Media Matters

n the November 18 broadcast of The War Room, discussing the Mexico City government's reported plan to begin distributing free impotence drugs to men 70 and older, co-host Jim Quinn said: "Viva Viagra. Well -- after all, who's gonna father the next generation of illegals to come swarming across the border in their effort to reconquer the Southwest?" Quinn added:

QUINN: Oh, I know, I know, I know. I'm such a xenophobe and such a hater. I mean, who would suggest that, you know, La Raza, or MALDEF [the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund], or MEChA [Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán] were really Reconquista groups. I mean, we all know that that's just a myth that's been started by a bunch of right-wingers. And it's not really an invasion. It's not an attempt to populate the Southwest to the point where you eventually can outvote everybody else, and do pretty much whatever you want to do, including secede from the union if you wanted to, 'cause you still do have the constitutional authority to do that.

In fact, the National Council of La Raza, MALDEF and MEChA are U.S.-based civil rights and social justice organizations. Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances of conservative commentators, including radio host G. Gordon Liddy, columnist Michelle Malkin, and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, claiming that immigrants subscribe to a "Reconquista" philosophy aimed at recapturing the Southwestern United States for Mexico. "Reconquista" is a term associated with El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, a document drafted in the early formation of MEChA, a group with affiliates at numerous college campuses and several high schools that "promotes higher education, cultura, and historia."

In a July 15, 2006, article, Los Angeles Times reporter David Kelly wrote of El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán:

MEChA leaders say it is a historical document from a more radical time distorted by critics who focus on a few lines while missing the broader picture.

"When did we say we wanted a separate nation? We never did," said Graciela Larios, who recently retired as head of the UC Riverside MEChA club. "We know about the spiritual plan for Aztlan. It reflects the time it was written in. We are not ashamed of it. We stand by it."

As Media Matters has documented, Quinn claimed on October 10 that 5 million illegal immigrants were given subprime mortgages and asserted that the Democrats "have given away your American dream, and by God, at some point, they need to be called to account for it." However, according to an October 9 Phoenix Business Journal article, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) "says there is no basis to news reports that more than 5 million bad mortgages are held by illegal immigrants" and "a HUD spokesman said ... his agency has no data showing the number of illegal immigrants holding foreclosed or bad mortgages."

Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose on its "Heavy Hundred" list, which it describes as a list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.

From the November 18 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

BRIT HUME (Fox News host) [audio clip]: And finally, Mexico City will begin handing out free impotence drugs to men age 70 and over. The city's mayor says part of the reason is that sexuality, quote, "has a lot to do with quality of life and our happiness."

QUINN: Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Are you running out of illegals to send across the border here? Is it -- what's going on?

HUME [audio clip]: Mexico City's health secretary says the handouts of one or two Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis pills will begin December 1st. The doses will be distributed at three centers that specialize in sexual health for the elderly after the men take a medical examination. The initiative is apparently not open to tourists.

QUINN: Oh. Viva Viagra. Viva Viagra. Well -- after all, who's gonna father the next generation of illegals to come swarming across the border in their effort to reconquer the Southwest? Oh, I know, I know, I know. I'm such a xenophobe and such a hater. I mean, who would suggest that, you know, La Raza, or MALDEF, or MEChA were really Reconquista groups. I mean, we all know that that's just a myth that's been started by a bunch of right-wingers. And it's not really an invasion. It's not an attempt to populate the Southwest to the point where you eventually can outvote everybody else, and do pretty much whatever you want to do, including secede from the union if you wanted to, 'cause you still do have the constitutional authority to do that.

You know, it's interesting that in the face of the people who argue that my arguments don't hold water, we have an entire Mexican bureaucracy whose job it is to facilitate the flow of illegals across the border -- to make DVDs for them, to give them maps, to give them tips on what to do after they get here to be -- to avoid detection.

Now, if there's a government bureaucracy in the Mexican government, who is tasked with doing that, how is it not an invasion? It's one country sending their population into another country -- that's an invasion. Now, I know, I know, they're not using guns -- well, except for the drug gangs along the border. They're not, you know, killing people or kidnapping them, except of course for the drug gangs along the border. But, sorry, folks, I mean, I don't know how you avoid the essential truth that we have one country engaging in a soft invasion. And of course, this, again, this notion of Reconquista -- that they believe that the Southwest really belongs to them and always has historically, and they're going to reclaim it politically, by -- simply by populating the Southwest and literally outvoting everybody else, that is just something that right-wing fascists like me made up.

Echoing a false claim made by Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) campaign, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed on the November 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that Coleman "was certified the winner" in the Minnesota Senate race against Democratic challenger Al Franken. O'Reilly added: "Coleman won by a mere 215 votes." In fact, during the November 18 meeting of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie stated that the board was signing a certificate declaring that "[e]xcept for the offices of U.S. senator, state senator District 16, state representative Districts 12b and 16a, the candidates who received the highest number of votes cast for each office voted on in more than one county is hereby declared 'elected.' " Ritchie then explained: "This is the certificate that we are signing one at a time, and it declares the winner in all but four races. And in those four races, they will receive the same process at the end of the recount."

Ritchie's office released a statement that day asserting that "Minnesota law triggers automatic recounts when the vote margin between the top two candidates in federal, state, or judicial races is less than one-half of one percent in a general election." It further stated: "The board reviewed and adopted election results with the exception of those requiring automatic recounts." The statement also quoted Ritchie asserting: "Only when this recount is complete in its entirety will we know who is elected."

Several news outlets also reported that the board did not certify vote totals or a winner in the Minnesota Senate race. The Star Tribune reported on November 19 that the board "did not certify vote totals in the Senate race." The Pioneer Press reported in a November 19 article that the board "declare[d] winners ... in all but four" Minnesota election contests, including "the U.S. Senate race." The Press quoted Ritchie as saying, "We do not know the winner of four races until the completion of the process." Additionally, the West Central Tribune reported on November 19 that the "Senate race is among the four without a certified winner pending the recount."

Additionally, Ritchie reportedly "dismissed" the Coleman campaign's statement that Coleman "was confirmed as the winner" in the race. In the statement, Coleman for Senate Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan asserted that "Coleman has, for the third time, been named the winner of the 2008 election." Ritchie reportedly said in response, "We certified that on all but four races the winner is known."

