MSNBC's Jansing falsely claimed Sen. Clinton "acknowledged" it is "legitimate to consider" that she's "laser-focused on the presidency"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Chris Jansing falsely claimed that
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "frankly acknowledged it's legitimate to consider in the
voting, we just heard it -- that she
is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the
people of New York." Jansing was referring to a video clip shown moments earlier
in which Clinton
said: "I have
made no decisions about any future plans, and if that is a concern to any voter, they should factor that
into their decision on November 7th."
On the 12 p.m. hour of the October 23 edition of MSNBC News Live, anchor Chris Jansing, during a discussion with Republican strategist Edwina Rogers and Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) re-election campaign, asked: "What about the concern that Senator Clinton -- frankly acknowledged it's legitimate to consider in the voting, we just heard it -- that she is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York?" Jansing, however, was referring to a video clip MSNBC aired minutes earlier in which Clinton said: "I have made no decisions about any future plans, and if that is a concern to any voter, they should factor that into their decision on November 7th" -- a statement that bears no resemblance to Jansing's characterization of it.
Jansing also asked Roginsky about the New York Daily News' October 23 article reporting that Clinton's Republican opponent in the upcoming election, former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, said "the senator used to be ugly -- and speculates she got 'millions of dollars' in plastic surgery." Jansing, rather than focusing on the propriety of Spencer's attacks, asked Roginsky if they represent "just the reality in politics" that "looks count and this is all fair game." Roginsky criticized the very subject, saying: "[W]e're living in Bizarro World. I don't understand what we're talking about here. There's a war in Iraq, you know, Social Security is about to be privatized if this president has his way, a whole host of issues that really concern people. And we have a Senate candidate in a major Senate race talking about plastic surgery?
From the 12 p.m. hour of the October 23 edition of MSNBC News Live:
JANSING: Julie, there was talk in the last campaign -- I remember this well because I was out there -- about John Kerry Botoxing. Now, you have this on Hillary Clinton. Is this just the reality in politics, simply that, you know, looks count and all this is all fair game, Julie? Is that right?
ROGINSKY: I mean, we're living in Bizarro World. I don't understand what we're talking about here. There's a war in Iraq, you know, Social Security is about to be privatized if this president has his way, a whole host of issues that really concern people. And we have a Senate candidate in a major Senate race talking about plastic surgery? It's just appalling to me that he would even bring this up as an issue. And the reality is that he's got nothing else to talk about. She's been -- Hillary Clinton's been a wonderful senator for New York, and of course he's got nothing else to talk about besides these kinds of --
JANSING: Well, there is something else he talked about repeatedly --
ROGERS: Well, it's a tough state.
ROGINSKY: Yes.
JANSING: -- and we said this -- we said this, Julie. What about the concern that Senator Clinton -- frankly acknowledged it's legitimate to consider in the voting, we just heard it -- that she is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York?
ROGINSKY: Well, she has certainly -- has certainly said that that's something that she's considering, but I don't think there's anybody in the state of New York that would say she hasn't been a wonderful senator for New York. And that's borne out by the fact that her polling numbers are tremendous and the fact that people will re-elect her in an overwhelming landslide come November 7th.
[...]
CLINTON: I have made no decisions about any future plans, and if that is a concern to any voter, they should factor that into their decision on November 7th.
Everyone voting for Mrs. Clinton in New York knows that she will most likely run for President in 2008........anyone voting for her thinking otherwise is, well, out of touch.
And so what, I actually admire her for her statement here. It isn't the typical ".........mind is not made up yet, that's it" line that many in her position take. She is telling the voters if they aren't comfortable with her answer they should consider that when voting for her.
Laser focused on the White House, or conflicted with her decision? She may be either one, but she was up front in her answer. Good for her.
"Laser focused on the White House, or conflicted with her decision? She may be either one, but she was up front in her answer."
So you admit that Jansing mischaracterized Clinton's position, which is the topic at hand?
