Media-battered Clinton calls for greater scrutiny

May 29, 2008

hillary1.jpgSIOUX FALLS, S.D. – As a Democratic presidential candidate, New York senator and former first lady, Hillary Clinton has had her share of media scrutiny. Still, she says the news media should become a more aggressive public watchdog.

“I really do. I really do,” Clinton told reporters when asked if she sincerely favors greater press scrutiny. 

“On the right things. On things that are important to the future of our country. On things that actually matter. I would love that,” said Clinton, long hounded by the press as one of the nation’s most popular yet polarizing figures.

Clinton made the remarks to reporters on her campaign plane on Wednesday night in wake of the new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who says the Bush administration manipulated information to lead the U.S. into the Iraq war.

“What I hope is that the press and the public and the political class will be much more vigorous and skeptical than everybody was,” Clinton said.

“Everyone, you know, in his or her own way, basically let the administration get away with it. And they got away with it. They got re-elected and here we are,” she said.

Referring to McClellan’s book as well as ones by other former administration officials, Clinton said, “Unfortunately, there were a lot of people in a position to know much more than most of us who went along.

“I find that very sad.”


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Hillary too is one who ‘went along’with Bush and she was in a position to scratch beneath the surface and read the entire document provided to the senate. As a Senator, she should have provided ‘better scrutiny’.

Posted by carol | Report as abusive

“Everyone, you know, in his or her own way, basically let the administration get away with it.”
What about the millions of people around the world who took to the streets to say something was not right about the Bush and Co. run to war? The Senate and Congress, along with the media, share the blame. It certainly wasn’t everyone.

Posted by Buck | Report as abusive

I wouldn’t say sad. I would say it’s scary that no one was investigating or following up on what they were being told. I feel the media is letting the public be lead like sheep to slaughter for not being objective. Everyone is just wanting to keep their jobs.

Posted by Araceli | Report as abusive

First she complains about too much press scrutiny then not enough. Hillary had the same or more access as everyone else and chose to vote with Bush on the war.

Posted by Suzanne | Report as abusive

Clinton is our best hope.

She has the voice/votes of the people and a stellar public service history.

The brokering of this primary by ‘delegates and party leaders’ is disturbing.
“The delegates will decide” has been the erie chant of this campaign.

Not so. The popular vote is worth fighting for.
That’s what democracy is all about.
… or used to be.

Posted by benjamin | Report as abusive

As an international employee assigned here during your election cycle, I am delighted to see a familiar and trusted face – Clinton. Her intellect and ability is supreme.

For many years, the Clintons were the youthful freshness of the US on the global stage. Their energy was infectious.

I am confused at the media negative bias toward Clinton. Her impressive accomplishments are minor footnotes, large wins are reported as trite. She is badgered to quit an election when the race is debatably closer than reports indicate. The ‘math’ of the popular vote is clear.

It is refreshing to see that the energy is still in her and that the majority of voters firmly support her. This too, is overlooked in news reports?

It would be a pity to put forth a lesser candidate as proof that racial bias is history in America. In the long term, it will intensify racial division. History has shown the world that this method has a disappointing outcome.

Field your BEST candidate. It is the right thing to do.

Posted by Niels | Report as abusive

I cannot imagine what a lousy president Hilary would make: my mind boggles!

That she speaks with a forked tongue shows her up for what she is: an extravagant hypocrite.

The US does not need someone who does not know her rear from her mouth, or her truisms from her misinformation!

I say retire, Hilary, before you disappear up one of your own murky plots.

We know what your first boss said about you: it speaks volumes on how dangerous you are.

I rest my case.

Posted by The Truth Is… | Report as abusive

The DNC has made it clear that they have a nominee that represents blacks and college kids and that they don’t care about women and working class voters. Obama’s supporters have made that abundantly clear in their comments to these blogs. What hasn’t yet dawned on women and working folks is that the democratic party no longer represents their interests – which means a new political party has splintered off from the democrats – a working class and women party to be exact. Hillary Clinton represents that constituency. Since the democrats will not be able to convince these voters – the ones that Obama has blatantly and consistently insulted – to accept the lesser of 2 evils – McCain vs. Obama – they will either change parties or vote for the lesser of 2 evils – McCain. The DNC has forced a split in the party – by its reckless disregard for women and working class voters – thank God Hillary is there to represent them.

Posted by Maile | Report as abusive

This is in response to Maile. I am a white, working class woman and I DO NOT THINK that Clinton represents me. I think she represents her power-hungry, murky, selfish motives.

Posted by jackie | Report as abusive