From the November 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman was certified the winner in his race against Al Franken today. Coleman won by a mere 215 votes. But about 400,000 voters in Minnesota rejected Franken, while voting for Obama. They crossed the ticket to support Coleman, a stunning statistic.

From the November 18 meeting of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board:

RITCHIE: We will move now to the signing of the certificate, and with -- for the benefit of the audience, I would like to read this.

"We, the undersigned, legally constituted state canvassing board, as required by law" -- and I think -- is there a good pen and all of that? Where's that original? Do you want to start it? [inaudible] "As required by law, canvassed on November 18th, 2008, the certified copies of the statements made by the county canvassing boards of the votes cast at the November 4th, 2008, state general election for presidential electors, U.S. Senate, U.S. representatives, state representatives, state constitutional amendment, and state judicial offices. We have also received the report of the 2008 postelection review, held pursuant to law, containing the changes and the number of votes counted by candidates for the offices of presidential electors, U.S. Senate, U.S. representatives in the precincts reviewed in each county of the state pursuant to Minnesota statute section 206.89, we have incorporated the indicated changes into the following report of the votes cast at the 2008 state general election.

"We specify in the following report the names of the persons who received votes and the number received by each in the several counties in which they were cast as reported by the county canvassing boards and adjusted by the report of the postelection review. Except for the offices of U.S. senator, state senator District 16, state representative Districts 12b and 16a, the candidates who received the highest number of votes cast for each office voted on in more than one county is hereby declared 'elected.' "

This is the certificate that we are signing one at a time, and it declares the winner in all but four races. And in those four races, they will receive the same process at the end of the recount. And the report triggers the counting by hand of the four races, which will begin tomorrow morning. And we have the task today of considering the procedures for the recount plans, which will now be presented by [Minnesota state elections director] Mr. Gary Poser.

On the November 18 broadcast of The Radio Factor, while discussing the campaign for Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in California, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that if states allow same-sex couples to marry they would be required, "under equal protection," to allow polygamous marriages. In fact, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated that its May 15 decision that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution did not extend to polygamous marriages. Moreover, O'Reilly suggested that equal protection principles could be applied to require the state to recognize polygamous marriages if same-sex marriage is allowed but did not explain why those principles do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they recognize opposite-sex marriage.

O'Reilly said to Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee, "[A] lot of evangelicals, a lot of Christian groups -- Focus on the Family -- they worked against gay marriage in California. And I'm -- you just -- I'm always interested in why they opposed it." Huckabee responded, in part, "[I]f they change the definition [of marriage], then where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?" O'Reilly replied, "Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend that. All right, that's pretty much what I believe, too." Seconds later, co-host Lis Wiehl stated, "No, you could just say, 'between two people,' " to which O'Reilly replied, "You can't. Not under equal protection." He added, "If you're going to change it, then it's gotta be changed, and the blanket is gotta -- the umbrella's gotta go everywhere. You just can't say, 'Well, we're going to make an adjustment here for two people.' Why? Then you have to explain why it's not three or four. And, you know, that's logical."

In fact, the California Supreme Court's majority opinion striking down the ban on same-sex marriage, in part on the basis that the ban violated the state constitution's equal protection clause, stated: "[T]he constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships." The majority opinion also stated: "[O]ur conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."

From the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling:

We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S.145, 165-166; Davis v. Beason (1890) 133 U.S. 333, 341; People v. Scott (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 192-194; State v. Freeman (Ohio Ct.App. 2003) 801 N.E.2d 906, 909; Smith v. State (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) 6 S.W.3d 512, 518-520.) Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.

From the November 18 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, why are you against gay marriage?

HUCKABEE: It's not about being against gay marriage, it's about being for traditional marriage. I always, you know, try and say that this isn't about what we're against, it's about what we're for. And we know that if we're going to have a future generation, it's required to have a male and a female give 23 chromosomes each to create the new DNA --

O'REILLY: Yeah, but gays aren't going to -- gays aren't going to infringe on heterosexual marriage. I mean, they're just going to do what they do and then most people are heterosexual, and they'll continue to propagate the race. But a lot of evangelicals, a lot of Christian groups -- Focus on the Family -- they worked against gay marriage in California. And I'm -- you just -- I'm always interested in why they opposed it.

HUCKABEE: Well, I think that if we are going to hold true that words matter and definitions really do matter -- and surely they do -- marriage has historically only meant one thing in all of human civilization. It's meant male-female relationship in the context of creating a new generation and then training replacements. Even in the most definite days of the Greek and Roman Empire, when homosexual behavior was pretty prevalent, they never changed the definition of marriage.

And if they change the definition, then where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?

O'REILLY: Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend it. All right, that's pretty much what I believe, too. We're losing you on your cell, but I want to plug your book again. The book is Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America -- Governor Mike Huckabee. And we appreciate it, governor, very much.

You know, that's pretty much my answer, too. You get a -- you get to a situation where if you're going to change the definition of marriage for gays then you have to change it across the board for everybody.

WIEHL: No, you could just say, "between two people."

O'REILLY: You can't. Not under equal protection. If you're going to change it, then it's gotta be changed, and the blanket is gotta -- the umbrella's gotta go everywhere. You just can't say, "Well, we're going to make an adjustment here for two people." Why? Then you have to explain why it's not three or four. And, you know, that's logical. All right, we'll be back with your calls and comments.

During the November 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said, "You haven't seen any of what's coming in this country. You are going to see the wholesale replacement of competent white men, and I'm targeting exactly the group that's gonna be thrown out of jobs in the government. And I'll say it, and I'll be the first to say it, and I may be not the only -- the last to say it. I am telling you that there's gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government up and down the line, in police departments, in fire departments. Everywhere in America, you're going to see an exchange that you've never seen in history, and it's not gonna be necessarily for the betterment of this country."

Earlier in the segment, Savage said of President-elect Barack Obama: "[W] hen you're socially promoted, you wind up as president of the United States. If you're socially promoted your whole life and nobody challenges you because you're of the proper constitution and composition and you look exactly right and no one's -- everyone's afraid to say a word to you, why, you then go to Harvard, you then go to the law review, you then get elected, you then get elected to the next level. This is what happens in a country that's intimidated by its own policies and its own fears."

