Video: Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor (Part 1)

Earlier tonight the first part of Hillary Clinton’s interview with Bill O’Reilly aired and, I have to say, it was a very interesting interview to watch. To her credit, Hillary sure did stand her ground and seemed to have come very prepared to counter O’Reilly’s questions and criticisms of her plans and policies.

Here is video of the entire first part which aired tonight in 2 segments:

A report on the interview from the AP:

SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday she found remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor to be “offensive and outrageous” and noted that her Democratic rival had spoken out forcefully against them.

“I think that he made his views clear, finally, that he disagreed. And I think that’s what he had to do,” Clinton said in an interview with Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly. The network released excerpts of the taped interview ahead of its airing Wednesday night.

It was the former first lady’s first appearance on the O’Reilly show, the most popular Fox News program and a staple of conservative media. Over the years, O’Reilly has been a staunch critic of both the New York senator and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Campaign aides said her appearance on the Fox News show was designed to reach out to working-class, independent white men who could decide the outcome of next week’s Indiana primary.

The second part will air Thursday evening, I’ll have that for you as well. Sound off below on what you think, too hard, too weak?

Update

Watch the second night of the interview here:

Video: Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor (Part 2)

  • I will give Hillary this, she knocked the interview out of the ball park. I would like to see Obama do that. She was well prepared, playful and hit back without breaking a sweat. O’Reilly also preformed well, good questions that were respectful but hard hitting. Hillary was very smart to appeal to the Reagan democrats and independent voters. So far so good, lets see how tomorrow night will go.

  • gregg

    flawless

  • Robert

    One word, “amazing.”

    This is far and away the best performance she’s ever given, down to the last detail. Obviously she really crammed for this one, and rightfully so. Having the balls to appear on O’Reilly in the first place has strong implications across the political spectrum, as O’Reilly commentated on after the fact. My only complaint would be that, as Dennis Miller suggested, O’Reilly moved quickly from topic to topic without really hammering her on anything specific. He sacrificed depth for range with this one, and still only scratched the surface.

    With Hillary marvelously pulling off stunts like this, and Obama drowning in the sea of Wright, perhaps we’ll see a turnaround in the next few weeks.

  • Shawn Rhodes

    I was really impressed with Hillary. I think she’s earned my Oregon!

  • Jeremy

    I am a known Hillary Hater among all of my friends but this interview was excellent.

    Bill O’Rielly hit it on the head when he talked about her polarizing personality. It really turns me off when I listen to Hillary. This interview actually showed some personality. I must admit, it actually made me turn my eye away from Obama/McCain and listen a bit.

    More of these pleasant surprises from Hillary just might make me start turning off my ignore mode as soon as she starts speaking.

  • Curtis

    Very proud of Hillary and her abilities! She’s great!

  • We will see how she does tomorrow night. It will be interesting to see if O’Reilly will hammer her hard on issues such as Iraq. I think the Iraq issue, if approached with careful thought on Hillary’s part, could possibly win her votes with independents. O’Reilly and Hillary have more in common then many would think. Frankly their discussion on oil proves that O’Reilly is not the “conservative” everyone says he is. I worry that b/c Bill and Hill agreed on issues such as oil, the far left with be out to draw blood. If anyone caught the Chris Wallace interview with Obama on Sunday, you have seen a man (Obama) who was very uncomfortable, unsure of his answers and almost as if he was caught off guard by Wallace’s line of questioning. So this interview with Hillary tonight made her look spectacular and Obama the fumbling fool.

  • CG, I’m sorry, I disagree. Obama appeared very confident and articulate during his talk with Chris Wallace. I think the only thing that made Obama seem put off about was that Wallace made the interview focus on lapel pins and the topic of race for over 18 minutes before getting into substantive topics (with less than 17 minutes left).

    If you want to compare these two different interviews, you need to realize the different contexts. Obama is the frontrunner at the moment, and Chris Wallace challenged him as such– but did it on non-policy-related issues for the majority of the time. And Obama actually did not take the bait with attacking Hillary.

    Here, Hillary is challenging the Democratic front runner, and Bill O’Reilly was supporting this contention. You can mark this from the very beginning of the interview, where O’Reilly starts with addressing Jeremiah Wright. Hillary embraced O’Reilly’s attempts to get into the mud-slinging, and to put in her jabs about Obama– and then only two minutes into this, began her stance of “talking about real issues.” Now, O’Reilly did press Hillary on her stances, and if you mark the amount of time that was given to “policy” it was extremely more generous than what was given to Obama.

