Be vigilant and watchful. No escalation.

Have a nice and safe Memorial Day Weekend.

: - )

“But there’s a difference between suspicion and making an outright assertion, which is essentially what the question was.”

Point taken. I guess I’m cranky and forgiving because the editor in me looks for the valid thrust and dislikes it when the conversation is changed to form over substance. But you are correct to point out that questions formulated like Blitzer’s are to blame for changing the conversation by being easy fodder for criticism. And I have no doubt the formulation is for teasey effect.

John Stewart did a hysterical piece a few months ago which pointed out that the cable guys think they can get away with any sentence that ends with a question mark. I think his tag line was, “Is your mother a whore? I’m just asking …”

This isn’t about politics. It’s about UPSTAGING.

DEAL with it.

But moreover, I take issue with the seemingly nonsensical/fallacious “supportive husband vs. political desperation” dichotomy. In my mind, there is little relationship between Bill Clinton’s involvement in his wife’s campaign and the level of desperation the campaign may or may not feel… It seems amateurish to conjecture that such a relationship exists, particularly with all the analysis out there saying that Bill will be a conceptually integral part of Hillary’s campaign regardless of how the campaign “feels” about its chances.

Why not do what you suggested John: Just ask, “What the heck was up with that Bill Clinton ad?” What a concept: Let your sources be the opinion makers. Is Wolf getting run over by media critics if one of his sources says it’s a move of desperation? Nope.

Be a better journalist! Don’t be an opinion maker!

It says something about the camp’s strategy which, on the surface, isn’t positive or benign. Absolutely fair game to be suspicious here especially since a) campaigns poll far more extensively than media outlets and with more granularity b) the Clintons probably poll as much as the best of them and c) no campaign takes out ads without a reason.

It’s too easy to get caught up in the propriety game. Clinton is not being accused of wrongdoing or of something unfeasible. And the underlying question, however some may think was inartfully posed, remains: what they heck was that all about?

Yes, it is.

“Billary” haters notwithstanding.

BTW, Sen. Clinton may simply be doing what Al Gore didn’t have the sense to do. Align the campaign with a very popular former President. This is what pols commonly do.

I’m shocked. He’s been such a guardian of quality journalism up to this point.

/sarcasm

In print, the reporter just reports the story, to be read by the reader and left to their inferences. In TV, the two-way exchanges between the anchor and the reporter — which, ironically, given your post, involves the reporter answering questions (no matter how scripted) — make the reporter the expert and thus the opinion maker.

And, JB, if that information was out there, could not Blitzer have cited all of that? It only takes a moment, and lends so much more credibility to your reporting. Shows both your subject and your viewers that you’re well researched, rather than just assuming they’ll know you are.

twitter.com/vaspers

Schedule a Rose Garden press conference to pre-empt ABC’s The View interview with William Rodriquez, WTC keyman that unlocked stairwells on that fateful day.

The reason he asked that question is probably because Hillary’s poll numbers have been stagnant and in some cases dropping, while Obama and Gore(!) are making strides. Edwards is holding steady at 10%, I think Edwards has peaked, he won’t be a factor. But he will be a great veep candidate.

First, Hill’s campaign said that Bill would stay on the sideline, as this is her campaign, and then at the first sign of trouble (or whenever she needs a cash influx) she calls on Bill to rally the base.

She should just wear a t-shirt that says “My husband is Bill Clinton, vote for me”.

A leader can suddenly get worried and act and look “desperate”, like when others are gaining on you, or you run out of steam and start delivering stilted, overly-coached repetitions of canned rhetoric.

For Billary to lean on Mr. Bill, it does look opportunistic, insecure, co-dependent, and unleaderly.

If some Americans feel, or if just Wolf Blitzer personally feels, that the Billory campaign looks panic-stricken, clueless, or “desperate”, why not pose the smart ass question?

I loathe all politicians, the lobbyist loving liars.

I must say, though, that John Edwards deserves credit for suddenly Twittering frequently, and with solid content, eg anti-war and anti oil dependency statement links.

Also, Billory did a nice thing with her “Vote for my campaign theme song” web effort. I didn’t care for any of the pre-selects, so I wrote in my own suggestion: “Too Dead for Me” by Atari Teenage Riot.

“Is your campaign acting desperate?”

Why do impressions and misgivings suddenly now need to be rationalized by a logocentric society, be buffered orr buttressed by belief in facts that rally to support the hunch?

A good reply would be to say, “Desperate? When you’re at the top, you don’t need to be desperate about anything” or similar.