Does anyone agree that Lesley Stahl

[saracat]

was taking potshots at Kerry Edwards? She seemed mean, argumentative and slanted to me.And it seemed like they relished the opportunity to show almost an entire Bush commercial.And the nastiness with which she made pointed reference to the Kerry's missed hand clutching seemed subtly vicious. She also made it clear "she" wouldn't except their answer on the Iraq vote. I am surprised at 60 minutes.They were one of the last bastions of fairness.
BTW ,what was Stahl famous for? Anyone know?

[NC_Nurse]

1. I felt that way warching it

but I wasn't sure what to think of it at the time.

She just seemed negative toward them the whole time. It was weird.

[jackstraw45]

2. Her questions were emailed to her from the White House.....

I wouldn't be surprised.

She asks the honeymoon question (equating the race to a relationship) and then criticizes the answer as acting as if they are married.

Stahl showed her colors as a Corporate Media tool tonight with those questions.

[kikiek]

3. I agree 100 percent!

[NWHarkness]

4. She was hostile, but it backfired

Kerry and Edwards took her to the cleaners, and made the point that the issues can't be addressed with quickie soundbite answers.

[GainesT1958]

5. Anyone who steals Judy Woodruff's notes...

Off of her desk in the White House Press Room (it happened during Poppy's administration) loses all respect from me. Lesley Stahl thinks she's some kind of great journalist, but in reality...she's a legend in her OWN MIND!x(

She wanted to "out-cheap shot" Steve Kroft when he interviewed Clinton and Hillary in '92, after the Super Bowl. I'll bet there were times when John Kerry wanted to strangle her the way Clinton wanted to strangle Kroft. I'm glad John Edwards upbraided her more than once--made her look even more media whorish in the process!:D

B-)

[mitchtv]

26. sounds like she's still using Judy's notes

.

[rusty charly]

6. they're all getting ready

to start being tough on the white house in 2005... you know, regardless of who's there.

[Booster]

10. I really liked the interview and thought they all did

really well. I think we're all getting "gun shy" about anybody asking Kerry/Edwards/Theresa/Elizabeth anything that isn't sugar-coated. She was tough, but not anywhere near what Matt Lauer was to Michael Moore. Our guys came across as very upbeat and I want that to keep happening - people need to see them upbeat in comparison to Bush/Cheney. Relax.

[Catt03]

16. I thought so too

In fact, she seemed to really like everyone she was interviewing.

[Zen]

19. Thanks for being the voice of reason...

I am sure that these folks are going to crank down hard on Bush in the future, closer to the election (many are already - I don't want them to peak too soon!). They are really trying to be as fair as possible. You do realize that they would hit just as hard or harder if "The Moron Chimp" were to actually give another TV interview. Remember, just asking W "what is your name Mr. Bush" would make him look bad, so these guys (Kerry, Edwards) are just gonna have to be tough - they're gonna need to be tough to be in charge so mine as well get some practice now.

[saracat]

23. I'm NOT "gun shy"

The nature of the questions that were asked were both stupid and argumentative.She tried to turn at alternate times JK and JE against each other and then baited their spouses.And to wrap up ,the audience was steered against them all. I do interviews and I have interviewed all of these people except for Elizabeth.Believe me this was slanted purposefully.And it was obvious that it was a much longer interview and had been cut.It had been announced that like Clinton, they'd get an hour.Instead they reran an old story.What was on the rest I wonder?

[Booster]

33. But don't you agree that they handled themselves well

and in doing so made themselves look pretty damn good? I'm not taking up for Stahl, but let's wait and see how Matt Lauer handles himself if he ever gets to interview any of them. Kerry/Edwards know what they are up against when it comes to the media, so they should be prepared for very slanted questions and not get hot like Bush did when he walked out on a question. That to me shows the difference between class and ass.

