NY Times' Kornblut legitimized book of poorly sourced, unverifiable Sen. Clinton quotations
SUMMARY: A New York Times article by Anne Kornblut inaccurately equated "conservative activist" Thomas D. Kuiper's recently released book of quotations by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- which Kornblut admitted is "culled from disputed sources or unverifiable private conversations" -- with other collections of quotes from the likes of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, which are taken from the official transcripts of their public appearances.
In an April 16 article, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut equated "conservative activist" Thomas D. Kuiper's recently released book of quotations from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) with other collections of quotes from the likes of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. But while Kornblut acknowledged, near the end of the article, that many of the quotes in Kuiper's book "have been culled from disputed sources or unverifiable private conversations," the article rests on the premise -- as indicated by its headline, "For Politicians, Yadda, Yadda May Become Gotcha" -- that the three collections are part of the same trend: public figures' having their quotations captured and highlighted for the public's amusement. By highlighting the Kuiper book, Kornblut is putting it in a class with the Bush and Rumsfeld quotation collections without noting a key distinction: No one has questioned the accuracy of the quotes attributed to Bush and Rumsfeld, which appear in official transcripts of their public appearances.
In her article, Kornblut highlighted Kuiper's book, "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan": Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words (World Ahead Publishing, April 2006), as the newest arrival in a burgeoning genre. Kornblut wrote that "the junior senator from New York is in excellent company, as a much-watched politician whose every word is under scrutiny." She went on to compare the collection of Clinton's quotes to Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg's "Bushisms" series and Hart Seely's Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld (Free Press, 2003).
But an article that discusses the Kuiper book in the same context as the Weisberg and Seely books suggests a similarity that isn't there. Even the headline of Kornblut's article -- "For Politicians, Yadda, Yadda May Become Gotcha" -- suggests that Kuiper accurately captured what Clinton has said. In fact, Kuiper compiled purported quotations from Sen. Clinton that are, in many cases, based on hearsay and sourced to critical and discredited books written by conservative authors. Among Kuiper's references: Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery, 1999), Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access : An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House (Regnery, 1996), George Carpozi Jr.'s Clinton Confidential: The Climb to Power (Emery Dalton Books, 1995), Ann Coulter's High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998), Laura Ingraham's The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in all the Wrong Places (Hyperion, 2000), Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President (Sentinel, 2005), Peggy Noonan's The Case Against Hillary Clinton (Regan Books, 2000), and Dick Morris's Rewriting History (Regan Books, 2004). Media Matters for America has documented numerous false, exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims in the books by Klein and Morris.
By contrast, Weisberg's Bush quotes, for example, are all gathered from publicly available transcripts and videos. Seely, in the introduction to his book on Rumsfeld, makes clear that he compiled the included excerpts from transcripts available on the Department of Defense website.
In addition to including many unverifiable quotes, Kuiper's book took many other Clinton quotes out of context. For example, Kuiper claimed that after reading an article by a University of California-Berkeley student "critical" of her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, Sen. Clinton asked a Secret Service agent, "What the f*** is going on?" Kornblut reported this quote in the April 16 article, simply describing it as an "alleged use of vulgarity toward a Secret Service agent." But what Kuiper failed to note -- and Kornblut failed to explain -- is the content of the column that provoked the then-first lady's purported response. The column's author, Berkeley senior Guy Branum, had "revealed the Stanford University dormitory where Chelsea Clinton lives and urged Cal students to 'show your school spirit on Chelsea's bloodied carcass,' " according to the November 26, 1997, San Francisco Chronicle article cited by Kuiper. The Chronicle article went on to explain that Sen. Clinton's alleged exclamation was recounted secondhand by a Secret Service agent as he was searching Branum's residence. But when asked about that secondhand account by the Chronicle, a Secret Service spokesman called it "an outrageous lie."
At one point near the end of her article, Kornblut conceded that many of the quotations highlighted by Kuiper are derived from questionable sources. In the same sentence, however, she managed to advance a common right-wing attack intended to paint Clinton as dishonest and pandering:
Many of the quotations in " 'I've Always Been a Yankees Fan' " (which shows Mrs. Clinton on the cover in a Chicago Cubs hat) have been culled from disputed sources or unverifiable private conversations.
