Hillary Clinton, meet Bill O'Reilly

As our Showtracker blog noted earlier today, Hillary Clinton is slated to headline FOX News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," conversing -- for the first time -- with host Bill O'Reilly from Indiana. The interview will air in two parts, with the first segment shown Wednesday night and the next on Thursday (all the better to milk the ratings, presumably).

Her appearance predictably follows Barack Obama's long-awaited interview on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace. From the viewpoint of the mainstream media (like us), Obama emerged unscathed from his encounter with Wallace (little knowing a new Jeremiah Wright-inspired firestorm awaited him).

But some liberal bloggers, who as part of decrying what they see as FOX's over-the-top conservative bias generally urge Democrats to boycott the network, were displeased with Obama and the way he handled his chat (see here, here and here).

Clinton may not take quite as much grief because many in the liberal blogsphere have long since written her off. Still, she hasn't gotten a complete pass.

Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post had unpleasant things ...

to say about her tete-a-tete with O'Reilly in this item, including a prediction (only partly facetious, we think) that the two will "have a nice laugh over terrorists destroying the arugula chomping elites of San Francisco."

News Corpse, meanwhile, posted an item declaring that its chagrin over Obama's Fox appearance "applies in spades to Clinton’s announcement that she will fraternize with the noxious" O’Reilly.

The post's other thoughts can be perused here (the home page also is worth checking out for its proclamation on "the demise of the media').

--  Don Frederick

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[John Quimby]

I expect the O'Reilly interview to be congenial.

Were Senator Clinton up 5 points over Senator McCain in late October, I would expect a very different picture.

For now, the Conservative media have no problem giving Hillary a boost to a higher pedestal...the better to aim rotten produce at her and knock her off at a later date.

[Sally]

he truth is, the Clintons were responsible for NAFTA, and while Hill can say "I was secretly against it back then," the reality is, it was the signature of the Clinton years. And it was her own campaign head, Harold Ickes, who as part of the DNC rules committee, stripped FL and MI of their seats. She agreed with him until she started losing, and she's trying to spin the fact that she wouldn't allow people who had voted GOP in the first MI vote to vote Dem in the revote as promoting a legitimate revote, when it's not b/c a lot of people knowing the original wouldn't count had switched over. And when people talk baggage, it's funny- Bill was almost impeached, Hill is being arraigned in a few months (not someone she knows but she herself)in the Paul v Clinton case, objects were stolen by the Clintons from the White House when they left, documents went missing, Hill obtained a criminal pardon for her brother's criminal friends, Vince Foster was murdered, Monica, Jennifer- the list goes on. It's just that Obama wanted to keep it clean so he didn't mention any of these, but the reality is nobody has more baggage and shadiness than the Clintons. The Clintons had even bombed Iraq, if anybody cares to remember. It was not a rainbow and unicorns peaceful time. Even Hill's claim to be active in the administration was proven false by the records; she started out strong, but when her health care efforts failed, she became another tea and tourist first lady. People even forget her outrageous lies and her constant smearing with the absurd excuse of preparing Obama for Republicans, as if that were her job. A former governor's wife and then the president's wife, Hill has 100 million dollars in her pocket and grew up well-off, to become a member of the head board of anti-Union Walmart- yet she pretends now to have any semblance of connection to grassroots America. From moving to NY, a state she never lived in, to take advantage of an easy election that would put a big state in her hand come 08, to her episodes of tears, to her whining about speaking first in debates and her willingness to put McCain above Obama, Hill has shown that she has been planning a long time for the throne that was her birthright. The only reason that the 90s was prosperous was because there was a computer, internet and technology boom which is now over. Even the concept of a president's wife now becoming president is inherently ridiculous- it smacks of royalty. Now, her campaign, badly managed, is in debt, and she's had to fire 3 top campaign strategists. She didn't even bother to read the Iraq intelligence reports when she voted to send our boys to war. There is simply, absolutely nothing that would make her qualified.

[Core Democrat]

The fact is that FOX News has been more fair about this Election on the Democrat side than MSNBC by a long shot and CNN has not done that great either. It was their slanted reporting about Obama that led to many of the problems. MSNBC has made Obama appear to be perfect while they did everything they could to make Hillary out as the bad candidate. Ebven though they know that she is a stronger and more qualified candidate than Obama. And they sat on controversy to help Obama while Americans were voting. Informed Public? They have also used, constantly, select polls to suggest obama is leading when he is not. And CNN has not fared much better! But certainly better than MSNBC. So I am glad that Hillary Clinton is going to be on Fox News!

[Mark @ News Corpse]

It's bad enough to appear on Fox News at all, but to favor O'Reilly goes way beyond the pale. Democrats should not be treating Fox as if it were a legitimate news organization. Would they grant interviews to the National Inquirer?

For most Democrats the risk/reward ratio is simply unacceptable. If they make a mistake it will be trumpeted throughout the Murdoch empire. If they perform respectably it will be buried. That's exactly what happened in the wake of Obama's chat with Chris Wallace. As there were no gaffes, the interview they had been begging for disappeared the next day. Not a single clip was broadcast. I suppose they didn't want to interrupt the Rev. Wright marathon.