I wasn't focused on some dopey reporter, apparently you are, that's fine.
I stand by what I said.
But the dopey reporter is the issue. This site is to document the distortion by the media. Jansing distorts Clinton horribly, and you don't want to discuss it?
Actually you are wrong. She doesn't distort anything, she simply offers her opinion as to Mrs. Clinton's motives or her intent. I disagree with the opinion, and apparently you do too.
There is no distortion.
You are wrong. Here's Jansing's quote:
"..we just heard it -- that she is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York."
Jansing isn't giving her opinion as opinion. She's paraphrasing. And in the process distorting what Clinton said. Nothing in what Clinton said had anything to do with being "...laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York."
You pick the weirdest battles my friend.
This is what she said :
What about the concern that Senator Clinton -- frankly acknowledged it's legitimate to consider in the voting, we just heard it -- that she is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Did Senator Clinton aknowledge its legitimate to consider she is laser focused on the presidency? The only way to say this is not a distortion is to say its an outright LIE. C'mon be reasonable here. Its my opinion that you molest small furry animals but that isnt a lie its just an opinion.
Tommy was quick to reply to comments, and then when it finally became totally obvious that he had no legs to stand on, he stopped replying.
He never said, okay, I'm wrong. He just stopped posting.
What a loser.
This story by Media Matters highlights how a right winger mistakenly said that Hillary Clinton said something, in order to make his point.
Hillary did not say she was running, nor that she is considering running even. She said that if some voters don't like her not knowing the final answer to the question of whether or not she is running, they should take that discomfort into account when they vote.
Voters should figure whether the good outweighs the bad. If they think that not knowing if she will run outweighs the good she might do, then they should not vote for her. She didn't even say that they should make the decision about her running. The decision is about her not knowing!
You're pitiful. For you to suggest that because someone doesn't respond is because they are "scared", is ridiculous. Some of us have lives that take us away from our computers, perhaps you don't. Or maybe you just sit and think up fake screen names to post under since you will eventually be banned - again.
I have said my piece on this topic, those that don't agree are entitled.
Another O'Reilly tactic. Ignore when you've been whipped by logic, but jump in when you want to play the victim. Fact is, you were wrong to say that Jansing didn't distort Hilary's words. I think you know it. The frustration around here is your unwillingness to admit it.
It was pathetic. If you are still standing by your statement that she didnt distort anything NOTHING short of desperate ideological blindness and an obsessive need to appologize for rightwing distortion can possibly be behind it. She distorted no reasonable argument can be made she didnt.
please show us where hillary "acknowledged" the things that jansing said she did.
I remember that little spark plug blonde that would face off the Republican venom and snarks as she championed the health of America.
They treated her as though she was trying to turn American into the next Marxist State, when all she was trying to do is to bring as health care system in line with an American public. She promoted the idea that all Americans should have equal access if we really want to assure our freedoms.
Today upwards tens of millions families have no medical coverage, as many are on some kind of public assistance, and the rest of us are paying much more premiums for much less health care.
I am not a Hillary Clinton endorser for President as yet, but there is not a Republican in the Beltway that could hold her panties, but probably are wearing something similar.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Top 5 reasons why the government should be nowhere near our health care;
- Katrina debacle.
- Iraq debacle.
- Spending like drunken sailors debacle.
- Border debacle.
- #1 - Cronyism, Corruption, power hungry politicians and nearly every bureacratic nightmarish bloated wasted program they get their hands on.
No thanks!!!
When Republicans are our rulers that is what you get.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, are three supremely good reasons to have a single payor medical coverage.
Every medical insurance provider, HMO, PPO, and any organization that offers Medicare patients care has a Medicare policy, and operates at a profit, and effectively with Medicare.
The standard claim forms came out of a solvent Medicare System, and has proven to be many times more cost effective, and reliable at delivering competant health care to patients.
When you have a political party whom sees our health care dollars as a troft for their political benefactors to gorge themselves, you get predictable results.