Indeed, in uncritically describing the cover of the book, Kornblut endorsed Kuiper's suggestion that Clinton lied about her allegiance to the New York Yankees in order to gain support for her 2000 Senate bid. But the quote comes from a June 10, 1999, interview on NBC's Today, in which Clinton went on to explain, "I am a Cubs fan, but I needed an American League team ... so as a young girl, I became very enamored with the Yankees." Her claim that she is a longtime Yankees fan is corroborated by a September 12, 1994, Washington Post article that reported, "Mrs. Clinton ... as a kid was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle." Moreover, a photograph (#40) that appears in Clinton's autobiography, Living History (Simon & Schuster, 2003), shows her wearing a Yankees hat in 1992, as Media Matters for America has noted.
The Times recently assigned Kornblut to regularly cover Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign, according to The New York Observer.
Ms. Kornblut,
That word is: Pathetic.
Congratulations on having your "journalism" or work if you like described that way. GOP talking points taken in for too long can lead to this kind of "journalism" happening on a regular basis. I suggest a diet of "reality" and "fact" will help wean you off them.
fits right in with the FNC use of "some people say" and "sources report" and "as reported previously", to lie and distort. This is known as "F & B" Reporting; Fair and Balanced or Fibs and BS!
... that the rightwing smear merchants must MAKE UP quotes in order to try to cast Democrats in a bad light.
In order to be cast in a bad light, all Republicans need do is SPEAK.
This smearmerchant crap smells of the Ann Coulter "avalanche of footnotes" scheme to make her book appear "well researched". Any casual scrutiny at all revealed footnote references which would be rejected by any halfway competent Jr. High English teacher, as being improper "support" for her points.
What surprised me is the NUMBER of "Smear Hillary" books out there from rightwing assassins. They must REALLY fear this woman, to devote so much time hating her.
Here is what I found when I sourced her first four footnotes from Treason:
Two were "quotes of quotes": She took a quote from, say, 1920 sourced in an article written in, say, 1995 then sourced the "quote" as if it were contemporary thought, as if it was originally coined in 1995. Patently dishonest.
<>Two, from the same article, were "parsed": No whole cloth here. Both "quotes" from a well-written article on patriotism were taken out of context then submerged in a lagoon of her smear-happy fecal gibberish. Incredibly dishonest.
If she were a Democratic hitman (and I do mean man), she would have been discredited--her epaulettes torn off and thrown in the dust--by every "journalists" on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. The fact that she isn't living sharing a cave with bin Ladin is a testament to the Republican skew in the free press.
to put this book of "quotes" on the same level as verifiable statements by others. actually though, it's typically right wing. can't find enough legitimate things to say? make some up. and if hillary did say what the f... is going on, i can't blame her, when some genius tells others to "show your school spirit on chelsea's bloody carcass". that is certainly way more to the story than just trying to say it was a column "critical" of chelsea.
How is Hillary saying, "What the f**k is going on?" to a Secret Service agent worse than Darth Cheney telling a respected member of Congress, "F**k you!" in an open forum???
And what is it about this woman that scares the bejeezus out of every sniveling neocon and psuedo-Repuplican? Are they that convinced that she can and will win the Presidency if she runs that they are pulling out all the stops to scuttle her beforehand?
When will we see real journalists present real articles, well-researched and vetted, instead of this tripe?
...with people in the hallowed halls of Congress acting like they are ten years old, and not very well reared ten year olds.
On the other hand, I don't find it too alarming that a parent might exclaim something unrepeatable if they found out someone was advocating the brutal death of their daughter.
Why does the Right hate this woman?
Because she's educated. Because she's intelligent. Because she's a successful woman. Because she dared to speak up and not be a docile, doe-eyed First Lady like the pathetic ninnies who came before and after. Because she is not constantly in the kitchen or the bedroom. Because she is everything they hate in a woman.
This is just a continuation of the tactics used to "Swiftboat" Kerry. You march your legions out there to throw out rumor and then hit the "squawk" shows. Or maybe they "Hillaried" Kerry, since they have been beating this drum since Bill was President.
The saddest part of this is that there are a group of people out there that will treat this as gospel. And their blind faith will not require the right to offer up one shred of evidence, despite their proven capacity to lie.