    Where was Hsu in all of this? The Uranium mines? Her campaign leaking out information? Where was the ‘non-substantive’ focus on her? Tonight did make her look good, but is was structurally imbalanced, and there are different contexts to consider.

  • jack

    exactly michael, and on difficult issues she uses numbers from other presidents in which she wants credit for. I also disagree. Sorry but I’m not convinced…yet.

  • Robert

    O’Reilly and Clinton both agreed on the _problem_ of oil. That isn’t saying much; everyone who operates a vehicles knows we have a problem with oil. Hillary Clinton is still against ANWR drilling and nuclear power, which is where liberals and conservatives differ. Although, as oil prices continue to surge, I imagine the ideological points will fall to pragmatism. No one will care where energy comes from, so long as it’s cheap.

  • Babs

    I have to agree with CG on this one, Michael. Hillary’s answers were sharp and I think many were spontaneous and on the mark. I think Bill was trying to see if she could keep up with his sharp turns and she did. Obama’s interview seemed very scripted to me, else you would have heard a lot more stumbling on his part, as we did in the press conference concerning Wright. It’s just something in his DNA makeup, ask him off the cuff questions and he stumbles with a lot of ah’s and such until he can formulate the answer.

    I’m not a Hillary supporter, but she gets 2 thumbs up for this one.

  • jktss

    I am shocked that perhaps the best interview of a politician recently came from Bill. Great, hard questions. Hillary really did a good job too. This all from a McCain supporter who saw the ridiculous ‘War on Christmas’

  • Michael, it was as if I was attacking your candidate (Obama). Now we all know that I am no fan of Hill’s, but she did a stellar job in answering the questions. You have to remain objective until till you see the second half of the interview, don’t you? Or, are you going to be quick to rush to judgment, “Where was Hsu in all of this? The Uranium mines? Her campaign leaking out information? Where was the ‘non-substantive’ focus on her?”

    I would be more likely to give Obama props for a good interview if he actually had one. Sunday’s performance was sloppy, riddled with umm’s and ahh’s, that’s what qualifies as a bad interview. It sounds unprofessional and I suggest that candidates hire a speech coach if this is the issue. It may not effect you nor change your mind, but it does come off as fumbling, looking for words that are not there, being disorganized and having a lack of confidence. All this coming from the Messiah “who done no wrong”, well listen closely my friend, this is a man who is credited for his lingual skills. They must be M.I.A.

  • Whobody

    So, was Obama’s last interview “scripted” …or… “sloppy and fumbling”??

    From one Obama basher we hear that his interview on Sunday seemed scripted because we didn’t hear him fumbling, and another Obama basher says it was off-the-cuff because we did hear him fumbling.

    You two may be more convincing if you worked together.

    It’s also hard to believe someone is being objective when they use the “Messiah who done no wrong” label. I have never hear an Obama supporter ever use those words. It’s a little condesending to someone who is just supporting his candidate the same way you would yours.

    Much respect for your opinions, though, CG and Babs.

  • rd

    I’m a Democrat and an Obama supporter.

    But I give both Bill O’Reilly and Hillary high points for this debate.

    I liked the friendly, yet oppositional tone, and Hillary was quite charming & had some good ideas!

    Well done!

  • Babs

    “It’s also hard to believe someone is being objective when they use the “Messiah who done no wrong” label.”

    Whobody, it’s also hard to believe someone is being objective when they use the “Obama basher” label. Are you exempting yourself from objectivity?

  • Whobody

    So sorry to stray from objectivity.Honestly nothing was meant by it, and had more thought going into it I wouldn’t have wanted you to feel slighted.

    I don’t exempt myself from anything.

    Please replace “Obama basher” with “person talking about Obama”.

  • Babs

    *LOL* Did you get the links I left on the other thread you were asking for?

    I knew you didn’t think your post out well, where you said in the second paragraph that one said “scripted” and the other said “off the cuff”………those were both me. =)

  • Whobody

    I was actually using “off the cuff” as my own words to try and paraphrase (to get technical). I didn’t realize you had said it earlier.

    The point should be taken as:

    One said it seemed “scripted” because “you would have heard a lot more stumbling on his part,” and the other said it seemed “sloppy, riddled with umm’s and ahh’s.”

    Evidently the first one was well thought out enough for you to avoid the actual question I posed. 🙂

    I didn’t see the links yet, but I’ll check for them now. Thanks

  • Babs

    I didn’t need to answer the question, I was the object of the question. =)

    And I stand by what I said. How CG interprets Obama is totally CG, maybe she caught more fumbling in the interview than I did. But if you take all the umm’s and ahh’s out of the 17 minutes press conference on Wright it would have lasted less than 10. I think even as an Obama supporter you can admit he does this, can’t you?

