Obama, Clinton on 60 Minutes; unfortunately Clinton drew Katie Couric and the chance at a substantial interview was gone.


The side-by-side idea was a great one for 60 Minutes, unfortunately, Clinton drew Katie Couric. -- Chad

I skipped the Grammys again this year. The Milli Vanilli farce tainted my interest in the ceremonies for life.

Though congratulations to Barack Obama for winning his second overall spoken word Grammy for the audiobook version of "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." And yes, one of the other nominees for this year was Bill Clinton.

But I did catch "60 Minutes" with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, a segment on the high cost of making pennies and nickels, and of course, Andy Rooney.

The program did invite John McCain, but he declined due to scheduling. But it was a great opportunity to showcase the two top Democratic contenders. The premise was that the interviewers would follow them around the week of Super Tuesday.

Barack Obama drew Steve Kroft, who generally gets the top billing as the reporters run down their names in the open to the show. Kroft painted a contrast between Obama now vs. one year ago when 60 Minutes had interviewed him before.

Kroft asked him about experience, and Obama shifted the thought to one of longevity, which seemed not so much a crack at Clinton but John McCain.

Kroft also asked about the lack of specifics (which didn't really bother journalists about Bush in 2000). Obama came back well and noted that early on, he was considered too professorial in his speeches. Obama also did a nice job by turning it on Kroft, and asking for Kroft to ask him specifics.

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she drew Katie Couric. I confess that I have never been a fan of Couric, but this interview was an embarrassment to Couric. Clinton did quite well given the inane nature of the questions.

Couric's first question was along the lines of "Have you grappled with the idea that it could be him and not you?" with two follow-ups. The next line of questioning was on stamina.

Clinton ended up sharing her secrets about staying in shape: she takes vitamins, drinks tea not coffee, has stopped drinking diet drinks, and drinks tons of water. She also noted that the two main things she does is wash your hands with a sanitizer and eating hot peppers, a ritual she started in 1992.

The whole exchange smacked of the chocolate-chip cookies issue in 1992. I really felt sorry for Clinton that she drew Katie Couric's "everything is about me" sense of journalism.

Couric also noted that her staff also seemed sleep-deprived. Well, any major presidential campaign would have sleep-deprived people. Does Couric think John McCain's staff is bright-eyed and bushy-tailed?

Clinton gained an advantage when Couric asked Clinton to respond to a statement Obama made in Kroft's piece on Clinton representing the status quo. Obama didn't get that luxury.

In the piece, Clinton spoke in front of a high school audience. So Couric took the opportunity to ask Clinton "relevant" questions such as "What were you like in high school? Were you the girl in the front row taking meticulous notes and always raising your hand?" and "Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?"

Obama got a professional interview, certainly not in a Mike Wallace 1970s kind of way, but as good an interview situation as 60 Minutes does in 2008. Clinton was subjected to questions that didn't belong in an interview of a presidential candidate in the heart of the primary season.

Is it misogynist to assign a female reporter to question the female candidate? Perhaps that question would also have come up if Lesley Stahl would have interviewed Clinton. But Stahl would have asked much better questions than Couric. And if a male reporter had asked Clinton the inane questions Couric came up with, he would have been labeled as misogynist and justifiably mocked and criticized.

The two presidential candidates should have been treated with the same level of professionalism. Unfortunately, CBS News treated Clinton poorly and didn't give her the same shot to shine as Obama got.

Hillary Clinton deserved a 60 Minutes interview worthy of a presidential candidate. In the spirit of do-overs, maybe she should get a real interview. Oh, and if John McCain decides to not be afraid and have 60 Minutes follow him for a story, make sure Katie is distracted that day.

Technorati Tags:

Hillary and her inability to be honest

This just burns me up. And nobody is talking about it. She has the audacity to say that she has worked her entire life to see a female president or an african american president. That simply isnt true. She worked on Barry Goldwaters presidential campaign against Lyndon Johnson. Golwater's platform inlcuded among other things positions against CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION as well as a PRO-SEGREGATION policy. Now why is she not asked about this. I could understand, and the american people would understand as well, if she simply said I was young and on the wrong side of the issue and with maturity and wisdom I changed my position. But for Christs sake dont stand up and tell blatant lies about your life. MY WHOLE LIFE I DREAMED OF THIS. Total BS. And it points to a major character defect with her. This insistence on lying or changing with whichever way the wind blows to maintain or gain power. This alone turns me off to her and her bid.