You are right, there IS a "group out there" who will believe anything fed them by the rightwing smear machine.
By now, we know that this group represents about 34%.
No matter WHAT happens, this 34% will remain loyal to the Republicans: It is their solid base. Luckily, it's not enough people to vote in a dog catcher.
On Franken's Air America show, the results of a POLL of ALL of the 8000 or so retired generals and admirals were given, and they were interesting. On the condition their individual opinion on whether Rumsfeld should be fired be kept strictly confidential, the result was that 70% said he should be kicked out or resign. This leaves the predictable 30% hard core to support Bush in his decision to keep Rummy on.
SEVEN out of ten Americans now believe Bush to be a total failure and disaster. And the trials for corruption and illegality are just getting started ... it just MAY get worse for Bush, as the actual TRUTH of his corruption begins to come out.
George W. Bush; America's WORST PRESIDENT EVER. The history books await.
by now, far and away the most corrupt.
I did a quick Google and ran across this quote: "----- was deeply haunted by the failures of his early life, and he was loyal out of all proportion to anyone who had ever been nice to him. As a result, he appointed his friends to office, and soon his administration was racked with incompetence and corruption."
No, wrong number of letters. It was another president with U.S. in his name: Ulysses S. Grant, whose cronyism and loyalty to friends rendered his administration the one known through history as the nation's most corrupt. Guess which party was in control? Same as now, of course.
[link to www.americanpresident.org]
that 34% scares the poopadoop outta me. I suggest 3 reasons for their insane fealty:
1. In voting for Bush, they made a mistake that has damaged America and will damage America for years...and from which America might never fully recover: to admit error makes cognitive space for this.
2. They have an infantile notion of loyalty and authority. They believe that the person with authority truly deserves it and that the person with authority truly deserves our support.
3. They've stopped thinking and have possibly even lost the ability for critical thought. Rush and their pastor tell them how to vote.
To engage my own question of why the Right harbors a precious hatred of Hillary, I think she's the anti-Laura and Laura for the 1952-loving Right embodies feminine perfection: she is passive, demure, and does nothing other than wear pastels. Laura was a schoolmarm. Hillary is a lawyer. Laura smiles, ever so slightly. Hillary takes the Right's fusillades and keeps on sailing. But most of all, when you look in Hillary's eyes, you can see that someone is in there.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment. My fear is, this grand ol' US of A may not be 'ready' for a woman president. What are your thoughts on that?
I think many Americans, both male and female, aren't ready for a female president. You know, Peet, our technology is breathtaking. For example, GPS and cochlear implants do more than dazzle: they lead the lost to safety and let the deaf hear. They are the scientific equivalent of Biblical miracles. But whereas our science has evolved, we, in many ways, haven't. There are millions of American citizens that believe a person's plumbing is connected to their competence.
However, gender is happenstance. There's a 50/50 chance that you'll have inner or outer gonads. But plumbing has little to do with the person, with their intellect, their proclivities, and their aspirations.
Some citizens will employ GPS to reach their poling place. A few will employ cochlear implants to interact with the poling people. But then, to vote, they'll employ assumptions about gender that are a million years old. It's ludicrous. And 50 percent of the time, it has precluded us from finding the best person for president. Because of our fixation on plumbing, we have far too many times given America's tiller to the less than best person.
It's madness. And it's even worse than I just depicted, for we've had no black presidents. No Hispanic presidents. No Asian presidents. And few poor presidents. We rarely get the choicest slice of America's demographic pie for prez because the first 40-some presidents have been white guys and too many citizens assume that a white guy is the best guy.
Now, I'm white. And female. But this doesn't mean I want a white female to be prez. I want someone that's wicked smart and wise and brave and decent. I want someone that takes a vow and protect the Constitution and means it. I don't want a chickenhawk, someone that avoids war, but is willing to send other people's sons and daughters off to war. If such a person happened to be a Cajun hermaphrodite, they'd get my vote. And if such a person happened to be a rich, white guy, he'd also get my vote.
Peet,
You ask in your post for a comment whether or not the U.S. is "ready" for a female president. I'll comment, however, please understand that I'm not pointing my comment directly at you (unless you deserve it - and only you know if you deserve it!).
Is the U.S. ready for a female president. Absolutely. We are more than ready for anything other than some old white guy. Whether people believe themselves to be "ready" or not, IMHO, is irrelevant. Those who believe that the U.S. isn't ready for Hillary (or any other qualified female) for president are SEXIST, plain and simple. Those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a well-qualified African-American, Hispanic or Asian are RACIST. Period. What other reason could there be? If a person is qualified to do the job, their gender and race are totally irrelevant. In my opinion, Hillary is qualified to be president - much more so than the idiot we have as president now.
Now, Peet, I have a question for you (or anyone else who would care to chime in): I'd like to explore the idea of America's "readiness" for a female president a bit further. What makes a country "ready" for a female president?
Nicaragua was "ready" 20 years ago. The Phillipines have been "ready" for many years. Germany became "ready" just late last year. There have been many female leaders/presidents/prime-ministers world-wide...but not in the U.S.
So, what makes a country "ready", and why?
I'm not trying to start any argument, and I agree fully with what you've said. It's just food for thought - and maybe another conversation starter for some critical thinking. I know I am a tad bit off-topic, but it is still extremely relevant.
CSL
I appreciate your comments. And, I agree with what you say. I am the youngest of three with two accomplished and intelligent older sisters, as well as a dynamo of a mother who ran a successful restaurant for 20 years.... all shaped my perceptions of women at an early age -- needless to say, I have no preconceived notions about whether a man is 'better' than a woman. Quite the contrary. I often feel that women are better suited for roles of authority and diplomacy (is that reverse sexism?) I don't know.
I raise the point because I feel (through my interactions with a broad range of folks, both working class, educated, etc)...both man and woman... it seems to me that we have been programmed in this country to be unaccepting of the idea of a woman president (is that the ultimate expression of the 'glass ceiling'?) For all the talk about equal rights, I believe there is still a great deal of sexism in this country ...
Would I vote for Hillary, if she were to win the nomination? Absolutely. Do I think she would win? I'm not sure.
...of course, you're correct. If Hillary is the best candidate, she should win the nomination -- anything else would be sexist. But, that's not what I'm getting at. I understand the definitions of sexism, racism, etc.
But, we (people, the US, the world) find any number of reasons to feel certain ways about race, gender, social station... and blame them on any number of other -- more 'acceptable' reasons -- religion, biology, etc. Does that make it right? Of course not. But, it's what humans do I think -- rationalize bad behavior... Hell, look at this current neocon admin... pathetic.
This is a serious issue for me... because I struggle with the notion of HAVING to win the upcoming congressional elections, as well as the presidential election...versus doing -- in my mind -- what's truly right. The struggle comes because I fear that our current collective social mindset -- I believe as a continued direct assault by this necon fascist fundamentalist movement -- has devolved to a point where 'we' (the average voter) may find the notion of a woman president out of the question...
So, does one play into the hands of the fascist fundamentalists and deny, perhaps, the most qualified candidate (clinton) a shot at the top job? Or, do we play for the ideal and see where the chips fall? I would love to believe that the ideal will win out over petty selfish disagreements, etc... but, my faith in human nature is at a low these days.
I sort of responded to 'common sense' below also... so, this response may be a little disjointed.
My question is based, not as a result of my personal feelings, but I believe as a legitimate remark concerning our country at large. Do I personally believe that women are every bit as capable and 'worthy' as any man... of course. As I said below, my family structure molded my perceptions of women (for the good) at an early age. The notion of sexism, chauvinism, etc... just weren't tolerated. Nor should they be. But, these ideals, I believe, must be taught...learned.
I think our country -- for all the big talk about equal rights -- is still a fundamentally racist and chauvinistic place... Does Hilary deserve the nomination? I've heard her speak many times and I think she would be excellent. But, would she win an election for president? I don't know.
...the response (below) I keep referring to, rather, is 'above' :)
Peet,
Your comments were well-received. Thank you. I think if more people thought along your line of thinking, our country would be better off.