  • Whobody

    Yea. He does. I’m glad he’s thinking about things and doesn’t just have a roladex of lines ready at prompt. I’m not going to tear someone down because of umm’s and ahh’s though.

    It’s a shallow arguement, just like most that are brought against Obama.

    It seems petty to me, and I wouldn’t downplay someone’s ideals based on broken speech (I work in an environment where there are serious stutterers and speech-language deficits, and when they can’t get their words out fast enough, I don’t tell them their lying or unprepared. And they are no less qualified for speaking than me, you, or the President of the U.S. To each their own.). If you think he’s fumbling over words b/c he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then, cool with me.

    If I was as scrutinized by the public for every word I said, I would slow my speech down and think about every umm single uh word … as umm well.

  • Babs

    *L* Well, there you go. I don’t think your environment of serious stutterers and speech-language deficits can be compared to Obama, he doesn’t have a speech impediment.

    Obama supporters say he’s “thoughtful” and Obama opposers say he’s “slow”. Maybe he’s slow and thoughtful. I don’t care why Obama stutters, all I did was note what you admit, he does this. And unless he’s going by a scripted speech or answer, he does this. So you can tell when he’s speaking “off the cuff” and without a script, that’s all.

  • Michael

    CG, I have been critical of Obama on numerous accounts. In one commentary, for example, I said he did a horrible job of campaigning in Ohio and Texas, and went into the negative politics with the 3AM ad response, instead of rising above it.

    I have, from the beginning of our radio shows, stated that I feel we have three very strong candidates in McCain, Obama, and Clinton. I do not think either of them is deficient for the office of the presidency. I have also repeatedly given my opinion on character attacks, which I think are more distracting than helpful.

    Furthermore, I have said that Hillary Clinton is a better public speaker. There is no question about this. I also have said on more than one occasion that she outperformed Obama in debates (especially the more recent ones).

    What I find interesting is that you neglected to examine and respond to my substantive points of my response, and instead launched a character attack on me. Which is quite ironic, on some level.

  • Babs

    Not to get in the middle of you two, but he’s right, CG. I would not have known he supports Obama, if he does. He’s been very fair in his analysis of all the candidates, and he hasn’t seemed to take one side against another. Now I’ll back out. =)

  • bennett

    So what… Hillary was asked some questions and she answered them with poise, the same with Obama and Chris Wallace… (I think we are all too used to the communication abilities of President Bush and now we are amazed when our politicians actually display an ability to be able to aricualte their ideas clearly and to be able to answer qeustions directly and clearly, this goes for people’s awe of Obama as well.) Is that not what we should expect from our politicians and public figures, the ability to communicate effectively?

  • Exactly bennett, that is an excellent point you make. My point was that a politician has a responsibility to communicate their points on issues effectively. Obama has failed to this. Then add in the umm’s and ahh’s and it’s disastrous. There is no message besides hope and change, that’s not enough in this day in age.

    Michael, accusing you of being an Obama supporter was a joke! Lighten up! It has just seemed that you are always quick to defend Obama and his actions in these discussions. He did bad on the Wallace interview, there’s no reason to defend him. If he wants to be President, he’ll need to be ready to answer every question, not just the ones he finds convenient. Wallace showed that Obama doesn’t have answers for some questions, in fact, perhaps Wallace showed Obama is being dishonest about some questions since he stumbles on answering.

    Again though, just poking fun and trying to be humorous, I realize you and others didn’t see the humor so I apologize.

  • Michel

    He did bad in the Wallace interview??? I don’t think so. I think he did pretty well.

    And whoever thinks that the interview was scripted with all the “ums” and the “..you know” must think of Obama as a really really clever guy. A guy that can make a scripted interview look like the real deal.

    Babs, I guess you didn’t get that last bit. It was meant for you.

  • Carlos

    Bill “The no-spin-zone-man” is dancing with the devil. His interview is contrived and avoids the kind of confrontation that once upon a time one would expect from him. As soon as there is a moment of awkwardness he rushes to the next question, excusing lack of depth because of time constraints. The question he asked “aren’t you surprised that Fox is being fair to you , more so than other networks?” makes you wonder, what kind of sweet deal is Murdock getting in return…

  • Michel

    Hahahahaha!

    Good point Carlos 🙂