NY Times' Anne "Editor's Note" Kornblut imagines Clinton may have been faking cell-phone call
In a January 16 post on the New York Times political weblog The Caucus, reporter Anne E. Kornblut speculated that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) may have been faking a phone call to avoid answering questions about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) announcement that he had formed a presidential exploratory committee. As blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted, Kornblut wrote: "Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton -- conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed -- went into the chamber to vote."
As Media Matters for America and others noted, in a July 16, 2006, Times article, Kornblut falsely reported that Clinton had criticized her Democratic colleagues in Congress for "wasting time" and "for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters." In fact, during the speech in question, Clinton had been criticizing the Republican-led Congress -- not her fellow Democrats. The Times ultimately published an "Editor's Note" conceding that the "opening sentence of the article and the headline were based on a misinterpretation" of Clinton's speech.
In an April 16, 2006, Times article, Kornblut equated "conservative activist" Thomas D. Kuiper's book of quotations by Clinton with other collections of quotes from the likes of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 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. After Media Matters called attention to Kornblut's misleading article, the Times ran an "Editor's Note" acknowledging several flaws in the article.
From the January 16 Caucus post, headlined "Biden and, um, Not Clinton, on Obama":
So what does Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton think of Senator Barack Obama's exploratory entry into the 2008 race? Or, for that matter, her very recent trip to Iraq?
As of Tuesday evening, she wasn't saying. Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton -- conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed -- went into the chamber to vote, then posed for an all-ladies photograph with Diane Sawyer and female senators. (Ms. Sawyer, anchor for ABC's "Good Morning America," caused a buzz of her own; some staff members mistakenly identified her as Martha Stewart.)
Senator Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat who's already in the 2008 race (being, as he told Tim Russert, the best Joe Biden he can be), couldn't resist. "I think he's a quality guy," Mr. Biden said of Mr. Obama.
I imagine that imagineer Kornblut still beats his wife, or not, but it can't be confirmed.
It's a blog folks, that's all.
Mywifesbighair is just a blog the NYTimes political weblog, written by one of their reporters is a whole different species of blog and DEFINITLY part of the media
...and this statement is absurd "It's a blog folks, that's all."
This isn't just someone at home pecking away at their homemade blog, this is part of the establishment media by an establishment reporter.
Can you imagine them writing this about the "maverick" and "independent", "straight shooter" McCain?
Just to show how this has nothing to do with Hillary, I have no plans to vote for her. This is about something much bigger than one person.
The big media are not "fair" or "balanced" at all and it has hurt this country so badly by taking the stance that both sides of an argument are valid when that isn't always so. Look at the way the media has been since Clinton got elected in 1992 and all the phony scandals that were cooked up when he was President.
Do you think it has gotten better or worse?
to dismiss everything as only opinion, so therefore not worthy of further comment. our resident scold. kornblut clearly has been wrong enough that the times has had to offer corrections.
the nitwit Tommeeeee has nothing to offer but distraction & objection for the sake of objection. Why does anyone still debate this obviously lonely and unemployed GOPig?
What a luxury it must be for a U.S. Senator, to have the state of U.S. affairs so dull and uneventful, as to be able to fill up an otherwise empty day, with raising funds for a presidential campaign...
...22 months before the '08 election (just 2 months after the '06 election! Those elected are still so new, they're still learning each other's names).
Such dull and uneventful times for the U.S. Senate... fund-raising is so much more fun.
And that's what this nonsense about '08 so early is all about: Fund-raising (that's what it's all about, that is, for the fund-raisers, the Senators, in question... as for the hack "media", they prattle on about '08 for the reason that they love to talk about nothing important, or timely, to the American People... they love to ignore present and important issues, in favor of nonsense such as feigned cell-phone conversations, and the differences, if any, between diane sawyer and martha stewart).
It's all about the fund-raising baby... it's what a U.S. Senator can spend their time doing, when there's nothing else going on...
When the times are so dull and uneventful, as they are right now.
I don't blame the Senators or the media for any of this. It's the reality of politics nowadays. There is only so much money to go around and any serious candidate has to got to get in early to lay claim to as much of it as they can........money is what drives the system.
Campaigning for '08 began right after '06 was in the books. And to the media this is all red meat.
"...money is what drives the system."
I don't disagree, I just don't understand is all... rather than being something that explains the electoral process in a better way to me, it just poses another question to me:
"Name one single thing that money buys... that the funds raised can be spent on... that will help elect Hillary or Obama or the Maverick, to the presidency? And if you can name one thing, then maybe you can name three things."