[saracat]

37. They were too much inter cut to make any impression.

I think they came across as defensive on the Iraq question ,but it was parsed in such a way there was no good answer.This interview was to introduce them to the public. That is why it was the first interview.Stahl did not introduce the audience to the candidates.She attempted to skewer them before most people know who they are.I can't tell how well they handled themselves because most of the interview is missing.The editing sucked.BTW did you know that Bush can't be edited by a network or cable channel? Just a thought.

[DemBones DemBones]

Bush* could benefit from editing.

Where is Rove's head? (Yeah, I know!)

I hadn't heard that it was verboten to edit Shrub. Veddy interesting. And the media go along with this? Has this courtesy been extended to any other occupants of the Oval Office?

[Booster]

41. Why can't Bush be edited.

Is it because there's a standing order from the White House to this effect? And what would happen if a brave producer did edit him, would he be fired on the spot? I guess I really just don't understand why people in the media are so afraid of Bush; it makes no sense. I know Keith Olbermann came right and said that the White House had called and tried to get to slant his questions to the guy he was interviewing (I don't remember who it was), but Keith didn't get fired on the spot for not doing what they said and even exposing that they had said it. Where the Hell is the backbone of the press?

[saracat]

46. There IS a standing order from the WH

that Bush is NOT to be edited during interviews.Remember the last Bush interview with Russert? That wasn't allowed to be edited.Also questions must be submitted in advance.This is I believe the first WH to do this. As for why they don't want editing , it is because they don't want a network to have the ability to cut portions or string together sequences to make Bonzo look bad.Interesting that he would actually benefit the editing because they couldn't make him look worse than they do.It is however a control thing!

[tishaLA]

34. I agree

I thought there were a few strange things--the attention to the hands, for example--but big deal. She asked hard questions, which is what reporters are supposed to do. So what if she used "Republican talking points"? It's actually useful because it gives Kerry Edwards a chance to shoot them down in front of a huge national audience, not one of those minuscule preaching t the converted shows on FAUX news.

[Fla Dem]

52. Agree...tried to view it as a Repug would

From that viewpoint thought there were several times she was almost fawning over them, and tossing them softball questions. Overall thought it was a good segment.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

7. legs crossed and a mini skirt

i think she got the hots for them.

[young_at_heart]

8. I used to think Leslie was one of the best...........no more!

Her antagonism was so obvious. Maybe that's the way it has to be these days thanks to the Bush/Cheney style of "government". Kerry/Edwards were great!

[BillZBubb]

9. At first I didn't mind her covering the major Repug smears.

But, in the end, that's all she did. She never once offered them an opportunity to talk about what they would do if elected.

It was a hatchet job. I was surprised, because CBS is about as close to "fair and balanced" as we can hope to get. Looks like the corporate media has the fix in on this.

[JDPriestly]

11. Stahl's digs were inappropriate,

The purpose of Kerry and Edwards' appearances at this early stage with their wives was to introduce them to the public. Stahl asked questions that would have been appropriate at a later point in the campaign, once the public is really familiar with Kerry and Edwards as a team, or after they have governed together as president and vice-president and run for a second term.

I think that Kerry and Edwards were a bit suprised by the aggressive tone of her questions. One would have expected a little more family banter, light stuff. Obviously, the interview was longer and cut considerably. It was hard to tell what was left out. Nevertheless, Kerry and Edwards bested Stahl on every point.

Edwards is a quick thinker and a great debater. Kerry seems to genuinely enjoy watching Edwards argue and let Edwards show his stuff. Good move on Kerry's part. Kerry seems truly modest, not overly competitive. That will appeal to women. I loved Edwards' response to Stahl's question as to whether he would go hard at Cheney. He explained that it would be wrong not to. Good, sincere answer. Edwards is believable -- appears to follow his conscience.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

12. If Leslie Stahl is unfair to Kerry-Edwards..

..is there any journalist out there who would still be FAIR to them?

I've always been under the impression that Stahl was pretty liberal. I didn't see the interview, and I suspect that you guys are being too hard on her, but it wouldn't be surprising if she was yet another media member to hop on the "let's destroy Kerry!" bandwagon.