During the presidential campaign, Savage repeatedly described Obama as an "affirmative action" candidate. For instance, Media Matters for America noted that on his October 27 broadcast, Savage said that Obama "benefited from affirmative action, stepping over more qualified white men, I actually lost as a result of affirmative action, many times in my life. ... [W]e have America's first affirmative action candidate about to become president." Media Matters also documented Savage's February 1 claim that the Democratic presidential primary contest "is, or can be seen as, the first affirmative action election in American history." He added, "We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote?" Additionally, Media Matters has noted that Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and claimed that affirmative action stole his "birthright," and his "manhood."

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the November 18 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: New Hampshire, Dennis, you're on The Savage Nation.

CALLER: Thank you, sir. Just -- my question was -- it's not a question. It's just -- I'm 62 years old, and when I went to school, if you didn't cut the mustard, you stayed back. Now, I guess we have this thing called social promotions, which means that --

SAVAGE: Yes, and you have self-esteem -- if -- in fact, now, if you do cut the mustard a little too sharply, they single you out for being a racist.

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. And my -- I would like to hear, you know, your comments on this whole aspect of social promotion, because usually the people that are socially promoted end up, unfortunately, like Columbine, bringing guns to school or whatever.

SAVAGE: No, no, when you're socially promoted, you wind up as president of the United States. If you're socially promoted your whole life and nobody challenges you because you're of the proper constitution and composition and you look exactly right and no one's -- everyone's afraid to say a word to you, why, you then go to Harvard, you then go to the law review, you then get elected, you then get elected to the next level. This is what happens in a country that's intimidated by its own policies and its own fears.

CALLER: You've put it in perspective for me, and I appreciate that. And it's --

SAVAGE: But this is just the beginning of it, my friend. You haven't seen any of what's coming in this country. You are going to see the wholesale replacement of competent white men, and I'm targeting exactly the group that's gonna be thrown out of jobs in the government. And I'll say it, and I'll be the first to say it, and I may be not the only -- the last to say it. I am telling you that there's gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government up and down the line, in police departments, in fire departments. Everywhere in America, you're going to see an exchange that you've never seen in history, and it's not gonna be necessarily for the betterment of this country.

CALLER: I agree with you 100 percent, and --

SAVAGE: Why am I the only one who has the nerve to say what's actually going on and what is going to happen under this guy unless he's stopped? And I'll tell you why -- because I see it happening. What I see happening is the radical left, which hijacked the Democrat [sic] Party, is pulling the party as far to the left as possible, as fast as possible, and there is a vacuum on the other side. There is no Republican Party, there is no conservative movement -- there is nobody left. George Bush gutted the Republican Party. George Bush gutted the conservative movement. There is not a voice on the right, with far and few exceptions. You'll find them maybe in radio, nowhere else. You know that and I know that.

During the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, host David Gregory introduced a discussion with Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens by saying, "Christopher Hitchens on why he believes picking [Sen.] Hillary Clinton for secretary of state would be a, quote, 'ludicrous embarrassment' for President [Barack] Obama. He made those comments on Hardball, here on MSNBC, last night. It's something everybody is talking about today." But Gregory cited no evidence that anyone outside of MSNBC was "talking about" Hitchens' November 17 comments. A Media Matters for America search of the Nexis and Factiva databases for November 17 and November 18 turned up no mention of Hitchens on NBC's flagship news program, Nightly News with Brian Williams, the other network evening news programs, and CNN at any point on either day or on Fox News in prime time (Fox News transcripts are available in Nexis only for prime time). And searches of the Nexis and Factiva databases turned up no mention of Hitchens on either November 17 or 18 in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, or the Associated Press. By contrast, MSNBC aired Hitchens' November 17 comments multiple times on November 18.

It is unclear why MSNBC treated Hitchens' attacks on Clinton as newsworthy, given his history of frequent and harsh criticism of Clinton. Indeed, on the November 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough said that it was "[n]ot a great surprise" that Hitchens "savaged Hillary." Nevertheless, Morning Joe alone aired Hitchens' comments four separate times that day.

From the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with David Gregory:

GREGORY: But coming next, Christopher Hitchens on why he believes picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state would be a, quote, "ludicrous embarrassment" for President Obama. He made those comments on Hardball, here on MSNBC, last night. It's something everybody is talking about today. He'll talk about it some more on 1600, right after the break.

From the Nov. 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: Last night, Christopher Hitchens --

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, that was harsh.

WILLIE GEIST (co-host): Yeah --

SCARBOROUGH: -- absolutely savaged Hillary. Not a great surprise, but what he said may resonate with some of her critics.

GEIST: Yeah, Christopher Hitchens not jumping on the Hillary --

BRZEZINSKI: Not really.

GEIST: -- for secretary of state bandwagon. Here's Hitchens on Hardball.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.

This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

BRZEZINSKI: Wow. A "ludicrous" --

GEIST: A "ludicrous embarrassment."

MIKE BARNICLE (commentator): Did we edit the tape before he got to the plus side?

GEIST: No, there wasn't.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: I understand also we've got the Hillary Clinton issue in the news, and Christopher Hitchens last night weighed in on it and basically spoke for a lot of Hillary detractors.

GEIST: Yeah, I think he did. A lot of people coming out saying she'd be a great choice. Christopher Hitchens -- not one of those people. Here's Hitchens on Hardball last night.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.

This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

GEIST: Not a ringing endorsement.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, harsh, harsh, harsh, harsh, harsh.

BARNICLE: Good lord.

GEIST: [CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times writer] John Harwood, do we overstate the Bill Clinton problem? We heard this argument when she was up to be vice president, that too much Bill Clinton baggage -- he had too many entangling alliances. How big a problem is he, really?

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Hey, let's take a look right now -- Mika, we've been talking about Hillary Clinton this morning. Let's take a look at Christopher Hitchens. Last night, he was on Hardball --

BRZEZINSKI: It's harsh.

SCARBOROUGH: -- and he talked about all of the concerns that, bluntly, the Obama people may have. The concerns that a lot of Clinton detractors may be bringing up that maybe is the reason why they're having this very public vetting process. But I want you to listen to Christopher Hitchens because what he said last night, while I disagree with much of it, what he said last night may explain why the Obama campaign is dragging their feet right now and letting this play out in a very public way. Take a look.

BRZEZINSKI: He doesn't mince words.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.

This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

BRZEZINSKI: Wow.

SCARBOROUGH: With us now, right now, let's bring in MSNBC News political director and he's editor, of course, of MSNBC.com's FirstRead, Chuck Todd. Chuck.