Clinton's case is different because she has been more than willing to exploit, and be exploited by, right-wing media. I'm sure that both will enjoy the opportunity to bash the Democratic front runner.

See Starve the Beast (http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=555) for a detailed examination of why it is not only pointless, but harmful, for Democrats to appear on Fox News.

Thanks for the link ~NC

[Robin]

It's interesting that Fox had their one serious newsman/journalist interview Obama and yet Clinton is interviewed by the "tabloid" news Bill O'Reilly. Expect questions about flag pins, Jeremiah Wright, Monica Lewinski (that Bill--fearless interrogator), and maybe he will get to the lack of trust in Clinton displayed by various polls--but it will be a question that will allow her to repeat the sniper fire mistake again. They'll flirt, too.

[medici59]

Bill O'reilly and Sean Hannity are phony Conservatives, so it would make good sense to have a phony Liberal on the Faux News Channel. It's all "sleight of hand". In between episodes of "Survivor" and "Big Brother", we have "Reality" politics. Keep the apathetic, ignorant electorate's heads filled with useless garbage to distract their attention from the real issues. All true Conservatives and Liberals should be offended!

[Sharon]

Sally's clearly a troll, and Mark hasn't 'gotten' it. Fox news, isn't this hilarious, actually did a better job of UNBIASED coverage than even our friends on the LA Times here. I used to be the hugest CNN fan...but they're Obamaniacs. MSNBC never proclaimed to be anything but. Fox, however, which I used to think was Republican News Central, is doing a great job of 'unbiasedly' covering the Democratic election, which is the point of journalism, or I thought it was before I realized mainstream journalism is now corporate-engineered op-eds on the air trotted out as unbiased reporting.
I had to quit looking at the LA Times, the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC because their bias was completely undigestible and glaringly apparent. HuffPo is a bunch of Hillary-hating harpies dressed up to look like edgy journalists, so there's nothing responsible going on there. It's amazing - they've all proven they're a bunch of woman-hating misogynists, and yet, the candidate is WINNING elections. So, apparently voters too are not reading the polls or press, but making up their own minds.
What a chance our media had to do deep, probing, evaluative work...and they acted like a bunch of kindergartners watching Barney whenever Obama hit the room. For shame.

[cdl]

More than ever the Obama supporters are the ones who bash Hillary far worse than anyone in this race gets bashed. The press thinks we don't notice they are favoring Obama and spin the news too often in his favor without even knowing who this guy is.
Hillary has the guts to go one-on-one in a debate without moderators with Obama. He declined, the press and his supporters are silent. They cry "talk about the issues" when their candidate is on the hot seat but, when she wants to do that one-on-one with him to cover more ground, they wha-wha-wha their dissent, and glorify his stupid excuses.
When Hillary has the guts to go on O'Reilly's show, they make crude remarks, ignoring the fact that Barack danced back from his interview with the conservative network for 777 days. You may not think Fox News is a popular news source, but a lot of America does watch Fox, like-it-or-not.
Barack is a COWARD in the worst sense. I will not vote for him because he is the guy whose campaign started race-baiting. And even now, when they get their due with Rev. Wright, they accuse Hillary even further for Barack's misfortune.
Grow the hell up.
And those who report for the HuffPost make me gag. Ariana Huffington lost to Arnold because Californians couldn't stand her. She played it dirty, dirty, dirty in her campaign against him. I'm glad he won.

[buz]

What is the matter with answering tough questions? I hear constant moaning and groaning about how "unfair" and "conservative" Oreilly is. I am sorry but if you want to be president you should be able to handle anything Oreilly can give. Stop crying.

[Core Democrat]

Write off Fox News?
Well then let's write off MSNBC. The whole network! Besides Abrams, who attempts to be fair, the rest make Fox News look like the best network ever! And after this coverage of the Democrat nominee's, it very well might be! CNN and MSNBC, Keep Obama. You just lost the other half of your viewers! The Hillary Clinton viewers! And we are about 50% of your viewing audience! We can tune into a more fair and balanced network, and right now, that is FOX! And yes, they do put her down sometimes, but they put Obama down, too. And believe it or not, McCain. But CNN and MSNBC won't even blog a comment about Obama unless it is ProObama. As if the rest of the United states of America does not exist! And that is 100's of millions of people! It is a sad day for the media! And a good day for Fox. CNN and MSNBC blew it. ESPECIALLY MSNBC Russert, Matthews, and Keith Obern. CNN may come around yet to at leat attempting to be fair.

[crazy k]

Geez Don Fredrick, why does it have to be "News Corpse"? Why you gotta hate?

[alma ludivina]

The term "extremist" is often used with reference to those who use or advocate "violence" against the will of "society at large", but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use "violence" to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency.

The act of labeling a person, group or action as "extremist" is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal — especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or "political centrists". In any event, the term "extremist" — like the word "violence" — cannot be regarded as "value-neutral".