We must have true political will, and we will have truly effective health care delivery.
I have been 25 years in medical billing and collections, I know something of what I speak.
Happy Thoughts Tommy;
Dan Grady
You are exactly right. The private system soaks up 30 cents or so of every dollar in administrative costs alone. Medicare needs about 3 cents of every dollar for administrative overhead.
People who refuse to entertain the notion of single-payer do so for ideological, not practical reasons. Single-payer makes sense. It will happen eventually. The system as is cannot continue much longer. Those that deny the single-payer solution are swimming upstream and will lose their chance to be part of the policy debate when it finally does come down.
That corporations have no business in the arena of health care as well...
Life shouldn't be a matter of profit.. (just my personal opinion)
The case can be made that corporations and profit fosters competitiveness and is responsible for major advances in research and life saving drugs.
To make that case with regards to Health care providers and insurance companies as well?? Those were the areas I was more concerned with.. I should have specified that as well..
But then again, when big pharma is spending all that money on advertising vs actual r & d .. makes me wonder - Look, I'm sorry, I'm just of the opinion that its bad karma that it's more important to make money than to save lives...
The case to be made for the profit incentive has been in the process for 30 years of dismal, and every more dismal outcome.
When HMO's, PPO's began to take hold of the medical insurance/medical care system the insurance company's effectively drove health care completely to the ledger side of the equation. Charges aren't just scrutanized, the care is before charges can ever happen. The end result is health care rationed to a few for extreme cases, and a process that denies care to a vast number of patients based on a cost/benefit analysis that is only meant to lower the costs, and has little concern for the health benefits.
Doctors are not making more profits unless they are specialists superstars, or have a invested interest in the HMO/Insurance company. Drug companys find the current model perfect for strangling the patients wallet for drugs they may or may not need.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Almost all drug research is done by universities and private doctors and scientists. Corporations only research ways to cosmetically change existing drugs to get new patents.
Corporate medicine is pushing ritalin and prozac on the population whether they need it or not. Pharmacorps are playing on hypochondria to get people to ask for drugs they don't need and they're giving doctors kickbacks to push drugs, even if it's not for the ailments the drugs are for. Corporate pharmaceuticals in the USA are the biggest pushers of bad drugs on children in the land. And since they have managed to take over the FDA, have you noticed how many lawyer ads are out now about drugs that caused physical damages? When it comes to Big Pill Business, I can only say one word....Vioxx. 'Nuff said.
... gov't-run anything is a nightmare waiting to happen.
...gov't-run oversight has its advantages. Has to go both ways...
agree... ... gov't-run anything is a nightmare waiting to happen. - peet / Monday October 23, 2006 11:18:21 PM EST
And yet 40 million Americans rely on, and get reliable, comprehensive care from a government sponsered, operated, and funded Medicare System that has functioned dispite the Republicans rading their surplus to pay for pork and defense programs that do little but line the pockets of political allies.
Rhetoric does not substitute Reality, and good governance as we painfully have learned over the past 6 years of dictatorial rule at the hand of the RNC.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
And she made up a plan that noone wanted and hasn't touched it since....she's sooooo committed to the issue, eh?
Politicians are good at promoting plans doomed to failure. That way they can say "they tried" when they really haven't, then ignore the issue until it's election time again. Then they trot the rhetoric out again...and forget all about it right after the election. It's been 13 years since Hillary "tried" to push through a health care plan....and the Dems haven't done ANYTHING about it since then, even with Bill in the White House for 7 years afterwards.
If the Democrats actually did give a damn about health care, they would have been pushing plans for the last 13 years, making it a major plank on their platform, and so forth. Instead, they have done nothing, proposed nothing, pushed for nothing.
There was once a party called the "Know Nothings"....Democrats should be renamed the "Do Nothings".
First off, Hilary didn't "push" anything. President Clinton wanted health care reform. He put Hilary in charge of getting it done.
Secondly, the voters supposedly punished the Democrats in Congress in 1994 for what was seen as Clinton's early policy foibles, health care among them. Democrats got the message.
Lastly, they haven't had the House since 1994. Promoting healthcare reform when you are out of power has the same effect as spitting into the wind.
You can do better than that, don't you think? Blaming Dems for what they couldn't accomplish while out of power. The cons are obviously getting desperate.
Several thousand Democrats in Congress and the Senate and state legislatures. Not one of them is pushing health care. This lame "but we're not in power" seems to be the excuse for all Democrat inaction on issues, don't it? They could have pushed a bill, yelled 'hey! them Repubs won't give you health care!' at the voters. But no, they do NOTHING for 13 years and their loyalists apologize it by saying "but they ain't in power". I got one answer to that...crap.
When the republicans are flaming out in Washington the wing nuts just get crazier.
My voter registration is Green....I'm one of them REAL liberals.
You want them to play Don Quixote? You want them to bring up an issue that has no chance of being addressed and then let their political enemies successfully skewer them as socialists. Brilliant. There's being right. And then there's getting elected. You can't change anything if your tossed out by voters.
What if they do get a House and Senate majority and still nothing gets done? You gonna blame Bush and the Repubs for that? There's only one excuse for Democrat inaction on any issue...they just don't want to do it.
Uh no...I'd blame them. I blame them for capitulating on the Iraq war. They can be spineless at times. But I don't blame them for not accomplishing something they can't reasonably accomplish and would commit political suicide doing.
But if she is laying it out honestly for her constituents then i take the report at face value.
I mean, isn't this a prime example of what's wrong in the media? She has not formally declared that she is going to run for the presidency yet everyone is presuming and penciling her in like she's already running.
With regards to this report (and just sticking to what was said) Jansing is projecting something that Hillary hasn't said.
What is believed or assumed is irrelevant until Hillary actually says she's running for president.
Just trying to stay within the realm of facts here vs trying to be a presumptive mind reader, and I got the impression that that is what MM is saying with this item as well.
Basically, it's perfectly OK to consider whether she's considering a run for the White House.
Real hard-hitting journalism there.
This site should be called "corporate_controlled_bullsh*t.com".
Would it be asking too much to have a "journalist" please tell me exactly where and when Sen. Clinton stated that she IS running for president?
All the journalists, pundits and political columnists and commentators have said this and the only voice NOT saying it is Hillary Clinton herself.
If Mr. Spencer has only the "she's not going to represent you very well because she's running for president in '08" card to play, then the Senator should be re-elected in a landslide.
Isn't there a story about the Pope, or the space shuttle they can assign her 'till after the election?
Let's be honest, here. Everyone knows that Clinton is laser-focused on the presidency, whatever she might say to the contrary. Why does she constantly make this website when something negative is said about her, as if she is a "liberal." Clinton voted for the war, and last I heard from her, said that we should send more troops to Iraq. She also made some pro-torture comments recently. She is owned by large corporate trough-money. She is no liberal and this website seems all to eager to give her a free pass.
I swear......
This site debunks conservative media misinformation.
If there is misinformation in the media about Hillary Clinton, this site debunks it.
That is not the same as supporting Hillary.
Denying liars and distorters the right to lie and distort without being challenged is not the same as being a champion of those who are being lied about. Media Matters protects the truth. They do not protect Hillary.
I can read just fine, but thanks for your concern. Anyone who has followed this site for the past couple of years can see that they are quite supportive of Hillary Clinton. If the media say something negative and inaccurate about John McCain, will Media Matters report that? I rather doubt it. Yet the difference politically between Hillary Clinton and John McCain is almost imperceptible. And, yes, I know that the media rarely say anything negative about John McCain, but that doesn't make Hillary Clinton a liberal.
Ellie is right. I have never seen MMFA come out and say something supportive of Hillary or really anyone else. They debunk rightwing disinformation ABOUT Hillary along with conservative misinformation about anyone else. They are NOT the same thing. What is with this Manichean worldview where if you point out misinformation about someone that equates supporting them.