TODD: Yeah, great. Bring me up -- bring me in right after that Hitchens rant.

SCARBOROUGH: Christopher Hitchens -- do you agree with him 100 percent or 98 percent?

TODD: It is clear that there are some people who are ardent Obama supporters, who are just not happy about this idea of bringing in the Clintons in the administration. And I think it is interesting in this respect: The Obama base is getting tested today. The Lieberman punishment is nothing. Let's be realistic -- nothing. And now, they're bringing in the Clintons. You know, I -- what if Obama comes out and says, you know what? I'm going to send more troops to Iraq. The surge is working, and let's -- you know. You do wonder how much can -- will his base take. You know, I'm not saying that Christopher Hitchens is part of the base, as far as Obama is concerned, but how much -- there might be some Obama supporters like him who may get very upset about [unintelligible].

[...]

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.

This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh.

GEIST: So is he against --

BRZEZINSKI: I'm trying to think.

GEIST: Trying to read between the lines.

BARNICLE: No, we edited the positive part out of it, you know.

BRZEZINSKI: Well, so Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Christopher Hitchens would say it would be a "ludicrous" what? What was that? That was rough.

BARNICLE and GEIST: A "ludicrous embarrassment."

BARNICLE: Yes.

BRZEZINSKI: A "ludicrous embarrassment." But here is the deal. There are some issues that I guess we need to consider as they vet Bill Clinton, and we look at all the possibilities and opportunities a Clinton position would offer.

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: But if you look back at the campaign, there were a lot of things they [Clinton and Obama] did not agree upon and there were some things said.

EAMON JAVERS (Politico staff writer): Right.

BREWER: So let's take a listen to this. Here's Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens who was on Hardball talking about it.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia. This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

BREWER: On the heels of what he just said, the idea of secretary of state for Hillary Clinton, given all of that history that Christopher Hitchens -- you know, I mean, there's nothing he said that wasn't factual -- or you think, why that post?

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:

MITCHELL: I take your point that you are not a fan of the incoming president, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Let me play for you a clip from Christopher Hitchens on Hardball, who is not a fan of Hillary Clinton when it comes to foreign policy, and ask you on the other side.

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER (former secretary of state under George H.W. Bush): OK, all right.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia. This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.

MITCHELL: Well, you -- do you disagree with that?

EAGLEBURGER: Yeah, look, first of all, I have never heard Hitchens do anything right, so I'm worried about that comment of his. I'm not trying to defend her.

From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:

SHUSTER: Julie [Menin, Women's Campaign Forum], I want to get your reaction in particular to something that Christopher Hitchens said on Hardball last Friday about Hillary Clinton. Watch.

HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.

SHUSTER: He goes on to say that Hillary Clinton's appointment would be a "ludicrous embarrassment." Your reaction?

MENIN: Yeah. I just don't agree with that. I think that that's unfortunately partisan bickering that we really need to move beyond from. She has eight years in the Senate. She has a record of bipartisan support, reaching across the aisle, working with Senators Lindsey Graham, Senators Bill Frist. She's a very hard-working senator. She has years of foreign policy experience, and she can really hit the ground running, and that's exactly what we need in this very tough time that we're in.

In anticipation of the new administration, Beltway media insiders are busy laying the groundwork for how reporters and pundits will treat the new team on Pennsylvania Avenue.

"Once a president takes office ... an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters," wrote Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, discussing the press corps on Fox News, agreed: "They are inevitably going to turn on him, as all -- this happened to every administration. I don't see why we should be surprised. It is the natural turn of events."

The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town.

Except, of course, when the press does not.

In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican.

In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile).

At the outset of the Bush presidency, when it became obvious that the press had adopted a softer standard for judging the new Republican president, author Jeffrey Toobin noted that "the high emotional temperature of the Clinton years left a lot of people, including journalists, kind of exhausted." He added, "I think it will probably take a while to sort of gin that back up again."

Over the course of eight years of covering Bush, I'm not sure the press ever recaptured the fever it displayed during the Clinton years. So it would be deeply suspicious if, in 2009, the press managed to turn up that emotional temperature just in time to cover another Democratic administration.

It would also be troubling for journalism if the press responded to conservative claims today that reporters had been too soft on the Democrat during the campaign by reacting the same way journalists did when those claims were lodged during the 1992 campaign: by trashing the victorious Democrat to prove the press corps wasn't "in the tank."

That's what helped fuel the stark double standard in terms of early coverage of the past two administrations.

One quick example: On January 31, 1993, 12 days after Clinton had been sworn into office, Sam Donaldson appeared on ABC and made this jarring announcement: "Last week, we could talk about, 'Is the honeymoon over?' This week, we can talk about, 'Is the presidency over?' " (At the time, Clinton's approval rating hovered around 65 percent.)

By contrast, on February 10, 2001, three weeks after Bush had been sworn into office, The New York Times' Frank Bruni penned a gentle, honeymoon-mode review about how authentic and at ease Bush seemed with his new role. "George W. Bush is establishing a no-fuss, no-sweat, 'look-Ma-no-hands' presidency, his exertions ever measured, his outlook always mirthful," wrote Bruni. "The gilded robes of the presidency have not obscured Mr. Bush's innate goofiness -- or, for that matter, his insistent folksiness."

Bruni's piece was a classic example of what in journalism is called a "beat-sweetener." It's where a reporter assigned to a new beat ingratiates himself with key sources by writing flattering profiles. There were precious few White House beat-sweeteners published in 1993.

"Perhaps never in our nation's history -- certainly not in its recent history -- has a President so early in his term been subjected to a greater barrage of negative media coverage than Bill Clinton," wrote the Los Angeles Times' late media critic David Shaw in 1993. (The headline to Shaw's piece: "Not Even Getting a 1st Chance; Early Coverage of the President Seemed More Like An Autopsy.")

"The level of hostility in the [White House] pressroom, I think, was extraordinary," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. For example, days after the Waco siege between federal forces and Branch Davidians ended in a deadly fireball in April of that year, a USA Today poll showed 93 percent of Americans did not blame Clinton for the outcome. Clift said she thought to herself, "The other 7 percent are in the White House press room."

And Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield conceded she'd never seen any administration "pronounced dead" so quickly by the press.

The conventional wisdom today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgement that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president.

What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president.