[jackstraw45]

15. You would have been disgusted....

She used the RNC playbook on how to question Kerry/Edwards.

Insulting Edward's experience, Kerry's charisma, their honesty, "flip-flops," used the term "honeymoon" (after Drudge's gaybash fest this week), etc.

She was a complete biased TOOL.

[Lex]

13. Just WTF was that bit about having a stack of papers on her

desk yay high of Kerry's flip-flops?

Did anybody else hear that?

WTF?

From who? Rove? Or some screed she's worked up, or WHAT?

[Catt03]

18. Press releases are sent to all media

with information about every ad about the candidate.

[Lex]

21. She made it sound like she's got documented written proof of

Kerry's flip-flops, instead of spin and biased crap from press releases.

I didn't appreciate that from her at all.

[Cha]

20. Is leslie going to ask bush about his Flip Flops?

snips~

"President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

July 7, 2004

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus."

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question."

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." end snips~


23 more major FLIP FLOPS by bush..
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

[tishaLA]

36. But remember: Olberman said the same thing

She's telling us and them about the Rove tactics. She essentially pointed out that there were RNC talking point they were throwing to reporters. And really, except the Iraq debacle, they knocked all the objections out of the park.

[Wind Dancer]

14. I think she did everything possible

to bait them into looking negative, uninformed and artificial! I was upset with the obvious slant directed at Kerry and Teresa. She showed the sound-bite of Teresa's speech here in Raleigh re: keeping them honest. Stahl tried to make it a negative comment, like they couldn't be trusted without their spouses. Teresa and Elizabeth handled the questions beautifully.

I am contacting CBS tomorrow - it was aggressive and demeaning.

[sundancekid]

30. I agree, but Stahl only succeeded in demeaning herself ...

... she sure ain't NO Mike Wallace and ain't NO Barbara Walters. I really liked how Teresa and Elizabeth came across -- sure ain't NO Bush women, thank goodness!!!!

[Wind Dancer]

38. After seeing them yesterday speak in Raleigh,

it was refreshing to hear voices of intelligence as opposed to the Stepford dribble we've had to listen to for almost 4 years.

[MasonJar]

17. If she was that bad, (I didn't see because I was at a Move-on

phonothon), let's all in mass e-mail her. I think these idiots forget they are alienating at least one half of the American people. Kerry admitted at the beginning that he knew they were going to throw everything at him. And they have.

[Reciprocity]

22. Makes me wonder what ended up on the cutting room floor.

Lets face it we Democrats are held to a doubled standard.

[Lex]

24. It was good to see that a couple of times one of the Johns said "unfair!"

"That is an unfair question, Leslie" was said at least once.

[Cleita]

25. I thought the whole interview was very biased, so

I wrote Sixty Minutes and told them that I thought that Leslie should interview Bush/Cheney and wives, asking them the same or similarly rude and intrusive questions in the spirit of American diversity of political expression.

[Cha]

27. When Kerry gets to be President then I imagine

Leslie will want an exclusive with the Prez and Kerry gives it to Dan Rather!

[Wind Dancer]

28. Cleita,

I will include that in my email, as well. The journalists are downright afraid of * and Cheney. I have rarely seen them questioned aggressively since 9/11, to do so is considered unpatriotic. The interview was disgraceful.

[milkyway]

29. It was a terrible interview, entirely lacking in substance. Seemed more

like Oprah than 60 Minutes.

[Lex]

32. "Look at the way they are doing their hands!" Stahl said.

:eyes:

[saracat]

39. She also prefaced the "hands" remark with

"You'd think this was their first interview" in reference to JK and THK.Then she said "watch their hands".She was implying that they don't know how to handle themselves in an interview. And before someone flames me, I don't think she meant to be cute.Her tone of voice was not teasing.