Clinton campaign has trying to portrait Senator Obama as an extremist, Senator obama does not advocate or uses violence to enforce the will ofcitizen.

however this political technique or strategy sure benefits the media to the price of loss of votes for senator OBAMA

[Tood]

I just watch the first segment. Hlilary Clinton was amazing. She really is a fighter. If she keeps doing stuff like this, she will win a lot of independents over. She really was in command, and was masterful at every question.

Very strong on the topics.

[Sean K]

Sally: You're 100% right on target. Best post I've seen on the LAtimes comments page.

Sharon: Go crawl back under your hate bridge.

[James O]

In sports there is a saying that to be successful you have to win on the road (where the deck may be stacked against you). Assuming that Fox News is a conservative outlet, a democrat going on and doing well shows a lot. Hillary going on O'Reilly and doing a good job only helps her case. The notion of boycotting sounds like a cop-out and does not let independent thinkers see how well a candidate performs in tough, or possible unfavorable circumstances. Imagine if the Lakers boycotted all their road games because they didn't have the crowd cheering for them and having the "hometown" calls go against them. It would be a cop-out and they would get no respect.

[jennifer potenciano]

you have to give it both to hillary & bill o'reilly for putting their best (feet) forward. at least, they're so unlike obama, who always puts his foot in his mouth.

the legendary (or obnoxious--depending on who's looking--) o'reilly was not only very civilized to hillary, but was in-depth with his questionnaire.

but it was very obvious that hillary was absolutely brilliant in her fielding of the foxnews bigshot host.

obama is a poor showing in debates such as this. (o'reilly didn't interview hillary, he debated her, only to succeed in letting hillary show her presidential caliber. obama can not hack it--in spite of his latest endorser, an ex democrat party clinton appointee. it was pathetic how two obama apologists tried to wage a debate by proxy, trying to insert themselves in o'reilly's show after the fact (of hillary's splendid performance).

let me have my take on this edward. here goes:

& so another ex-clinton functionary (& a “superdelegate”), a certain joe andrew, switched loyalty to obama. no, i’m not about to do a carville, & liken this andrew, along with bill richardson (& then, guerra-mondragon), to judas. i’m a voltaire fan at heart, & will defend the trio’s right to their decision, even if i do not agree with it. i won’t even dignify the rumor that the trio are angling at something in an obama bid, should the fluke materializes. i’m not a closet neo-fascist pretending to be a liberal.

but let other more learned people lecture us on how to see through the bankruptcy of & crass opportunism inherent in the trio’s arguments as to why they opt for obama.

the trio said they are “impressed” by obama with his shibboleths on “change, “hope” & “dreams” for america. the latest variant of this was edward’s potshot at the democratic nomination process that’s hurting obama’s bid. a vote for hillary is a vote for the flawed nominating process, &, ergo, is a vote for mccain, edwards argued convolutedly. & additionally, this ex-dnc chair says he is (again) “impressed” with obama’s handling of the wright controversy.

though it took a while before the american voters realized it, they now know that every new kid on the political block always resorts to the stereotypical buzzwords of “change,” “hope” & “dreams” to mesmerize the voters into seeing things his (the kid’s) way. study all elections, & it’ll be shown that all campaigns are awash with this “style.”

“change” & “hope” & “dreams” are nothing but mantras to seduce the voters with. for obama, it signifies everything--&, therefore, nothing. in the philippines, it’s even worse. “hope’ is nothing but a pack of cigarettes that filipinos buy, due to which they die sooner, if not later.

but let’s grant obama the benefit of the doubt, that he means something by these shibboleths. well, what does the perceptive intellectual, thomas sowell in his april 29, 2008 analytical piece at the national review online have to say on obama’s mantras?

thomas sowell may be black (like obama is), but he is brilliant, & able to pierce through obama’s befuddlement.

he wrote:
an old newness
obama is a hit with the media, but electing him would be a grave error.

there is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever, and ultimately dangerous as barack obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million americans.

although senator obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive, and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

we paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment. during the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

the violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances, and hamstringing the police.

internationally, the approach that senator obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
as to obama’s “ex” pastor, jeremiah wright, here’s how a commenter, ramesh ponnuru, looks at the issue:

“…how could obama justify disowning {wright}, as though wright has suddenly said something more outrageous than he said {20 years} earlier. if obama couldn't bring himself to repudiate wright for praying that God would "damn america," can he really repudiate him for becoming a more serious inconvenience to his campaign? any further move by obama against wright will look like (and be) a political rather than a moral decision.”

foxnews ms. greta put it so succinctly when she observed that obama acted not out of conviction in denouncing wright, but out of political necessity, implying that obama is a political opportunist, & nothing else.
so to the american voters in the Indiana & north carolina primaries, caveat, be properly warned on the wily, machiavellian obama. ****

[Robert Lewis]

Head of Fox News gives $4,600 to Hillary's campaign and $12,500 to the Democrats.

See the FEC Filings

www.webofdeception.com