For lots of people, recalling Clinton's chronic battles with the press likely conjures up impeachment flashbacks featuring a cavalcade of conservative pundits chattering incessantly about the rule of law. Or maybe the Clinton battles remind them of reading mind-numbing Whitewater updates, which, even after four years of hype, never seemed as dire or spectacular as the press made them out to be.

If the past is prologue, it's important to remember two things as the new Democratic administration prepares to take up residence. First, the press in 1992 was tagged as being overly affectionate toward Clinton in the general election. By early 1993, there had been a sea change in how journalists treated the Democrat. And second, Clinton's bad press started years before impeachment and months before any kind of official scandal machinery was put in place inside the U.S. Capitol. The hostile and at times overbearing press coverage started during the transition period and before Clinton even had time to do much of anything wrong.

"Judging by today's press conference, the traditional media honeymoon seems already on the wane," ABC News' Diane Sawyer announced on January 14, 1993, one week before Clinton was inaugurated.

Yes, there were several embarrassing tactical mistakes made early on by the inexperienced new administration that sparked bad press, including the withdrawal of Zoë Baird as Clinton's nominee to be attorney general because she had employed undocumented immigrants as her nanny and driver. And Clinton created controversy when he tried to keep his campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military, an initiative the administration bungled, in part, by not doing enough preparation with allies on Capitol Hill or the Pentagon before the initiative was unveiled.

Looking back, though, the so-called scandals that the press claimed were derailing Clinton's entire presidency just days into his first term seem pretty tame. (The hullabaloo over Baird's domestic help seems positively quaint in retrospect.)

At the time though, it was pure doomsday, according to the press. Here was an utterly typical dispatch from Clinton's first weeks in office, courtesy of Time [emphasis added]:

No sooner had Clinton emerged from the embarrassing miscalculation about Zoe Baird than he found himself in an even stickier political quagmire. After promising in his Inaugural Address to end an era of "deadlock and drift," Clinton was suddenly at war with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as members of his own party in Congress. Worse yet, the spectacle of Clinton clinging so resolutely to his gay-rights pledge after breaking broader promises on taxes, the deficit and spending projects raised questions about his judgment.

Aside from the heavy-handed language, note how Time ridiculed Clinton for "clinging" to a long-forgotten campaign promise. The irony was that one of the key themes of the nasty coverage of Clinton's early presidency was that he was weak and excessively political (i.e. "Slick Willie"), that he gave in for political reasons, and that he refused to keep controversial campaign pledges. ("Clinton guaranteed himself a spate of bad press by backing off campaign promises," The Washington Post explained two weeks after his inauguration.)

But when Clinton stood up on the campaign pledge regarding gays in the military, journalists not only were not impressed, they mocked him. (Perhaps they had different ideas about which of Clinton's campaign pledges were important and which ones were not.)

"My colleagues and I, like journalistic Dr. Strangeloves, are ready to nuke Mr. Clinton at the slightest provocation," New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb conceded just one month after the Democrat became the 42nd president.

The press pile-on simply gained momentum through the weeks and months. In the spring, the Washington Post Style section featured the headlined, "Another Failed Presidency, Already? Sure, It's Early. But What's That Sound of No Hands Clapping?"

Around the same period, Time offered up this headline on its cover: "The Incredible Shrinking President." (Weeks earlier, the doomsday Time headline on newsstands around the country asked, "Anguish Over Bosnia: Will it be Clinton's Vietnam?")

By the following year, The New York Times Magazine casually announced, "In mainstream journalism ... President Clinton is routinely depicted in the most unflattering terms: a liar, a fraud, a chronically indecisive man who cannot be trusted to stand for anything -- or with anyone."

Today, the evidence suggests the over-the-top press coverage of early 1993 sprang from a conscious decision the press made to lock and load on the Democratic White House -- just as it appeared the press chose to pull back when Bush's first term played out in 2001, the way a blanket of calm suddenly descended over newsrooms that had spent the previous eight years in nonstop scandal-and-high-dudgeon mode. ("Good for Washington in giving a new president a break at the start," the hometown Washington Post cheered in the spring of 2001.)

The press not only treated Bush with loving hands, but also dialed back its White House coverage, which meant Bush did not have to battle the media's constant glare.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 41 percent fewer news stories were produced about Bush between January 21, 2001, and March 21, 2001, than there were produced about Clinton during the same two-month period eight years earlier. Newsweek, in particular, practically unplugged its Bush White House coverage, publishing 59 percent fewer stories about the new Bush vs. the new Clinton.

The news blackout came despite the fact that the newly elected President Bush came into office under the extraordinary circumstances of losing the popular vote and securing the office only after a divided Supreme Court ordered the vote-counting in Florida to cease.

And yes, Bush aides were quite content in 2001 with the reduced coverage of the new president. The White House's Mary Matalin told The Washington Post in April 2001 that Clinton talked too much --"[he] would just get out there and talk about anything, any time, any place" -- and that Bush would be more "efficient" in the way he made news.

What a coincidence. The White House wanted less coverage and scrutiny from the press in 2001 (when Bush often appeared unsure of himself in public settings), and the GOP White House got less coverage and scrutiny.

The double standard in how the press treated the incoming Democratic and Republican presidents remains glaringly obvious today. For instance, in 1993, journalists complained that the new Clinton communications team limited their access (by closing off portions of the White House to reporters), that aides didn't sufficiently schmooze reporters, and that the new president did not have enough formal press conferences. Also, they complained that the Clinton team was trying to "bypass" the mainstream media by embracing other outlets, like conducting waves of satellite-feed interviews with local television stations. That's why the Fourth Estate piled on the Democrats with hypercritical coverage. Because their feelings were hurt and their egos were bruised.

"They're dissing us," David Lauter, Los Angeles Times White House reporter, complained to author Tom Rosenstiel in April 1993.

"A press corps that has been avoided and ignored and treated in a way that is Nixonian is not going to cut [the president] any breaks," announced George Condon of the Copley News Service in 1993, while serving as president of the White House Correspondents Association. His point was that the Clintons had some of bad press coming to them.

Paul Richter, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, agreed. He said the treatment of the media by a president and his staff "really does affect the coverage."

Some journalists even admitted that that was the reason the press treated some relatively minor 1993 news stories, such as the firing of seven members of the White House travel office, with such ferocity. (A ferocity that, viewed from the distance of 15 years, seems absolutely perplexing.)

