McCain and his blogger apparently agree: Chelsea Clinton is "ugly"
In 2004, a poster on the conservative website FreeRepublic.com using the pseudonym "Kerry Crusher" -- identified on FreeRepublic.com as blogger Patrick Hynes -- characterized Chelsea Clinton as "hideously ugly." The comment recalled a "joke" Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reportedly told about Clinton in 1998: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Hynes was hired by McCain's Straight Talk America political action committee in 2006. In addition to the Chelsea Clinton smear, "Kerry Crusher" also attacked McCain himself in 2004 as "a contemptable [sic] human being."
As Media Matters for America noted, The New York Times and Associated Press both reported Catholic League president Bill Donohue's criticism that two bloggers hired by John Edwards' presidential campaign are "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots," without noting Donohue's history of vulgar, trash-talking bigotry, or his dismissal of anti-Kerry operative Jerome Corsi's anti-Catholic bigotry in 2004. Citing several of Hynes' controversial comments, blogger Glenn Greenwald argued on February 7 that the same standard the Times and the AP applied to Edwards and his bloggers should be applied to all candidates, including McCain:
So Donahue [sic] and people like Michelle Malkin have dug through the archives of the two Edwards bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan -- and found bad words and posts that they claim are offensive. I do not know of many bloggers, or citizens generally, who do not have some views that would be offensive to large groups of people and who periodically express those views in less than demure ways, but if that is going to be the standard, we ought to apply it universally to all bloggers who are affiliated with political campaigns.
Hynes, a blogger for the conservative AnkleBitingPundits.com, has been identified multiple times on FreeRepublic.com as "Kerry Crusher" and apparently posted several messages on the site under that name. According to a December 28, 2004, FreeRepublic.com entry: "Patrick Hynes, a freeper whose screen name is Kerry Crusher is scheduled to appear on Hannity and Colmes tonight."
From a June 20, 2005, FreeRepublic.com entry:
Pat's freeper screen name is Kerry Crusher. He is on leave from his job as a campaign consultant from a national GOP campaign firm, and is currently in charge of media and message development for the CATO Institute's Social Security Project.
He is also the proprietor of AnkleBitingPundits.com.
A review of "Kerry Crusher's" posts on FreeRepublic.com revealed that "Kerry Crusher", in response to another poster's June 21, 2004, suggestion that Chelsea Clinton had undergone plastic surgery, wrote: "Yep. She's been Nip n' Tucked. Just like Kerry and his girlfriend Alex. And she's still hideously ugly!" On June 1, 2004, "Kerry Crusher" wrote of McCain: "John McCain is a contemptable [sic] human being. He makes my stomach churn and my bowels clench."
As Media Matters for America noted, the media largely ignored McCain's hiring of Hynes, despite the fact that Hynes was a strong proponent of the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, whose baseless smears and attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) McCain denounced as "dishonest and dishonorable." Hynes was reportedly hired by Straight Talk America in May 2006, but did not disclose his employment until July 24. National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty noted that in the intervening time, Hynes wrote several blog entries touting McCain as a presidential candidate, for which he reportedly apologized.
America's finest intellect is showing. McCain not only lost his wheels, the entire axle is coming off.
What a ridiculous item. This actually warrants mention here? The conservative misinformation tank is apparently bordering on an astoundingly low level these days.
So let's look for this on the cable shows "McCain thinks Chelsea Clinton is ugly!" Even they wouldn't stoop that low.
I'd agree that this would be ridiculous if McCain wasn't being sold as the "straight talking maverick" and if those in the media weren't tripping over each other to bow at his feet.
Any man who makes a comment about someones wife, daughter, mother or sister's appearance deserves all of the heat that will be brought down on him. Let him straight talk his way out of it if he can.
Yeah, you could classify the chelsea comments as classless. And it is in response to the "outrage" at Edwards blogger. But the bottom line is that this item makes MMFA seem like a "he said it too!" schoolyard blog. The right wing is easy enough to refute by going straight to the inaccuracy or duplicity of their assertions, without having to resort to these kinds of infantile "even-things-up" complaints. I would have rather seen MMFA use this space to point out how Shyawn Hannity today made up half - no, I'm being too generous - the MAJORITY of his story today regarding Air Pelosi. (hint hint, MMFA).