Honesty

I guess honesty is in the eye of the beholder. I've only been watching the Clinton's since 1992 so I don't know what they were like before that. But I believe that they are super competent and strive to tell the truth about non-personal matters. Because they know so much and are able to talk in detail, it is very easy to take a piece of what they say out of context and twist it so that black is white. Obama on the other hand seems like George W. Bush in 1990. When I read Paul Krugman's writings about Obama's proposals and voting record, I wonder if the New York Times has kept him from calling Obama a liar like they did for Dubya back in 2000.

WOW One person who sees it right

I am shocked to find one favorable and true report on Hillary Clinton.
It is a rarity. The thing I said to my husband last night was they should have had Steve do both interviews or let someone like Leslie Stahl do Hillary's. Obama did get a much better interview and Hillary got Katied. I have found Hillary to be a very sympathetic person because she has almost everyone in the blogsphere against her, Buzzflash and the progressive talk show hosts fall all over each other to see who can report the most dirt and then the rightees keep up the usual diatribe. Obama has become a cult of sorts and sometimes it is downright spooky to see people sobbing at his appearance as I did recently. The only thing we know for sure, is that if he wins and
can't produce, he will be like the Democratic Congress who started to be a target in the second month after taking control. The other day he said by the end of his first term he will bring health care....that's four years away.....he's toast.

Bad headline?

If andyod had read the story, the slam was against Katie Couric, not Hillary. The article mentions that Hillary got screwed by Katie. Sorry the headline was misleading to you.

60 Munutes

Typical of Buzzflash headlines. Always a way to put down Hillary.The Right Wing Conspiracy go on in the "people of penises" wing of the Democratic party.Women of the World Unite!

Same Experience As Blaze

I've noted the same phenomenom on the many political sites that I visit.

There are two troubling, depressing attitudes I've seen.

It's sickening to read the comments of Obama supporters. They are foul and abusive to those who don't support Obama and their comments about Hillary Clinton are reminiscent of what we hear from Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter. Still worse is to read posts by bloggers that, regarding Hillary Clinton, are no different than the slanted, unfair vile assaults that are all too routine in the mainstream media.

I've lost a lot of respect for bloggers I once believed had real integrity, but, as it turns out have no more integrity than the mainstream media.

I'm very troubled that many people brought to Obama's campaign are loyal only to him. There's something truly creepy about this and Obama seems to encourage this behavior.

In an interview on CBN Obama said that his followers might not support Ms. Clinton. He said it as though it was a warning. Then his wife, when asked if she would support Clinton if she were nominated replied that she would have to think about it.

In a way this all sounds like extortion.

hillary

i think you are right. and it is troubling the deeply personal dislike of hillary in this country. however it is reality. people just dont like her for whatever reason. i assure you she can not win the general election. unless you want another four years of republican rule we had better put obama on the ticket. he is the only candidate with the ability to beat mccain. instead of trying to figure out why people dont like her and have this reaction just accept it. just the way it is. i for one can not stand the sight of her. she is just so damn phoney. and i for one will not vote for her. like hundreds of thousands of other voters around the country.....for whatever reason we just dont like her and the kind of politics she represents. time for a new approach. in obama we find a refreshing new politics that appeals to our better natures. so stop trying to wish away her disapproval ratings. stop trying to analyze the psychology of all this. deal with reality. vote obama and save the presidency for democrats.

blaze

The sad part to me is that, judging from the many political sites that I monitor, Clinton supporters will tend to vote for whomever gets the nomination... but Obama supporters have an "anyone but Hillary" attitude and pledge to vote for McCain if Obama fails to get the nomination.
I really think we need a return to party politics rather than personality politics.. especially now that the media flings lies and attacks around like confetti.