The travel office is a nonpartisan department within the White House staffed by aides who help make life easier for reporters traveling with the president by arranging meals and communications. Journalists get to know the office staffers and rely on them to help make life on the road less bumpy.

In May 1993, the White House fired all seven travel staffers for gross financial mismanagement and announced the FBI had been asked to investigate.

As Shaw at the Los Angeles Times noted, when hearing about the clumsy travel-office firings, the press corps erupted in outrage. "At one briefing, they asked 169 questions about the travel office firings. Neither Bosnia nor the President's deficit-reduction package, both major news stories at the time, received a fraction of that attention that day" [emphasis added].

In the days following the firings, the travel-office story (aka Travelgate) landed on Page One of The Washington Post six times, and four times on A1 of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. The press pitched the story as a blockbuster. In less than three weeks, the Post published nearly 20 news stories, editorials, and commentaries on the subject, even though its White House correspondents eventually conceded the firings were "relatively trivial."

Newsweek summed up the media phenomenon at play with its Travelgate headline: "Don't Mess With the Media: The White House Press Corps Gets Its Revenge."

Weeks later, when the media hyped the phony story that Clinton had held up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport while getting a $200 haircut as Air Force One idled on the tarmac, they enjoyed another round of payback. Suggesting the story revealed all sorts of deep character flaws embedded in Clinton (namely that he was a phony and a hypocrite), the press treated the haircut as an even bigger deal than Travelgate.

The so-called scandal was mentioned 50 times by The Washington Post alone, including nine times in front-page stories.

Six weeks later, though, when Newsday revealed that Federal Aviation Administration records showed no planes had been delayed while Clinton got a trim, virtually every news organization that initially hyped the story either downplayed (the Los Angeles Times) or completely ignored (The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC) the correction.

The Post was so unresponsive to the facts that the paper's ombudsman had to devote an entire column to the matter, slapping reporters' hands for doing the absolute minimum to clear up any confusion about nonexistent flight delays caused by Clinton.

And why the pile-on? Simple: The press was still angry with how their pals in the travel office had been treated. "There was a clear sense of retribution" in the media's haircut coverage, Newsweek's Mark Miller said at the time, because the media were "pissed off."

Indeed, the resentment was growing, "whether it was conscious or subconscious," said John King, then working as White House correspondent for The Associated Press. "[S]o when people had a legitimate reason to kick [Clinton] as a buffoon, they went overboard."

Try to recall, however, a single instance in early 2001 when the press went "overboard" and kicked Bush as a "buffoon" on the front pages for days on end regarding an essentially trivial process story. Cautious and respectful, the press did no such thing.

"The truth is, this new president [Bush] has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton," The Washington Post's John Harris wrote in May 2001.

Harris continued:

Try to recall this major news story during Clinton's first 100 days: Under pressure from Western senators, the president capitulated on a minor part of his 1993 budget deal, grazing fees on ranchers using federal lands. A barrage of coverage had an unmistakable subtext: Clinton was weak and excessively political and caved to special interests. Bush has made numerous similar concessions on items far more central to the agenda he campaigned on, such as deemphasizing vouchers in his education plan and conceding that his tax cut will be some $350 billion smaller than he proposed. For the most part these repositionings are being cast as shrewd rather than servile.

But if the press went easy on Bush in early 2001, if it looked the other way when he flip-flopped on campaign promises, that must have been thanks to the way the White House pampered reporters, right? Because journalists were quite open in 1993 about being offended by the White House's treatment and how being slighted, or "dissed," translated into tougher coverage. Recall that the press was angry about the way Democratic aides were uncommunicative and how few formal press conferences Clinton had held, and the way the Democrats were trying to go around the mainstream media.

In truth, of course, if the Clinton team was guilty of slighting the press in 1993, the Bush team absolutely humiliated it. The Bush White House openly advertised its disdain for the press (former chief of staff Andrew Card famously dismissed the press as just another D.C. special interest group desperately seeking access), aides quickly formed habits of not returning reporters' calls, and Bush immediately canceled formal press briefings with reporters. And even the informal ones he held were rare in the first term. In fact, Bush held just 17 press conferences compared with Clinton's 44. (Despite the media's early grumbling, Clinton actually set a new mark for the most press conferences by any first-term president in the modern era.)

Over time, it became clear to the entire country that the Bush White House did not respect the press, that it was dissing the press corps. The way the White House for years waved into press briefings a former $200-an-hour male escort with no journalism background and no serious press affiliation; the way the administration churned out misleading video news releases that crossed the legal line into "covert propaganda"; and the way the administration audaciously paid off pundits like Armstrong Williams to secretly hype White House initiatives.

The media, though, didn't punish the Republican president with bad press. Contrary to the edicts laid down in the 1990s, the early Bush coverage was not affected by how the president and his staff slighted and controlled the press. Instead, the press sheepishly fell in line, nervous about having its already limited access even further restricted.

The kowtowing was at times startling to watch. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Alterman noted in 2003's What Liberal Media?:

[T]he Bush team plays a kind of hardball that the Clintonians were never able to master. When Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth asked press spokesman Ari Fleischer about underage drinking by the president's daughters, Fleischer informed him, Don Corleone-style, that his question had been "noted in the building." The implication was clear to all: More such unfriendly questions and Roth could be cut off, unable to do his job, and useless to his employers. The outcries of solidarity from Roth's colleagues in the press corps in the face of this public threat would not have disturbed the sleep of a napping newborn.

There were other dynamics at play, as well. For instance, as the first Clinton term unfolded, there were open discussions among journalists about how they were anxious not to be tagged as being "in the tank" for Clinton. How they didn't want to be called out by The New Republic's running "Clinton Suck-Up Watch," which mocked journalists who the magazine saw as overly effusive in their praise of the new president. It was that professional anxiousness (i.e. that peer pressure) that led some to view the new Democratic administration through an unprecedented, hypercritical lens.

It was also a phenomenon fueled by right-wing critics such as Rush Limbaugh who accused the press of having a liberal bias. Naturally, one way for the media to disprove that theory was to be especially hard on the new Democratic administration.

"If you dared say anything complimentary [about Clinton] ... you were looked at like some sort of pathetic fool who was obviously in the tank," said Newsweek's Miller during Clinton's first year in office.