[LittleApple81]

31. She even almost CONFESSED she has all the repug talking points:

Stahl: quote from interview
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO PORTRAY YOU AS A SERIAL FLIP - FLOPPER. THEY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT. I HAVE A DOCUMENT LIKE THAT (she made signs with her hands a foot wide) WITH ALL YOUR ALLEDGED SWITCHING AROUND ON ISSUES.

The question should be: who sent you the document?

video here
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/07/60minutes/main627965.shtml

[Lex]

35. Yes! That is *exactly* what I'm talking about!

That was bullshit!

[Kickin_Donkey]

40. Didn't see the interview, but it sounds par for the course ...

Lesley Stahl is just another inside-the-Beltway media whore acting like an eighth-grader trying to hang with the other Kool Kids in the class.

I can't remember where I saw it, but she gave an interview on the record a while back in which she said that it was so fun to pummel (paraphrase) Gore during the 2000 campaign, and that you don't go after a "popular" president (explaining why the media was soft on Bush).

She and others of her ilk are the reason I have completely stopped watching American network news.

The Democrats will always have to run against both their Republican opponents and the corporate media.

[kaitykaity]

42. You know, I'd love to see one of these corporate media whores

be one-tenth as hard on a Republican as they routinely
are on Democrats.

Charlie Rose is another example of this--he hammers on
Dems but let's Perle and Wolfowitz and the like spew their
rhetoric unchallenged.

It's disgusting.

[BOHICA06]

43. Its the Michael Moore effect ....

You will not see a friendly interview for some time ... well, maybe on Fox for the GOP! Moore has embarrassed journalist for not asking the tough questions, for not doing their job, for going lite. Now they are out to prove they are not "nice guys"

[DeepModem Mom]

47. You're right -- the media's been exposed, and they're angry! nt

[Toucano]

44. No, I don't agree.

She gave them a wonderful chance to address a lot of the ridiculous charges that have been leveled at them which they did BRILLIANTLY!

My 2 Johns were fantastic. But they couldn't have set the record straight about the issues if she had only asked them, "Boxers or Briefs?"

Set and spike!

I agree with you about the Iraq question, however. It was as if she was pretending to be too stupid to understand the answer which was as plain as the nose on her face.

All in all though, I thought she did well.

I was really impressed with Teresa's answers. I've never been a huge fan of Teresa, but she really impressed me tonight. WOW!

[JI7]

45. she was a disgusting stupid media whore

very nasty disgusting bitch. she seems uninformed of actual issues and just wants to repeat right wing shit. i'm disgusted by her.

[CaTeacher]

48. I was happy with the interview

I think it was OK. They came off good and had an opportunity to address some questions that they probably wanted to answer. All in all, it was a good opportunity. It was time in the public spotlight, popular show, primetime Sunday night. It is also good that it was NOT just a puff piece with lots of fawning over them. I think there is more credibility doing it this way. So I think it was all good.

[Bridget Burke]

50. So, I'm sure her Bush*/Cheney interview

(including their wives, of course) will be just as hard-hitting!

[OKNancy]

49. It was alright

She asked questions that have come up, and wasn't as bitchy as people have said in this thread. It was certainly not an interview that warrents nasty letters to CBS...or kudos either.

[phylny]

51. The interview was okay

but I thought Stahl was trying to come across as asking the "tough questions" - instead, she talked over both of them and came across poorly, at least to me. I agree with others that at least it was free face time for the Democrats, and they did a great job answering questions.

One positive thing is that my husband, who's voted Republican in all but one presidential election (he voted for Clinton the second time around) sat down and watched some of the interview. He seemed particularly interested as Teresa spoke, and I commented, "She's a pretty interesting woman." Later on, he asked, "Do you think she'll be a liability?" It gave me a chance to say that no, she's a smart woman, well-spoken, and I think she comes across well.

In all, he seemed impressed with her, and it's the first time he's sat and listened to Kerry/Edwards. The fact that he didn't walk away was good, as I'm working on him, hoping to change his vote.

Our 18-year-old daughter is already voting for Kerry/Edwards. Am I wrong for trying to make it a family hat trick? ;)