"Any man who makes a comment about someones wife, daughter, mother or sister's appearance deserves all of the heat that will be brought down on him."
So someone making a comment about another man's wife deserves "heat"? San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsome SCREWED THE WIFE of his campaign manager. Does he deserve "heat" from Lefties like you? No? I didn't think so.
Was it consensual "screwing"?
I wasn't commenting on someone involved sexually with someone other than his wife.
I was commenting on an adult attacking a child about her appearance. As always, you're trying to change the subject. It has nothing to do with the behavior of the mayor of San Fransisco. Show me where Chelsea Clinton said or did anything to deserve this.
I'll just chalk this up as another cowardly attack on the defenseless. You "righties" are so good at that.
"Show me where Chelsea Clinton said or did anything to deserve this."
Chelsea did absolutely nothing to deserve this. It was her parents' fault. By the way, Chelsea is not a "child". She's a woman and a darned fine looking woman considering Bill & Hil.
Tommy,Media Matters is tying this story in with the "scandal" involving a blogger hired by John Edwards.Right-wing bloggers and pundits are criticizing EDWARDS over past comments made by the blogger he hired.
So MMFA is basically saying with this piece that if you're going to tie the comments of the liberal blogger to Edwards, you have to also do that with all of the conservative bloggers Republicans like McCain have hired onto their staff.
Brian,
I understand the context but it is still a ridiculous story. Even if McCain thinks Chelsea is ugly, what is the relevancy of it to anything even remotely topical or important? And if he did say or agreed with something so stupid, he would be the fool, not any Clinton.
This is stuff for the Enquirer or a Globe supermarket rag, not a legitimate website monitoring serious misinformation.
The focus of the item is not about what McCain said. I don't expect that to change your opinion of the article, but at least try to keep your comments relevant.
Tommy,
I wonder why you even bother to read MMFA. From most of your posts it seems that you don't think they offer anything worthy of discussion.
Stop wasting your time and get back on the NewsMax site.
So then just let the right get away with this kind double standard. It is somehow petty to point out the hypocrisy of it. It always seems your advise to liberals is just let the right continue with their character assasinations. Dont look at the agenda behind the curtain. Let the rightwing screechmonkeys BE rightwing screechmonkeys and dont fight back. When are you going to GET that this is NOT what this site does?
"When [is tommy] going to GET that this is NOT what this site does?"
Well, you and I and the other thoughtful supporters of, and contributors to, this site can feel good that we're standing behind the mission and work of Media Matters, and making positive efforts to deal with conservative misinformation and bias.
If I prowled a conservative web site daily, provoking and baiting its supporters into arguments for argument's sake, I'd feel like a total a$$.
Quick! Where's Dave_Chicago? He does not approve of these posts that only "provoke and are of little substance". And he is a contributor and a thoughtful supporter no less.
ROTFLMA($$)O!!!
"... [Dave_Chicago] does not approve of these posts that only "provoke and are of little substance". And he is a contributor and a thoughtful supporter no less."
Bingo, more or less. I said I'd feel like a total a$$ if, as a progressive, I visited a conservative site daily with the intent to provoke conservatives, undermine the site's mission, and bait other posters. (If that shoe fits—wear it.) But I don't do that. I'm here as a supporter and contributor.
Can you say "groupthink", Dave? You really should get out more often but I hear it's pretty cold in Chicago right now.
"Can you say "groupthink?"
-----
Many wingnuts can say "groupthink." None so far have been able to demonstrate its existence here.
That's pretty funny etrf. Now get back to the groupthink. Wouldn't want to disturb you with any evil ideas that aren't part of "Left Land."
Ah...ok. I was wondering what this topic was all about as well. Thanks for explaining the context.