And if you answer TV commercials, then please have considered first:
What TV commercials that any presidential candidate has ran, that weighed even a grain on the American People's decision at the polls, compared to the pounds and tons of weight given to what candidates say in cost-free TV interviews and panel shows, and in cost-free debates, and in the cost-free "media" coverage of low-cost rallies and conventions even...
...because I'm of a different mind, that the power of money in presidential campaigns is not the power of what you purchase, but of who you spend that money on... of who you've funneled those millions upon millions of dollars raised to.
And I'd point out about TV commercials (which I expect you to think of first, in response to my question), that they do not represent the bulk of the money spent on a presidential campaign...
...in addition to my contention that they do make the difference, or even matter at all, compared to the cost-free or low-cost things I mentioned.
What TV commercial was it that the candidate ran, that elected GWB in '01, or that Gore could've run in that election...
...and the same in '04.
Money is power in our elections... but it has so little to do with just who it is the American People choose, and everything to do with who that money ultimately goes to.
The question being assumed as to the importance of money in our elections, but my question is more about what it is in particular that's so valuable tha's being purchased...
...what's the big and all-important "line item"?
What are the three most valuable "line items"?
This is a textbook example of exactly how speculation becomes "fact".
Perhaps in this case, since it's been caught early, it won't take hold. But don't be surprised if, in the days and months ahead, you don't hear Hannity, Limbaugh & Co. say, "Hillary, a woman who avoids tough questions by faking phone calls."
(nice work, Greg Sargent and MM)
"Hillary, a woman who avoids tough questions by faking phone calls."
**********************
Nah, they won't be saying that. She avoids tough questioning period. Or at least she pretty much has as far as I can see. Don't think she will be able to if she's the nominee, however.
Hasn't the present occupant of the office proven that not only can you hold the office without answering tough questions, but you can also be elected to a second term and still not answer the tough questions.
You are right. But that doesn't mean that we, as the voting public, should just sit by and let the people we elect to office just skate by and do photo ops and softball interviews. If you are comfortable electing someone on that basis, that is your business.
You voted for Bush twice!
You are right. But, that doesn't mean that Clinton will be afforded the sort of 'kid-glove' treatment that Bush has since he was anointed President.
...that "maverick" McCain gets either.
Or should I call him Saint McCain?
>>"She avoids tough questioning period."
The point here is speculation that later becomes "fact". Smear merchants like Hannity or Coulter, for example, will later regurgitate it as truth. Their non-inquisitive listeners or readers take their word for it.
When Hillary-haters opine that she avoids questioning altogether, it's not much to ask that the opinion be based on some factual evidence rather than imagination.
Hillary haters? And who would that be?
Put your money where your mouth is then. Give me one tough venue or even semi-challenging interview opportunity that Mrs. Clinton has been in for at least the past year?
Otherwise, you're just bloviating.
She picks her spots wisely. (Can anyone point to any major verbal gaffs she has ever made?) She is one of the sharpest politicians around. I'm not a big fan of Hillary and I personally believe that at this point in history when we need to stick together she would be too polarizing for this country as president. With that said, however, she is no worse than anyone else in Washington with regards to the fact that the moment they open their eyes in the morning until sleep descends upon them at night they are first and foremost polticians.
I agree with you. But I was responding specifically to Dave, who insinuated that anyone who believes Hillary has avoided tough questioning is a "Hillary hater". I asked him for one instance she has put herself in a position of a tough interview and he has yet to respond.
If she has, then good for her.
I DON'T know if it is true that Hillary has never subjected herself to tough questioning... depends on what you mean by tough questioning. However, if she has not, my point is that it probabaly means that she's a little sharper than the rest of her colleagues and will do so on her terms and at her choosing.
Of her own choosing? I'm sorry, but I hold politicians to higher standards and expect more disclosure than that. They work for the people who elect them to represent us, they need to be accessible to the voters as much as possible, and we need to demand they answer the tough questions so we know where they stand to make informative decisions on their electability.
They need to get away from their spokespeople and handlers and the bubble they insulate themselves in and step up and defend the decisions they make. If something or some interview makes them uncomfortable, too damn bad.
answering questions on Sen. Barack Obama's announcement that he had formed a presidential exploratory committee have to do with anything in her job as a Senator?
I was responding to Irony's comment on interviews of her own choosing. I was speaking in broader terms, not this silly cell phone irrelevancy.
since you love being specific or vague when it suits your needs you should probably clarify your statement.
Not every interview is going to relate to her job as a US Senator therefore she has the right to pick and chose.