At the time, observers suggested that get-tough approach toward Clinton simply reflected journalism's DNA. Brit Hume, then a White House correspondent for ABC News, insisted, "We live in a time when the worst thing that can be said about a journalist in Washington is that he or she is not 'tough.' "

In 2001, however, very few journalists appeared concerned about being "in the tank" for Bush. In fact, the tank was quite crowded.

It turns out, that urge among Beltway journalists to bend over backward for incoming Republican administrations goes back many years. Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee explained the phenomenon to Mark Hertsgaard in his book about the press, On Bended Knee:

Stressing that it was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative. ... And we are known -- though I don't think justifiably -- as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon."

Just like with Reagan, the D.C. press corps went out of its way to behave itself with Bush, to be "fair" to the new conservative president.

Looking ahead, that desire among journalists to be tough on Democrats in 2009 for fear of being tagged liberal or "in the tank" could certainly come into play when Obama is inaugurated. Because just as the press was derided by Republicans for going too easy on the Democratic baby boomer candidate in 1992 ("Liberal-Media Lynch Mob" buttons and T-shirts were seen at the GOP convention that year), reporters and pundits have been under constant attack in 2008 for going too soft on the Democratic baby boomer candidate.

So, in order to "prove" their independence, will journalists unleash an assault on the new Democratic White House the way they did in 1993?

And will the press pick seemingly random beefs to make its case against the Democratic president, the way it lashed out at Clinton for being overly interested and engrossed in the issues? And the way it said his transition team was too deliberative and close-mouthed when selecting the most senior members of his new administration? Believe it or not, in 1993, those were deemed to be serious strikes against Clinton.

In terms of the latter, restless reporters resented how, during the transition period in late 1992, Democrats didn't dole out enough information about key appointments. "The transition ruined any good feeling that there might have been," Jeffrey Birnbaum, then a Wall Street Journal reporter, said in 1993. "The dark days of Little Rock after the election, I think, are what soured the press relations with the Clintons."

The National Journal concurred in a report that year:

The amity suffered, however, as the campaign continued -- as the crowd of reporters grew and Clinton's accessibility dwindled. It deteriorated more during the transition. Reporters ensconced in Little Rock, Ark., and in pursuit of a story each day focused on Clinton's leisurely pace in making appointments and on the campaign promises he'd forsaken. By Clinton's last press conference before moving north toward his new home, the tone of the questioning had grown nasty.

Note that when Clinton's team didn't leak enough transition-team information, the press got mad and said that's when the relationship began to sour. But eight years later, when the Bush team didn't leak transition-team information in late 2000, the press praised the new White House for its discipline and message control, an obvious double standard.

Meanwhile, one of the deepest ironies of examining the hostile/docile press models for the two previously inaugurated presidents is that one of the personal traits that the press relentlessly mocked in Clinton during his first months in office was his high intellectual metabolism, how he wanted to debate every subject and engage around the clock and hear all kinds of opinions about the day's most important topics. The press saw that as a very troubling sign because sometimes it forced Clinton to delay his final decisions.

"This has led to a perception of weakness and indecisiveness," NBC's Andrea Mitchell announced at the time. (Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity eight years later did not seem to worry the press.)

From the media's perspective, Clinton was too engaged in the pressing topics of the day.

Let's hope the press doesn't foolishly hold that against the next hands-on, issues-oriented president.

On the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, David Gregory hosted Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens to discuss the possible appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. During the discussion, Hitchens stated of Clinton: "It's true that she's got a major name on the world stage. That's true by definition. It's only true that she's respected in the Pentagon if people go around saying so. I've never heard that before, I must say." In fact, media outlets have previously reported that Clinton "has gained a lot of respect among military leadership" and has "built relationships" with military leaders such as Gen. David H. Petraeus and Adm. William J. Fallon. Further, Clinton received the endorsement of numerous retired generals and admirals during her 2008 presidential campaign.

There have been numerous media reports that Clinton is respected by military leaders, including the following:

• On March 27, 2007, The New York Times reported: "Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions." The Times further reported:
  Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the "Sunset Parade" at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)

• In an August 20, 2006, cover story, Time reported that, "When Hillary was first elected, General John Keane, then Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, sought an audience" with Clinton and that "[w]hen he finally got in to see her, however, the meeting did not go as he had expected. For starters, it lasted 45 minutes. 'She committed immediately to West Point and the 10th Mountain Division, with follow-up on-site visits,' he says. 'But it was her enormous depth of knowledge about the military and her sincerity about our people which surprised and disarmed me.'"

• On the January 27, 2007, edition of CNBC's Tim Russert (accessed via Nexis), NBC chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski stated:
  And what may be surprising to quite a few Americans is the fact that Hillary Clinton has gained a lot of respect among military leadership because she seems to be more measured and thoughtful in terms of her dealing with the military. And when she was criticized for criticizing, herself, the U.S. plan in Iraq while she was in Baghdad, many compared her to Hanoi Jane when -- you know, during the Vietnam War. What she did is she was essentially telling the American people what the generals just told her in private. So it took me by surprise when I started hearing from some of the officers in the military, saying, "You know, that Hillary makes a good point."

• A December 12, 2005, Newsweek article (accessed via Nexis) reported:
  It is no accident that hawks inside and outside the military are reconsidering Hillary Clinton. She may have entered the Senate in 2001 with three strikes against her -- she was a woman, a Democrat and a Clinton. But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs. Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats -- and especially one all but openly running for president -- were vulnerable on defense issues. It was a trap she has seemed determined to avoid.
  [...]
  For her efforts, she has begun to win respect within military circles. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former vice chief of the Army whom she's consulted about Iraq, says he's praised her to "the guys"--meaning the Pentagon brass.

In addition, a May 10, 2005, Village Voice article (accessed via Nexis) quoted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich saying of Clinton: "Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee," and quoted Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution saying, "She's doing a fantastic job, and I'm not in any way a Hillary fan." The article added: "Neither are Republican members on Armed Services. Yet Clinton has managed to impress them with her thoughtfulness and knowledge. John Ullyot, the spokesperson for the Armed Services Republicans, calls the New York senator 'a very valued member of the committee.' "

Further undermining Hitchens' suggestion that Clinton is not respected by the military, Clinton was endorsed by numerous retired generals and admirals during her 2008 presidential campaign.