Hey Brian,
I understand what MMFA is doing BUT there have been times when either Tommy, Bruce or myself will bring up something done/said by a Democrat/Liberal that is SIMILAR to what some Republican/Conservative is being sited for by MMFA and we're told that it doesn't matter. That it's NOT relevant. Yet MMFA is playing tiit for tat with THIS thread....
IF McCain actually made this "joke" as written here [if you read the article linked here--it uses the words reportedly said:] then it certainly shows McCain acting like a scumbag. Personal attacks about someones looks is below the belt.
What I found MORE fascinating in reading the article is how McCain was considered a media darling a decade ago. And has managed NOT to lose that label.
BTW, I can't stomach the guy.
Here is the difference. What one person does is NOT relevant to what another does or whether it is right or wrong. What the point is HERE is the hypocrisy of CRITICISING the one set of bloggers for what what THEY said and ignoring the other set for what THEY said both with ties to the campaigns of leading candidates of the two parties. As usual the point here ISNT what was done but how they were covered
Again, again, again with the "why is this here" drek.
It is true that MMFA's charter is to point out and correct conservative misinformation. I think this blog is more about conservative messages in the media, rather than strictly misinformation per se. Maybe MMFA should put up something that clarifies their posting policy, maybe not. It doesn't seem to bother more than a couple people.
Anyway, back on topic: I think Chelsea is pretty good looking. I was a gawky teenager too, most people are...
Sorry Val, can't rubberstamp every item here....I will leave that function to most of you here.
Yeah, but to make the same comment over and over again must be as boring to you as it is to the rest of us.
You know what kind of stuff they like to post... some of it is strict misinformation, some of it is just stuff they know will spark debate in comments. What's the value in saying "why is this here" again and again and again? You know why it's here... because the site owner thought it was noteworthy.
Really? What's boring is reading 100 or so comments saying exactly the same thing, just a different insulting slur most of the time directed at the favorite punching bag of the moment.
I apologize for the dissenting voice, I know you don't like it. If it's boring to you, don't read, and definitely don't respond.
"Really? What's boring is reading 100 or so comments saying exactly the same thing, just a different insulting slur most of the time directed at the favorite punching bag of the moment.
-----
Or 100 or so comments by Tommy saying exactly the same thing, just directed at a different article posted by MMFA used as Tommy's favorite "why is this here" disingenuous troll of the moment.
Make that 101
Gee Tom, why don't you debate the item instead of the web site? Sounds to me as though you think you're the decider.
Ok, I will debate the item.
I firmly stand by my position that Chelsea Clinton is not ugly, what is your position?
I agree. But as you fully know, that is not the issue.
The issue is McCain and Hynes attacking the young daughter of the former President. Is this the type of person we want sitting in the oval office?
No, the issue is, are liberal bloggers working for political campaigns held responsible for every random thing they post while conservative bloggers working for political campaigns are given a pass?
That is the issue.
The issue is who cares about bloggers for any political campaign, conservative or liberal.
You do realise, don't you, that you yourself are not only reading a blog, you posted a comment on a blog saying "who cares about bloggers?"
Val, I'll let you know the day I become relevant in political discourse between presidential candidates. Until then, we are in our own little world here.
Tommy:
Media Matters is under no obligation to cater to your specific point of view.
You are certainly free to create a website where you can address whatever topic or issue you think is important. From the number of "Why is this here" comments I've seen you post, you clearly have the time to do so. I have to question why you keep coming back when that seems to be your reaction to every post.
Really, what is the point of inserting yourself into a discussion in which you profess no interest?
It looks to me like your goal is to foment a belief that Media Matters posts nothing but trivial nitpicking. Quite Rovian of you, in a petulant, childlike way. Or you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time.
But please, spare us your opinion if it doesn't relate directly to the topic of the post.
Jaykay,
I don't believe that Media Matters caters to my specific point of view. You may want to check with them for verification, but I think I'm right on this.
Tommy
While I dont think Chelsea Clinton is ugly, I find this story also uneventful and kind of a joke to be here. I was hoping MMFA would spend more time discussing things today such as Chris Matthews using the "F" word live on MSNBC this morning with Imus. But I doubt that will be mentioned here becuause he was being derogatory toward Bush.
Doris, Yeah, I wouldn't look for that here.
Anybody up for any cherry picking?
Would it make you happy if MMFA changed their mission statement to say 'Pointing out conservative misinformation and wingnuttery' ?
Yeah, I wouldn't look for that here. - Tommy
Really.
Presumably you won't be posting another of your "why is this here?" musings on that thread.
Actually, I just did. And it's as silly as this. Presumably, you're incorrect.
That makes two of us.
Oops Gotcha Rustyboy - the wittiest liberal on site but any contribution beyond satirical humor is negligible.
Thanks, C.
Hi Dorris. Conservatives don't use the "F" word. It's against our religion. So that would fall under "Liberal Misinformation" which isn't covered on this site. Thanks. ;-)
"Conservatives don't use the "F" word. It's against our religion. "
Better tell Cheney.
Which Commandment is "Thou shalt not drop the F-bomb"?
I think it was on one of the tablets that Moses dropped in "History of the World Part I".
Ha! Good one, Bruce.
BTW, the Matthews expletive is covered at Crooks & Liars (a liberal blog). Matthews is apparently bigoted against ranchowners.
I'll check it out. Never been to that one before.
Good, we need smart non-libs in comments over there...
Maybe, but what's a little dirty talk between some prophets, eh?
Ezekiel 23:20 "For she doted upon their paramours, who were hung like mules, and whose emissions were like that of stallions."
Whoa.
That was freaky.
Is every word of God pure? What the Bible says about penises
That Yahweh certainly has a foul mouth. He'd better not try to go to work for Edwards or the righties will have a swooning spell.
I meant "Doris", sorry about that.
You guys are acting like the "ugly" comment is the point of the post, rather than the headline.
The meat is here:
I say that's pretty substantive.
Last time I checked it's not the purpose of MMFA to point out that Matthews dropped the "f" bomb on Imus as that is not misinformation just a swear word.
And if YOU dont like the threads DONT READ THEM. This isnt your SITE, YOU dont get to make the call about what is and what ISNT relevant no one elected you and no one NEEDS you to be the protocol manager of the site. Feel free to make your OWN site and manage it as you see fit
Rubberstamp?
It appears you believe that you (or I) have any say in what's posted here. MMFA may post what it wants without your (or my) approval.
As I've said before:
Seconded!
Chelsea is way hot.
Almost as hot as Monica Lewinsky.
(Yeah, you heard me!)
PS: Here's another pic for the folks in the back...
Here is an article from the NY Times about the Edwards' campaign being in "hot water" over comments made by liberal bloggers they hired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/us/politics/07edwards.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
These people will stop at nothing to prove how ignorant, sleazy, disgusting and just plain UGLY themselves. It is evidence of desparation and the need to create diversions. This country is in DEEP trouble; wether it's our huge debt (8.6 trillion USD) or the reality of losing control of the oil markets (read that "The Mighty Dollar" that propels it along). Even Sadaam, Putin and Chaves switched to the Uro in an effort to break free of the extortion the Fed perpetuates. When the dollar no longer carries its weight on the world market, which is happening at an astounding rate, maybe the American people wiil finally believe how evil a system we have created.
Good Night, and Good Luck
This is one conservative who is delighted with media matters persuit of the McCain campaign. He has always been the mainstream medias beard. "See we like McCain and he is a conservative Republican, sort of...", they seem to say everytime they put this champion of censorship in national headlines.
Sick him guys. Put a few harpoons in him for me. Your doing God's work.
I am truly horrified by the thought that we have two more long years of this campaign crap to get through before we start in again on the mid-term election. Why oh why cannot our elected leaders just do the job they were sent to do without putting us through this knife fight every two years. I for one am already deadly sick of the smell emanating from both sides.
Well, McCains' a real beauty himself with that skin graft thingy on the side of his pale, blotchy pink face. It really highlights his greasy, white comb over.
McCain, simply put, is a whore. All his pandering and sucking up to the right wing isn't going to get him the nomination this time, either.
The Chelsea Clinton stuff IS relevant, because it points to a double standard.