You've made a sweeping statement about holding politicians accountable through tough questions, attached to a story that has no relation to her job as a US Senator. You've also asserted that she doesn't answer tough questions with nothing to back up your statements. You clearly stated that Hillary avoids hard questions prior to any comments by Dave about you being a "Hillary Hater"...
Who the hell makes an unproven statement and then demands that other people prove their assertion wrong? Your either too lazy to look or you have nothing to back up YOUR statement.
Funny that you would accuse someone else of bloviating since the majority of your posts are extremely pompous and sure do love adding in your 2 cents at every given opportunity.
I will answer, pompously, your question. There is nothing vague about what I said - I expect politicians, especially presidential candidates, to answer tough questions. If they don't, they lose respect from me. I don't vote on soundbites or squishy ads from slick agencies.
As for Hillary, this isn't some manufactured criticism from me of her or any politician these days, she is very much a national politician and incredible name recognition - and when is the last time you have seen her interviewed in any substantive way? The fact is she hasn't had to yet because of her runaway victories in NY state. If you can show me such an interview, or reference it in anyway, then I will apologize. If she has, it certainly would be easy to google or find.
I don't hate any politician. I disagree and agree with many and expect them ALL to answer to the people honestly and forthrightly......that isn't some partisan swipe at Hillary, despite some people's assertion otherwise.
I'm using your own term that you used in the thread above to insult Dave. Your really something Thomas...
You do know the definition correct?
Just curious , do you even remeber or read your prior posts before you continue writing this BS?
I have answered and explained my take on this enough. Your insults go more to your inability to either read properly, or disagree properly.
Whichever it is, frankly, that is your business.
You insulted Dave and then when I apply the same term YOU used then you suddenly decided that insults are off limits.
Thomas - word of advise re-read your own posts before you keep spouting your typical nonsense.
Where exactly did I insult Dave? He falsely implied that I said Hillary was avoiding questions altogether, when I specifically said "tough" questions. He also accused me of being a Hillary hater with no provocation.
So before you start posting out of context or deliberately misleading, get your facts straight.
>>>Where exactly did I insult Dave?
Since you've dropped my name here....
You accused me of "lying" (as well as "bloviating" and "smearing", but that's par for the course...). The "lie", as I said, was simply an error I admitted to, an apology you accepted. To date, I haven't gotten a return apology for being called a liar.
And for the record: my original post ---regarding speculation becoming bogus "facts"--- was not directed at you or anyone. You chose to respond ---not to my main point---but with the provocative, digressive "[Hillary] avoids tough questioning period".
Tommy--'I hold politicians to higher standards '
You would have been correct if you stated; "I hold Democratic politicians to a higher standard."
>>>"Hillary haters? And who would that be? "
Hannity. Coulter. I'm sure you can think of more...
Should Clinton run, people like them will repeat this false cell phone speculation as a truism down the road, right up until the election.
Repeating: opinions about Clinton or any politician ought to be based on some factual evidence, not on imagination or on what they are told by talk show hosts or pundits. (And I didn't offer an opinion about Clinton-you did.)
"When Hillary-haters opine that she avoids questioning altogether, it's not much to ask that the opinion be based on some factual evidence rather than imagination"
**********************
So provide the factual evidence that she does not avoid tough questions, which is what I said originally. I said nothing about questions "altogether" - you made that assertion. If you have no such evidence, then say so.
It is not Hillary haters who would like to see politicians answer tough, important questions - it's voters.
So provide the factual evidence that she does not avoid tough questions, which is what I said originally. I said nothing about questions "altogether" - you made that assertion. If you have no such evidence, then say so.
Thereby proving you are a Hillary hater. No one has to prove she does not avoid tough questions. If you think she does so more than other politicians, feel free to produced some evidence that this is so. You do not get to start the debate from the position "Hilary is EVIL--prove she's not!"
A perfect example of the juvenalization of our national discourse. A gang of talk-show hosts and beltway junior high socialites decided that Hillary Clinton had cooties fifteen years ago, and the rest of us have had to put up with their rants ever since.
I was not comparing her to other politicians, this was a topic specifically about her. And if questioning a politician is somehow "hating" them or calling them "evil" in your book - well, that's your book.
>>"So provide the factual evidence that she does not avoid tough questions, which is what I said originally. I said nothing about questions "altogether" - you made that assertion. If you have no such evidence, then say so."<<
You said she avoids questions, period. Same thing as "altogether". Of course, now you'll probably want to divert into a dictionary two-step with me. But I'm not dancin' with you.
The subject here: journalists who speculate and then later have their imaginings turned into "truth" by smear merchants. It has happened, it will continue to happen. Unless it's brought to our attention and we do something about it. Again, good work Media Matters and Greg Sargent. Maybe those who care can stop this sort of thing in its tracks.