Clinton also received the Military Coalition's 2005 Award of Merit, the Military Coalition's "highest honor" bestowed by the group, which is "comprised of 35 organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniformed services -- active, reserve, retired, survivors, veterans -- and their families."

From the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

HITCHENS: At least on health care, she knows enough about the subject to have really changed American health care for the worse in her time. But foreign policy -

DAVID GREGORY (host): And, yet -

HITCHENS: -- about foreign policy, she doesn't even know that much.

GREGORY: But, she's respected in the Pentagon. She's certainly --

HITCHENS: Says -- it's true if you say so.

GREGORY: -- has an important name - an import - an important name on the world stage.

HITCHENS: That's true.

GREGORY: And is more hawkish than the president she might serve.

HITCHENS: It's true that she's got a major name on the world stage. That's true by definition. It's only true that she's respected in the Pentagon if people go around saying so. I've never heard that before, I must say.

On some things, she's more hawkish than the president-elect, yes. But she tends to have acquired this reputation in what I'd call an opportunist manner. I mean, who - who really thinks that she felt that strongly about Iraq? She just didn't want to cast her vote the other way.

GREGORY: We'll leave it there.

A November 16 Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle editorial supporting the "Fair Tax" plan, a proposal that "replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes" with a national sales tax, falsely stated that under the "Fair Tax" people will "get their entire paycheck." The editorial failed to point out that the "Fair Tax" would not pre-empt state income taxes, so Georgia residents would still have to pay the Georgia income tax, which is withheld from their paychecks. The editorial also cited radio host Neal Boortz as a supporter of the "Fair Tax" plan but did not note that Boortz himself has said that employees might not receive 100 percent of their current paychecks under the "Fair Tax" plan.

As the editorial noted, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) -- who is in a run-off Senate election against former Georgia state Rep. Jim Martin (D) -- has endorsed the "Fair Tax" proposal. On November 14, the Chronicle endorsed Chambliss in his run-off against Martin, saying "the re-election of Chambliss is a must. He may be all that stands between the American people and congressional tyranny."

According to the Georgia Department of Revenue, "[e]mployers are required to withhold Georgia income tax from the wages of residents for services performed inside or outside of this state and from nonresidents for services performed in Georgia." Georgia income tax is "computed at a graduated rate and is assessed in a range from one to five percent on the first $10,000 of net taxable income (total tax on first $10,000 of net taxable income is $340) plus six percent of the excess of net taxable income over $10,000."

As Media Matters for America previously noted, on the November 29, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Ali Velshi rebutted the claim that, under the "Fair Tax" plan, workers would get to keep their entire paychecks: "Now, this would be a 23-percent tax on everything you buy. Promoters like [former Arkansas Gov. Mike] Huckabee [R] talk about how you'd get 100 percent of your salary paid to you. Now, that is a myth. ... [Y]ou'd still have to pay all of your state and local taxes and property taxes. And, by the way, everything will be taxed -- including things like rent and health care."

Additionally, the editorial stated: "On Nov. 16, at the Gwinnett Center in Duluth, there will be a Fair Tax 'Truth' rally to clear up some of the lies and distortions about the Fair Tax featuring GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, nationally syndicated radio host Neil [sic] Boortz and U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss as guest speakers, among others." But the editorial did not note that Boortz, co-author of The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS (William Morrow, August 2005), wrote in a September 25, 2005, post on his website: "Now, let's elaborate on the 'keep 100% of your paycheck' line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear." Boortz later stated: "The 'keep 100% of your paycheck' concept can more easily be applied to those who either change jobs or come into the labor force after the implementation of the FairTax. A new worker will negotiate a wage with an employer knowing that the amount negotiated will be the amount that worker receives every two weeks ... no deductions."

In the post, Boortz also wrote: "When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call 'take home pay' before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both."

From Boortz's post headlined, "The FairTax -- Straightening Out Some Confusion":

When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both. Either way, you can see that the amount of money you actually receive as pay - the amount you can put into your bank account - will not decrease, and may actually increase.

[...]

Now, let's elaborate on the "keep 100% of your paycheck" line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear. One thing is certain: You will suffer no decrease in real or net earnings --- the amount of each paycheck you deposit into your bank account every other week. The "keep 100% of your paycheck" concept can more easily be applied to those who either change jobs or come into the labor force after the implementation of the FairTax. A new worker will negotiate a wage with an employer knowing that the amount negotiated will be the amount that worker receives every two weeks ... no deductions. Likewise, when you change employers you, too, will negotiate a wage that will not be subject to withholding, and you will get 100% of your wages in each paycheck.

From the Augusta (GA) Chronicle editorial:

A proposed 23-cent national sales tax, the Fair Tax would replace the current federal system of taxation -- meaning no income tax and no Social Security tax.

That means power to the people, because, first of all, they get their entire paycheck. Secondly, they determine the amount of tax they pay by the decisions they make on their purchases.

The Fair Tax also contains a feature called a "prebate" -- money that would wipe out federal taxes completely for those at or below the poverty line.

[...]

It's an awful shame that such a partisan shroud has fallen down around the Fair Tax. On Nov. 16, at the Gwinnett Center in Duluth, there will be a Fair Tax "Truth" rally to clear up some of the lies and distortions about the Fair Tax featuring GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, nationally syndicated radio host Neil Boortz and U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss as guest speakers, among others.

This isn't a Republican or Democratic idea. Fact is, it's a grass-roots movement that has been catching steam in recent years. What a tragedy it would be if Nov. 4 were to sap the energy out of the movement.

On November 19, the Drudge Report linked to a Washington Examiner article about possible inauguration costs for Washington, D.C., under the headline, "Obama Inaugural Could Bankrupt DC." However, the article to which Drudge linked did not report that the inauguration "could bankrupt" the city. The November 18 Examiner article reported: "Soaring costs expected to accompany huge crowds in town for the Jan. 20 inauguration of Barack Obama could stick cash-strapped Washington, D.C., with a record-breaking bill for services." The article also reported that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said security and capacity measures recommended by her and others for the inauguration "will almost certainly surpass the $15 million the federal government gives to the District each year to defray the cost of events." The Examiner did not report any estimates of how much the inauguration might cost the city in total.

The article also reported that President Bush's 2005 inauguration "cost the city more than $17 million, some of which was reimbursed with federal funds."

Drudge's headline as of 7:50 a.m. ET read: