Ignoring Clintons' pre-primary pledge to support Democratic candidate, Blitzer remarked that "now both oppose" Lieberman's independent candidacy
On the August 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, after host Wolf Blitzer noted that former President Bill Clinton campaigned for incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost to challenger Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary, he asked: "So, why is [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] meeting with Ned Lamont today?" Blitzer reported that the Clintons both "supported Lieberman over Lamont in the primary ... [b]ut now both oppose Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall, and they are now backing Lamont." In fact, both Bill and Hillary Clinton declared their intentions to support the winner of the Democratic primary, regardless of who that turned out to be, well before Lamont defeated Lieberman.
In a press release highlighted by the Associated Press on July 5, Sen. Clinton said: "I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee. ... But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary." As Media Matters for America noted, on July 21, the New York Daily News quoted Bill Clinton's spokesman as saying that the former president "respects the primary process and will support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary." The primary occurred on August 8.
From the August 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: -- and her husband campaigned for Joe Lieberman. So, why is Senator Hillary Clinton meeting with Ned Lamont today? The answer in today's "Political Radar."
[...]
BLITZER: Let's get a quick check of our "Political Radar" this Friday.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is offering additional support for Democrat Ned Lamont's campaign to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Clinton met with Lamont at her home in Chappaqua, New York. It was their first face-to-face since Lamont defeated Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary.
No reporters, no TV cameras were allowed in the meeting, but a Clinton spokeswoman tells CNN that -- spokesman, that is, tells CNN that the senator offered to host a fundraiser for Lamont down the road.
A Lieberman spokesman dismisses that as old partisan politics. Senator Clinton and her husband supported Lieberman over Lamont in the primary and former President Clinton even campaigned for Lieberman. But now, both oppose Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall and they're now backing Lamont.
We'll see how strongly they actually do back Lamont.
Its all true, why is Media Matters reporting this garbage?
...of that just reporting the item as Blitzer did, a less informed individual may conclude that the Clinton's had flipped-flopped on their Lieberman/Lamont support. I.e., the error MMFA is reporting is an error of omission. Make sense now?
Good clarification. I'd just add that Blitzer's bias may go deeper than simply partisanship. As a former AIPAC lobbyist, he has been accused of having a pro-Israeli slant (see wikipedia's "criticism and contoversy" section on Blitzer). More recently, in the early phase of the Lebanon conflict, former Salon.com editor Eric Boehlert noted Blitzer's slanted reporting of that conflict. Nothing wrong with being pro-Israel, but a good reporter should present balanced news reports. See cnnEXPOSED for more.
They are trying to pretend the Clintons are flip flopping and have no political will when it is obvious to anyone that being strong committed Democrats that they WOULD do, exactly as they said BEFORE THE VOTE, support the winner of the Democratic primary, the DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. Now I am not a Dem so if I switched because of the direction I saw the political winds blowing this would be a valid complaint. These two are leaders in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and their allegience is clear. These wingnut commentators KNOW THIS, they dont need this to be pointed out to them yet they are making this disengeuous argument anyway. THAT is the issue, strait up disinformation and spin
As it has already been said if someone was watching that show and didn't know that both Bill and Hillary made it clear before the primary that they would support who won that person would get from Blitzer that the Clintons' had abbandoned Liebermann which is not even in the same vicinity of the truth.
That is why Media Matters is reporting on it, to set the record straight.
In my previous post only clear was supposed to be bold. I forgot to close the tag
Over the past few days, many people have said they're closing tags, yet it doesn't work. Will mine?
What Blitzer said is the truth but it is not the whole truth. The truth Blitzer provided results in a false conclusion that the Clintons are flipfloppers. The whole truth results in the true conclusion that the Clintons are fulfilling their promise to support the winner of the primary.
Apparently lies are OK with you as long there are some facts in there somewhere.
Blitzer choosing to open the discussion in the manner in which he did gives the impression of duplicitous or inconsistent behavior, thus reinforcing common Conservative stereotypes of Democratic candidates - "Flip-Flop", etc.. The fact that Clinton clearly stated his intention to "support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary" should have been mentioned upfront.
You'll notice that Blitzer's statement - "But NOW, both oppose Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall and they're NOW backing Lamont." is also misleading. They are, in fact, doing exactly what they said they would do. There is nothing "NOW" about it.
In Blitzers defense, he was probably just trying to create some sort of conflict or tension within his teaser and his introduction to the piece. Most cable news, and television in general, is about creating some sort of drama to keep people watching.
One last word. This particular piece is completely in line with MMFA's mission to expose media misinformation.
Lets see...
Hillary and Bill supported Liberman in the Primary.
Now they've ..uh 'flipped' and support Lamont.
What happened to their support of Joe? Looks like it 'flopped' to me.
But according to my friends here even though it looks like a flip-flop and talks like a flip-flop and flip-flops like a flip-flop, it is not.
For some reason, because the Clintons made it clear they would flip-flop if Lamont won, before the election, it somehow is not flip-flopping?
I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Kool-aid anyone?
(Thanks for today's laugh!)
Sorry AA, don't follow your line of reasoning. The Clintons made their position very clear. They said they would support the Democratic Primary victor, which is exactly what they are doing. They also made it clear prior to the primary that they preferred Lieberman over Lamont as the potential candidate, but they are sticking with party affiliation rather than to divide the party. Any support of Lieberman by Clinton in the general election would have the effect of weakening the nominee - a very cogent approach, and very clearly stated. Neither of them lied or misled anyone in their intentions.
Back away from the kool-aid, its doing your brain no favors. Are you REALLY pretending that supporting YOUR party's nominee for the seat is somehow wrong???? Perhaps on Planet Wingnut. They supported Libermoan in the PRIMARY, when he lost they ACCEPTED the vioce of he democrats in Conneticut as to who they wanted to represent them only in some twisted version of reality where anything can be reality as long as its repeated often enough does this somehow constitute a flip flop, or even ANY change of position at ALL. Torture logic all you want since it isnt protected by the Geneva Convention but PLEASE dont pretend it makes sense
I never said it was wrong. I simply said it was flip-flopping.
People, including politicians, can support candidates for whatever reason they choose. However to simply back a candidate because of his party affiliation is in my opinion, unprincipled. Either you support a a candidate based on his record, character, and promises or you don't. Party affiliation has nothing to do with those attributes. So one's support of a candidate shouldn't either even though, in this case, it does.
All that needs to be said is that the Clintons were a little late dumping the party's 2000 VP candidate. They simply waited to see which way the wind was blowing and it exposed them as Blitzer pointed out.
I hardly see how the Clintons' position constitutes a flip-flop. They supported the candidate they thought was best, and that candidate lost the election. Unlike Lieberman, they're now respecting the voters of Connecticut and backing the winner of that election.
Backing the winner of a primary election, regardless of who one supported during the primary, is a pretty common practice, as someone else has pointed out below. If that constitutes a "flip-flop" in your mind, well, I guess you'll have to admit that Republicans also flip-flopped when they transfered their support from McCain to Bush in 2004.
The very purpose of primaries is to concentrate party supports on one party candidate in the general election so that it is not split resulting in the other party winning.
In EVERY primary in every election it is common for politicians to promise to support the winner of the primary if their original horse loses. It happened in the 2004 presidential election where supporters of John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, etc. placed their support with John Kerry after he won the primary race.
Don't start thinking that only Democrats do it either. Republicans did it to in 200o. After Bush won the primary race, guess who supporters of John McCain and Alan Keyes voted for. By your definition, every year 2000 John McCain and Alan Keyes supporter is a flipflopper. If you supported Orrin Hatch in the 1996 and voted for Bob Dole in the general election, you are huge flipflopper.
Your logic is weak AnotherAmerican.
Wolf Blitzer has been whoring for the conservatives and Republicans in American Politics for many years. He is being extremely misleading here. While what he is saying is technically the truth, he says it in such a way that would insinuate a flip-flop by the Clintons. The Clintons said that they would support Lieberman in the primary, but if he lost in the primary, they would then support Lamont in the general election, and keep their allegiance within the Democratic Party. The same thing is done in the presidential elections, for the most part. People within a certain party support a certain candidate in the primary, but once the primary is over and a candidate for that party is chosen, most people within the party throw their support behind that particular candidate for President. Blitzer attempts to paint a picture of flip-flopping, which is clearly not the case here. How this guy passes as a serious journalist is beyond me. He should be ashamed of himself and exposed for what he is and kudos to Media Matters for America for doing just that.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
so of course they will continue to use the flipflop tactic even if they have to fabricate the flip out of thin air.
Or maybe they truly believe that the popularity contest is more important than the party?
Nahhh they're just pissed because mister neocon in disguise Lieberman lost the primary.
is unending. Bill Clinton's intelligence and political savvy enraged Republicans then and continues to do so today. They didn't have the mental midget that they so easily control today. Hillary represents to them all things Clinton, so the junior senator from New York has become their target du jour. Conservative misogynists will use every vile descriptive in their tiny vocabularies in their attempts to villify Senator Clinton, as she represents their worst nightmare, a powerful and articulate woman who doesn't neccesarily listen to her husband.
Republicans are not going to get over their pet Democrat's Primary defeat anytime soon. Fact is, Lieberman's sanctimony created his own demise. His recent backpedaling on troop withdrawal will make no difference. He has been exposed. There is an old Bengali proverb called jangal ki raja, the jackal who would be king. The jackal wanders into a village and accidentally falls into a vat of blue dye. Upon returning to the forest, all the animals stare at him in wonderment and say, "Who is this new animal?" The jackal seizes upon their confusion and delares himself the king of beasts. The other animals accept his declaration and worship him as king. Unfortunately, when the full moon rises, the jackal acts instinctively and howls at the full moon, at which point all the other animals realize that it is just a jackal and chase him off. When Lieberman made his speech after his primary defeat, he revealed to all that he was just another jackal.
Februsmax posted:
"Bill Clinton's intelligence and political savvy enraged Republicans then and continues to do so today. " _______________________________________________
It was especially that political savvy that basically handed over the congress to the Republicans in the '94 Republican Revolution. It was going to happen anyway, Clinton just hastened it along by about five years!
Please nominate Hillary in '08. It will be snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
It wasn't so much Clinton't political savvy, but the repubs realization that they weren't going to get the "thinkin" part of the country.
That's the right's savvy-they snatched up the scared, flag waving, bible-thumping part of us that thought a BJ trumped anything.
Some of you are coming around, some faster than others.
Hillary's a neo-con. She supports everything bad the US does. She's not leading any crusade to change America for the better. She's slime. She votes FOR the war, FOR the corporate corruption, she kisses Israeli arse. She's War Party thru and thru. She's been booed at events by real liberals because she tells them she won't support bringing our troops home. She might as well stamp "porco fascisti" on her forehead.
But the fascist press will NEVER mention any of this. They will scream "liberal!" at her, even though she's far from it. As long as the Military/Industrial Complex can con the masses into thinking that the collaborationist Dems are an opposition party, they're assured to get their men (or women) into power no matter who votes for them.
Seriously. Is he?
I mean how dumb do you have to be to not understand the concept of supporting the winner? The Clintons were perfectly clear in their intentions yet someone as thick as AA doesn't understand?
Or is he just doing the typical GOP thing and going, BUT BUT BUT CLINTON...
They still haven't gotten over Clinton have they? If I didn't think Hillary wouldn't be a terrible president I'd want her in the White House just to pizz them off.
GORE/FIENGOLD 08!!!
hahaha.. thanks for showing us your highly principled and well thought out reasoning for voting Democratic!
This is just like the report Wolfman did in 2000.
He ran against George W. Bush in the primary elections. So, why is Senator John McCain meeting with the Bush campaign today? The answer in today's "Political Radar."
Senator John McCain is offering additional support for Republican George W. Bush's campaign to defeat Vice President Al Gore. Senator McCain met with Bush at his home on Mars. It was their first face-to-face since Bush defeated McCain in the Republican primaries.
No reporters, no TV cameras were allowed in the meeting, but a McCain spokeswoman tells CNN that -- spokesman, that is, (heh, spokeswoman, how ridiculous a concept) tells CNN that the senator offered to host a fundraiser for Bush down the road.
Senator McCain actually ran against Bush in the primaries. But now, he opposes the idea of running as an independent this fall and is now backing Bush.
We'll see how strongly he actually does back Bush.
No need to prove it again by your overzealousness and automatic replies disparaging me. It is becoming trite.
Look, Clintons support candidate A over candidate B. Candidate B wins the primary. Clintons now support candidate B even though candidate A is still running.
It's that simple. It's called flip-flop.
I worry about some of you. You'd think you'd know by now that I am well aware of how politics works. So for some of you to go off on you little rants only shows how rabidly partisan you are.
Yes, I know it was a primary and I know that for the Clinton's, Democratic Party affilliation trumps support for Lieberman. Hell, everybody knows that.
What I find amusing is that this primary shows again how lacking in principle the Clinton's have shown themselves to be. If Lieberman had quit the race, I would have understood better their switching allegiance. We all know it happens all the time in politics. But Lieberman did not. Since he's still running, Clinton's have exposed (heheheh) themselves again as unprincipled party hacks.
It's that simple. It's so obvious that everyone, including Wolfe Blitzer, knows it. For those of you to not admit it only shows rabid partisanship on your part, (or you might prefer the term party loyalists.) It's okay. You can be party loyalists. That doesn't mean your bad people. It just means that if you only support a candidate because he has a (D) next to his name on the ballot box, then you fit the definition of a kool-aid drinker!
But then again, I knew that.
If after having lost to Bush in 2000, McCain were to run for president as an independent, thereby potentially splitting the vote, and assuring victory for Gore, you would consider all the Republicans who switched their support from McCain to Bush for the good of the party to be kool-aid-drinking, loyalist, unprincipled flip-floppers?
To simply reply using 'yes', but it did not work.
So my answer is 'yes'.
I have a feeling you're just answering that way for the sake of consistency.
If you're serious, you command one of the most, if not the most, simplistic understandings of American politics and the nature and purpose of political parties ever to have infected an otherwise literate brain. After all, why not just call McCain himself a flip-flopper for not running as an independent, and instead endorsing the man who beat him?
It is a perfectly sound and legitimate stance to place loyalty to one's political party over loyalty to one's perferred candidate. Moreover, it is a principled position. When I vote for a Democrat in a primary, but that Democrat loses, I vote for the Democrat who received the nomination in the general election, even if my candidate revolts and runs independently. Because we operate in a single-member, winner-takes-all districting scheme, having my candidate run as an independent only risks his spoiling the election and handing it to a candidate a Republican I truly oppose - perhaps even a candidate the majority of voters truly oppose.
Moreover, party cohesion itself makes for a better democracy.
As for the Clintons, one of Media Matters' points was that they had pledged to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he was, before the primary in which their candidate (Lieberman) lost. So even if we could grant your nonsensical, inflammatory post any credence, the last accusation one could legitimately hurl at the Clintons in this instance is of having "flip-flopped."
Really, if you're going to come on here to mock the regulars, put a little more thought into it.
shows YOUR partisanship. Quit projecting on the other posters there, AA. As far as the Clintons legitimately placing their support for Lamont since he is the Democratic candidate, you make no cogent point. I will certainly not attempt to put the dots any closer together for you as it is apparently useless.
This just in. There was a primary election in Connecticut. Lieberman lost. End of story.
The Clintons are Democrats. They are supporting the winner of the primary election. That's how it works.
Republicans do the same thing. Shrub didn't run unopposed in 2000. He had a number of opponents. The insufferable Orin Hatch and his "Skinny cat" campaign comes to mind as well as McCain who shrub swiftboated in SC. None of this prevented them from falling into line when shrub got the nod solely on the basis of brand name recognition.
Only in the psychotic wastelands that lie between republican ears is it a story when Democratic Politicians line up behind duly-elected Democratic Candidates.
What's more, I don't see any of you kvetching about republicans mounting challenges to sitting republican Senators. Paging Senator Spector.
There's one in RI right now. What's the matter, reptiles? Skinny cat got your tongue?
No, it's called standard practice in Party Politics, uggie. Backing the duly-elected winner of a Primary is not a flip-flop. It's how things work.
Nice of the nitwit in chief to remind us exactly where he wasn't and exactly who he was busy not giving a damn about one year ago today.
Reptiles use principles as often as a fish rides their bicycle.