"So provide the factual evidence that she does not avoid tough questions, which is what I said originally."
-----
Everyone should know that it's impossible to prove a negative, except perhaps, the ones who insist that others do it.
Use ad homs then complain when people ask you to verify your ASSertion.
Better trools, please.
You should give us EVERY interview Hillary's ever done as Senator to verify your assertion.
You say she never has never has answered a tough question, so it's safe to assume you have logged every interview she's done while in Senate.
The usual tactic is that they must set a vague backgound of accusation vs. Hillary and have begun to do so, so the talking points can be cranked out ad nauseum when the spin cyclle of '08 elections does begin.
Hillary taking a stand of sorts...
[link to www.cnn.com]
Thank you
A returned apology from you for falsely accusing me of "lying" had it been given would have been accepted as well.
my bad
So what if she ducked reporters by faking a cell phone call? (Although we don't know if that's what she did. Maybe Anne Kornblut can subpoena Hillary's cell phone records.) Hillary Clinton, in all likelihood, will be a candidate for the presidency. It's smart to stay mum about Obama's candidacy. Faking a cell phone call to duck a reporter isn't exactly what I'd consider an egregious offense against democracy.
You are exactly correct. Then it's curious as to why the mention here at all?
It's mentioned because Kornblut is making spurious associations... Why'd he mention it?
I guess that's 'she'.
But she's opining on a blog on something rather insignificant, as Irony points out.
I thought your earlier comment was in regard to this blog (!) I see your (and Irony's) point.
She was talking to me. We're doing lunch.
This is a little news item about someone speculating that something happened with absolutely no evidence.
A speculation like: "I'm not sure TOMMY is only typing what his master Limbaugh is telling him over the phone or not."
Notice how quickly the discussion turned from the actual topic (wild speculation without evidence) to someone demanding evidence on something else (show evidence Hilary doesn't avoid tough questions).
Amazing
And no one should be surprised if Hillary Clinton does not make a spectacle of herself before she is ready to do so on her own terms. She is a well-seasoned politician with all the tools and skills required.
In addition, Tommy created a question which only he can answer. As alluded to by another poster, "tough" is subjective. So, even if one were to offer him evidence they consider to be Sen. Clinton answering "tough" questions, Tommy can simply claim it wasn't. Convenient, eh?
Very Republican like of him!
(I've never seen so much whining about who said what with regards to people criticzing Tommy. Time for people to move on.)
Any reasonable person can see that for a pol to walk past a mob of reporters while on a cell phone is clearly a way to get past them. Yes, as you recall, great leaders do this all the time.
In case you haven't noticed. most politicians with Presidential aspirations will knock each other down to get to the reporters.. unless they feel doing so will be to their detriment. Why the heck would Hillary want to talk about Obama? So what if she doesn't. Why on earth do I care what she thinks about him? (I don't.)
Besides we all know that Hillary has her handlers and if you look closely, you'll see the leash (i.e., phone,) connected to them.
So this thread about Hillary is another non story about a non event over another second rate politician who happens to be married to Bill. The elections are two years away and nobody but silly commentators and the few here even give a rip.
I agree it's just a little news item about someone speculating about something that may or may not have happened.
Not much of a story at all. Just some idle speculation.
That just makes me wonder why some people here are spending so much effort trying to turn it into a story about something they know "clearly" happened.
Boggles the mind
>>>"Hillary ... another second rate politician "<<<
We can see you have no axe to grind or ulterior motives regarding Hillary Clinton, eh?
I wonder why you'd write paragraphs about discussing what you call a "non-story"? I mean, we know how "concerned" you are that we spend our time wisely and all that, but gee.
about wasting so much of my time. AntiAmericun probly thawt us Liberuls was to dum to notiss it til he poinded it owt.
I'm just opining about the media and mmfa.
As far as Hillary goes, the reason I call her 'second rate' is because she got to the Senate and is now a top contender for the Democrats (sorry if I insulted anyone by that term,) simply because of whom she happens to have married.
In my opinion, if it weren't for being married to Bill, Hillary be a nobody. So that makes her 'second rate' in my book. Feel free to disagree.
feeding Tom Tom the Troll? Sheesh.
"The reason I call her 'second rate' is because she got to the Senate and is now a top contender for the Democrats (sorry if I insulted anyone by that term,) simply because of whom she happens to have married."...AnotherAmerican
==========================================
Using that logic, AA, will you admit that George W. Bush is a "second-rate politician" because he got to the White House simply because of whom he was born to?