CSL
"To engage my own question of why the Right harbors a precious hatred of Hillary, I think she's the anti-Laura and Laura for the 1952-loving Right embodies feminine perfection: she is passive, demure, and does nothing other than wear pastels. Laura was a schoolmarm. Hillary is a lawyer. Laura smiles, ever so slightly. Hillary takes the Right's fusillades and keeps on sailing. But most of all, when you look in Hillary's eyes, you can see that someone is in there." -holly-
***
Holly, I normally enjoy and agree with most of your posts, but I'm disappointed with this one. Your description of Laura Bush as some kind of Stepford Wife is both demeaning and incorrect.
Describing her as a mere "schoolmarm" (your word) in order to belittle her accomplishments as a teacher and librarian in comparison to Hillary Clinton's profession as a former lawyer was uncalled for. I personally have more respect for teachers and librarians than most lawyers.
What you did here was eerily similar to what I've come to expect from the Right.
Both woman deserve respect, that Laura Bush has chosen not to imitate Hillary in her role as First Lady doesn't diminish her as a person, or as a First Lady.
I suggest you google 'Laura Bush' to read about her educational background, her work history, and her accomplishments as First Lady.
I admire both woman for different reasons, and don't feel I must knock one to exalt the other.
I may not agree with Laura Bush's taste in men, but I could say the same thing about several of my very accomplished girlfriends.
feel free to disagree with me anytime. I make mistakes. Lots of 'em. But I think you mistook my intent. I was a schoolmarm for 23 years. After that, I taught at Harvard, became a writer that's read by hundreds of thousands, have half a dozen book contracts, etc., but the coolest, sexiest, most important thing I've ever done was schoolmarming. However, schoolmarming is also a classic female profession. Lawyering is not. Schoolmarming fits the classic expectations. Lawyering does not. Ask me what matters more and I'd say, "Schoolmarming." Much more. It might be our most important profession.
So, my intent wasn't to disparage schoolmarms. That would be both stupid AND self-loathing and whereas I do have my self-loathing days, today is not such a day. My intent was to note that Laura is a classic female. Hillary is not. Laura is passive. Hillary is active. The 2 years that Laura did work, she cared for kids. Hillary, on the other hand, has worked all her life: lawyering, legislating, investing, etc. A hundred years ago or even 50 years ago, if you had described Hillary's life sans pronouns, folks would assume that she is a man. If you'd done the same with Laura's life, folks would have assumed that she is a woman.
But thanks for disagreeing. Really. It keeps us all alert. And disagreement is both the foundation of liberalism and democracy.
Hugs and kisses,
Holly
in general may take pleasure in your sweet response. Some c.v.! No wonder many of us find ourselves impatient for your input - always concise, articulate, thought-provoking and with style.
You are too kind. My CV is not as impressive as it seems. Being a writer mostly means that I isolate myself (Translation: no life) and grow pale and pathetic (Imagine Gollum here.). And I was ejected from Harvard for rabble-rousing, thus I became a writer in desperation. So, I'm just a desperada. But it's great that you enjoy my posts. However, whenever I'm posting at MM, I'm avoiding my work.
P.S. - I forgot to mention that I don't just have self-loathing days. I have stupid days too.
P.P.S. - I truly do adore teachers. Here's my epitaph: "Schoolmarm. Sweet, eh?"
Comedian has a great special on HBO called "Assume the Position". In it he quotes a John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart film called "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The quote is from a reporter who finds out that a local legend, Jimmy Stewart, didn't really shoot Liberty as everyone thought, but it was the Duke that did the deed. In the face of the truth the reporter tears up his notes and tells Jimmy when the legend becomes fact print the legend. This is exactly what they want to do to hillary
Your article states that the books by Klein and Morris have both been discredited by MMfA. Although I personally don't believe a single word written by Coulter, Ingraham, Aldrich, et al, but, just to clarify for the righties out there that will bring this up - have MMfA or other sources brought into question the tripe written by these other "authors"? I'm just anticipating the troll attacks, saying "Well, they may have discredited Klein and Morris, but what about all those other books??" Because, once again, if you have enough people repeating the same lies over and over, it becomes accepted as truth.
H. Clinton's biography is a good read. It does a good job revealing why she remains popular and how she contended with the participants in the Trashmasters Fishy Tournaments, including the media mash over the Yankees cap. Following her book with Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" provides a good foundation for understanding why she could win and the tools that will be used to try to prevent that from happening.
Everybody,right.