democratic primary.
DOZENS of ’em! Great game plan, sweetcheeks.
Decent answer on the Oil Reserve but she missed a chance to explain that the high gas prices now are partially because King George has been ADDING to the current reserves at these high-water mark prices in order to help his buddies it the Suadi royal family.
Buy high, sell low. That’s the Bush model that has got him where he is today.
She and most of the crowd fighting yesterday’s wars are under the delusion that the next nuclear attack will have a name attached to it. The next mushroom cloud will be anonymous and unlike Oklahoma City, there isn’t going to be any evidence to sift through to find the likes of McVeigh.
I’m a much bigger supporter of fissionable materials control and countermeasures like Obama. Put some of the finances backing our current quagmires into human intelligence that’ll short circuit efforts to get weapons-grade enrichment programs off the ground.
While we’re at it, some serious pursuit of fusion power using defense funds could remove any excuse for enriching uranium at all in 30 years. It would keep us far safer than the Joint Strike Fighter program or another aircraft carrier.
must be back to pandering as usual today:
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc_1
guess she wants to prove she has a bigger dick than her husband.
Re #21. You mean “none of the rest IS wasted.”
I like Keith, and can stand his attacks on the Clinton Campaign recently (#16). And he has been seriously critical of the ABC debate and the moderators performance. I’m glad that Keith got Hillary to sit down with him. Nice smack in the face for tweety bird Matthews (and Dave Schuster). I’m sorry I missed it, but then “The Big Bang Theory” and “How I Met Your Mother” take precedence.
I thought the clarification on extending the U.S. nuclear embrella to any Middle Eastern country that agrees to eschew their own nuclear weapons is good journalism, as opposed to the hysteria you get from conservative pundits who rove the story to be we’d get in the middle of any inter-Arab conflict. (rove, v., to spin an opponents statement to change it’s meaning and then to attack the spun statement rather than the original meaning).
And Starfleet Dude (#17), the reason that Senator Clinton morphed Charles Krauthammer’s suggestion to extend the U.S. nuclear embrella to other countries is to get THEM to not seek nuclear weapons, not just to protect Isreal. Isreal is not going to retaliate against Iran if Iran nukes Ryhad (sp) so they can invade Saudi Arabia and take control of Mecca and Medina.
I thought the statement about dealing with gas prices was at least thoughtful. I don’t think we ought to be filling the strategic reserve right now, if not releasing from it. A gas tax holiday would be acceptable only with a windfall tax at the same time. We don’t need more deficits. But (sadly) I’m with Charles Krauthammer on setting up a higher gas tax that would be imposed if gasoline ever dropped down to $2.50 or so. (but then CK took up my suggestion to withdraw US forces to Kuwait and Kurdistan (K&K) so he can’t be all that bad).
That’s wonkiness, taking McCant’s gas tax holiday or Krauthammer’s nuclear shield idea and figure out how it can actually work for America. Which happens to be why I like the Clintons, despite all their faults.
Scaife just makes me laugh. “Hold your friends close but hold your enemies closer.” If Senator Clinton is disarming her enemies, more power to her.
Good interview. Good questions, good answers, although I’m surprised how often I disagreed with her. I have leaned slightly toward her during the campaign, especially on her health care solution, and her scrappy, fighting nature. I think she would fare better against the Republican smear machine than Obama. On the other hand, so many people viscerally hate Hillary it’s unlikely that she could win. But that’s no longer relevant, Obama is the candidate, and I hope we can wrap this thing up soon. Even though I like her, I kind of hope she’ll do poorly today, think about bowing out.
That said, I understand those uncomfortable with her (nervous?) cackle. It just doesn’t serve her. It’s an irritant.
The gas tax holiday is a bad idea, but nearly not as bad as the tax rate stimulus package. That 165 billion should have been put into incentives for the development of alternative energy. We need to invest in long term solutions to the global energy/climate change crisis. She failed to mention that fossil fuel dependence is destroying our planet – that’s the big problem, not our dependence on foreign oil.
And I think she’s trying too hard to sound tough on national security, although she did a good job in defusing the wild notion last week that she was going to bomb, bomb, bomb the entire Middle East, and she even talked about the possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons – that told me she doesn’t plan to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran to prevent that.
None of this matters for this cycle. Obama has won, and all of us need to support him enthusiastically. But it might matter in 2012. If Obama loses, McCain will be a one termer, for sure.
…she cited the recent Pittsburgh Tribune-Review endorsement as evidence of her ability to win over conservatives in the fall.
Did Clinton explain why conservatives might like her? The conservative appeal of Obama can at least be explained by his reaching out on front-porch economic issues and not seeming hostile to religion (at least, not when he made his national debut in ’04). What’s Hillary’s conserva-magnet?