Also debunk progressive missinformation. Trouble is they can not find any. The liberal media is just nowhere to be found.
They are defending Hillary Clinton from what is termed misinformation and bias. Sometimes it is, although the idea that Clinton is unsure about running for president in '08 is absurd. This site defends her at every turn; far more so than any other Democrat. That, to me, suggests that they consider her to be an important liberal voice that should be highlighted on their site. This is support, plain and simple. In my opinion, she is not even a liberal. I think this is an example of this site defending the Democratic Party power base as opposed to anti-liberal bias. Can anyone recall them defending Ralph Nader or any member of the Green Party from media bias? This is a Democratic partisan site to a certain extent and I'm just calling them on it. If you say that the media has been biased against the Democrats compared to the Republicans in the past several years, I agree, but Democrat is one thing and liberal is not synonymous. Actual liberal voices have been almost completely excluded from the media political stage for decades.
I am a liberal, not a Democrat. However I have seen nor have you produced any MMFA posts SUPPORTING Hillary. I dont particularly like Hillary, I never have she is too conservative for me. MMFA probably ends up with more Hillary threads because she is more of a target for the misinformation than most Dems there is something atavistic about the loathing the rightwing has for Hillary. My point in talking about a Manichean worldview is that it is so either/or to equate showing conservative misinformation on Hillary to supporting Hillary. What YOU think about Hillaries liklihood of running for President really isnt any more relevant than this reporters. What evidence do you have? Bottom line is even if she DID have evidence she was committed to running she said basically that Hillary admitted to a laserlike focus for running for Pres. She did no such thing, This WAS misinformation there can be no real argument about that. Whatever the reality of Hillaries intentions she has admittetd no such thing.
The con media has focused on Hilary. Since every other word out of their mouth is a lie, it's a natural extension that their misinformation should make its way here at a higher proportion then say discussions of whether Feingold will run.
Try again.
This site is blatantly pro-Democrat. Another bunch who's focused more on their team winning the game, not on the issues that affect us all. It does point out the obvious pro-fascist stance of the US "news" media, but it never looks at the pro-fascist stance of the Democrat Party or it's complicity in all the current war crimes.
Wow you are out there. Is that like the pro-fascist, plutocratic, theocracy in the whitehouse.
Another thread on Hillary Clinton...and little to no suport for her as a presidential candidate from the mmfa legion.
Yeah, I know that this thread is about Jansing's misrepresentation of her comment...I agree it was an obvious distortion of her words.
Yet, underlying in all the threads about Hillary...she receives little support from the liberal mmfa posters. The topics routinely slide to sidebar issues. Rarely does she get a ringing endorsement from the largely liberal audience here at mmfa.
No judgement intended...just seems a little strange.
Why is it strange? For one thing, it's two years out from the next presidential election. The cons want to make Hilary the issue because they think they can use her to arouse, er, I mean rouse their base. Meanwhile, there are a lot of great Democratic that are very viable 2008 candidates. Hilary is among them, but it would be certainly unwise to endorse anyone at this stage.
more tommy like non-comments. if the issues slide to "sidebar issues", it's because you help lead them there. example 0ne: your post above.
She isnt very liberal. Thats the thing. Kucinich makes her look like a Republican. That is why I am not very enamored of her. I wouldnt presume to speak for other liberals
I seem to be the only one here who has realized that NOT ONLY did she not say she was "laser focused" on running for the Presidency, she said exactly the OPPOSITE: "I have made no decisions about any future plans, and if that is a concern to any voter, they should factor that into their decision on November 7th"
It reads to ME that she is saying if anyone is considering NOT VOTING for her because she might run for the Presidency and therefore not be up to her obligations as a Senator can lay those fears to rest. They can vote for her with confidence that she WILL live up to her obligations.
This is beyond distortion of her words, it is turning them on their ear.