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that’s it’s a healthy dose of “bipartisanship,” i.e. maintaining the status quo.
MLE @ 21…
Yes I see your point.
It would be interesting to know the market value of that smaller alternative fraction.
And how much of that remaining value is offset by transportation, refining costs, and various other markups to gasoline. Then the calculation would be a little straighter.
But consider this also: $118 won’t be the ceiling on a barrel of crude.
Not by a long shot. They are hungry for the stuff in China, and in India.
The big tanks you see on American roads… accelerating towards red lights… are dinosaurs.
Clinton and McCain can’t save that species.
I have always thought that Clinton does her fake laugh at questions that she wishes to deem silly and frivolous in order to show her disdain and dismiss the question and perhaps even the questioner. Of course the very fact she is doing this shows that the question is important.
It is sophomoric and speaks of the shallow, unsophisticated, and deceptive tactics employed by many of our politicians. Unfortunately, these ploys, way to often, work on those of us who are naive, gullible, unaware, or blinded by our partisan self-interested agendas.
Her laughing is an insult to all of us whether we are aware of the insult of not.
Hillary is not afraid to go anywhere and talk to anyone. Obama runs and hides. She’s gracious, prepared, and charming. Obama…petulant and arrogant.
Clinton: “And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.”
Did Keith ask her what type of “massive retaliation” and by whom? It sounds like she’s implying nukes, by the United States and NATO allies. Did Keith follow up on that?
I saw a clip of some of this interview (I don’t get MSNBC) and the cackle during the Scaife question was annoying. Must have been doubly so for Keith, who apparently quit his job over Scaife. More avoidance from Clinton. Or guilt? McSame also laughs when asked tough questions.
Less of a surprise:
If we knew now what we know now, perhaps the Three Stooges wouldn’t continue voting in the Senate in favor of $500+ billion for Dick’s Private Empire in the U.S. Military Prefecture of Iraq and against withdrawal.
And Starfleet Dude (#17), the reason that Senator Clinton morphed Charles Krauthammer’s suggestion to extend the U.S. nuclear embrella to other countries is to get THEM to not seek nuclear weapons, not just to protect Isreal. Isreal is not going to retaliate against Iran if Iran nukes Ryhad (sp) so they can invade Saudi Arabia and take control of Mecca and Medina.
Lance, how will threats do anything but further persuade Iran that nukes are needed to deter the U.S.? Seems to me that the best course would be to ratchet down the rhetoric first. As for invading Saudi Arabia, let’s recall our recent history here and note that it was Iraq who started a brutal and unprovoked war against Iran in the 1980s, a war that the U.S. gave support to Saddam Hussein for when it started going against Iraq and looked the other way when Iraq gassed Iranian troops. Iran in fact has shown no sign of wanting to invade anyone and has not taken any steps to stir up unrest in the Shiite populations of eastern Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.
Hillary Clinton’s over-the-top promise to massively retaliate against Iran thus makes no sense on the actual merits and is really so much campaign rhetoric meant to position her as being tough. Gee, just what the U.S. needs more of, toughness without sense!
#32 Annie Oakley indeed. Only a million times worse.
What a diplomat. Must make the Iranian people feel so good. And safe. :-p
Olbermann also seemed to refrain from too much editorializing _after_ the interview. I think he posed questions to his guests, but avoided conclusions, of course when you ask real questions, there are real things to talk about afterwards.
Comebackbill (10): The argument that windfall profit taxes would discourage companies from trying to maintain their profits by raising prices is wrong. Here’s one explanation.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1
Today on Good Morning America Clinton says she would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clintons_tough_talk.html
“Clinton aide Howard Wolfson says she wasn’t referring to, or suggesting, nuclear weapons.”
Ummmmm…sure. That makes me feel better (not).
Right, Johnny, Hillary isn’t afraid to talk to anyone, anywhere. Except when she is. For instance, see this article from Sep-Oct. 2007 Mother Jones, about her membership in the conservative Capitol Hill bible study group, the “Fellowship”. The reporters note that she declined MoJo’s requests for an interview on the subject.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_5_32/ai_n19492958/pg_1
hark #26, that is almost exactly how i feel about Clinton and this campaign. And Nell #16, lets just be clear that you don’t speak for all Clinton supporters. I support Clinton and think Olbermann is the best news/punditry figure on television.
She would obliterate Iran with Giant 50 ft TV screens of her hideous laugh, and it would play 5 times a day ( at prayer times). The Mullahs would jump from the minarets.
@ #25:
I agree wholeheartedly with your logic and your argument. But it is a bain for so-called progressives to buy anything even resembling sensibility.
I see the Momism crowd is back to the “cackle.”
Grow up. Get over it. And while you’re at – since you seem to be so insecure, you probably want to check your pants to make sure that “it” is still there…