First news report about new Clinton book undermines "preposterous" story about "secret pact of ambition"
On May 24, Media Matters for America offered a brief overview of criticism of previous reporting by Jeff Gerth, the co-author of a soon-to-be-released book about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) titled Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown).
On May 25, The Washington Post published the first news report based on the text of the book, which Gerth wrote with New York Times reporter Don Van Natta Jr. According to the Post, historian Taylor Branch, a key figure in the book's description of the Clintons' purported "secret pact of ambition," described the story as "preposterous."
From the May 25 Washington Post article:
According to Gerth and Van Natta, even before the Clintons were married they formulated a "secret pact of ambition" aimed at reinventing the Democratic Party and getting to the White House. The authors cite a former Bill Clinton girlfriend, Marla Crider, who said she saw a letter on his desk written by Hillary Clinton, outlining the couple's long-term ambitions, which they called their "twenty-year project."
Crider was first quoted about the letter in a book by a former National Enquirer reporter in 2000, at the time describing it as more about Bill Clinton's infidelities and the "little girls" he had. Gerth and Van Natta, however, report that they re-interviewed Crider and that she said the earlier book's account was "not totally accurate." In this telling, Crider described the note as being more about the couple's political plans, with little discussion of their personal relationship.
The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Contacted last night, Branch said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."
Hearsay doesn't stand up in court, but one can base a political best-seller on the very same lies and never be challenged.
It doesn't stand up in a court of law, but it can be stirred, chewed up, ingested and regurgitated without end in the court of public opinion, thanks to our "leftwing" media.
So you are a lawyer?
Hearsay is one of the basics I learned about in Junior High Law & Order class. Are only lawyers entitled to discuss such elemental aspects of the judicial system? What if I told you that a jury consists of 12 people and that I didn't learn that in law school?
The troglodytes built a cottage industry on lies like these during the 90s. Just look at JamesBondKevin's posts, and you can see its residue.
What basis for knowledge do you have on this subject? Are you a Clinton confidant? I doubt it.
MMFA knows no more about this than you do. The defense of this charge is defective. The basis of the charge is sourced from Ann Crittenden and John Henry. They are engaged in hearsay from yet another individual, Taylor Branch. Branch is further quoted by an UNAMED CONTACT, we must presume an MMFA staffer, but that person is not identified by name, making this refutation quote hearsay as well. I also notice Taylor Branch was either not asked if he ever had such a converstaion with either Crittenden or Henry, or MMFA chose not to report his answer, thereby underming the credibility of what he had to say.
Nobody who is denying the Clinton's harbored such plans has presented any kind of credible denial. Given that Hillary has been executing precisely just such a plan to enter the White House as President since prior to the election of Gerorge W. Bush, the existence proof of such a plan is simply overwhelming. Hillary is running for President. Hillary HAS been running for President, even while she has been denying it. To see the truth of this simply review her actions as Senator from New York.
MMFA's denial and your agreement that such a plan never existed or is "prepostersous" is akin to denying the Japanese had a secret plan for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in the middle of the attack.
Whether Hillary's plan will succeed or not remains to be seen, but its existence is beyond doubt.
Nice try, but no banana. The authors cited Branch as a source and Branch denies it. But then, you know better, right?
I like responses like this from you.
You just conceded the entire argument.
everyone running for president has a "plan". duh. the question is whether there was a "plan of ambition" all written out many years ago. do you have proof it was? your answer is no.
Wow, I like responses like YOUR that show an astonishing capacity for self delusion
Wrong. Read it again.
Quoted from the Washington Post article:
'The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary."'
Contacted last night, Branch said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."
--
It wasn't "MMFA's denial," it was the horse's mouth - Branch's - as reported by the Washington Post.
Who contacted Branch for the "preposterous" denial? This person is unidentified. ==> not a reliable source.
We see who quoted Branch for Gerth and Van Natta: Crittenden and Henry. Branch has not denied having a conversation with either of them on this topic, despite haveng been contacted about this subject by the nameless source.
You cannot refute the existence proof of Hillary's political moves since 1999.
My analysis stands.
<i>Who contacted Branch for the "preposterous" denial? This person is unidentified. </i>
It's clear that the authors contacted Branch. Come on.
In that case there are two suitable pronouns. 'We' denoting authors and 'I' denoting author.
Since neither were used, my money says some low level staffer or even someone not professionally connected with MMFA such as a personal aquaintance of Taylor Branch known to the author(s), not the author(s) of this piece, contacted Branch introducing more hearsay into the discussion.
I am pleased to see you at least accept the validity of the argument that Hillary has been visibly following a plan to be elected President of the United Statres, laying to rest any debate there was such a plan in the first place.
This, of course, begs the question of Taylor Branch's actual knowledge, memory, or truthfulness. Since we have existence proof of the "preposterous" plan as it is executed before our eyes, why would anyone argue its existence is preposterous? It exists, therefopre Branch is either (1) misquoted, (2) does not remember (3) didn't know about it in the first place or (4) is a liar.
You're still confused. MMFA didn't write the Washington Post article. I think you need to do some rereading.
So if I have this right, 2 people are now saying (after HRC is already running for Pres.) that she planned to run decades ago. This would be like me saying Edwards planned on running for Pres since 9th grade and the proof is he is running now. Hindsight is amazingly accurate, isn't it?
And the proof they give is they were told by someone who says he never told them. Instead of doubting Crittenden and Henry, you go after Branch, or those who actaully contacted Branch. So your "proof" is that the people you want to be right are right and the people you want to have lied are liars in your mind. Flawless logic.
It would have been the author of the Post article or someone the author assigned to the task - the article says the guy was "contacted last night." Remember the days of investigative reporting? Quaint, I know.
Your assertion that MMFA was somehow involved in the authorship of or investigation for the Post article is inane.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is and has been a successful politician. But when a source cited by the author of a book denies saying the things attributed to him, then the book is suspect. That is what this MMFA article is about.
You're just confused. MMFA didn't elicit the "prepostrous" comment. Peter Baker and John Solomon of the Washington Post did.
Try reading the post again. I dont see where MMFA denies the plan ever existed. They do show that a cited source calls it preposterous. How often do you guys need to be reminded that the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. MMFA is saying they have not met that burden. They havent. THAT is in itself a refutation of the STORY whether they made some pact isnt one way or another to me. The Clintons are clearly ambitious so what no one becomes a Governor, Senator or President without being ambitious but these guys have FAILED in their burden of proof and have done little more than written a gossip book. It is impossible to prove a negative in most cases. There is no NEED to prove there was no such plan, showing the burden of proof was not met IS sufficient to discredit the story
Well Branch's denial isn't really irrefutable proof that he didn't say such a thing. He might of, and would rather not own it now. It's not out of the realm of possibility he'd change his story.
That said, I'm not sure why he would, because quite frankly what would be the big deal if the Clintons had made this political "twenty-year project" *list*?
It isnt meant to be irrefutable proof. Proving a negative is usually impossible. Its meant to be what it IS a refutation of their story which calls into question its validity and shows they havent met THEIR burden of proof. When the source cited denies he ever made such a claim that isnt absolute proof he didnt. It however means that the basis for the claim doesnt exist.
"Nobody who is denying the Clinton's harbored such plans has presented any kind of credible denial. Given that Hillary has been executing precisely just such a plan to enter the White House as President since prior to the election of Gerorge W. Bush, the existence proof of such a plan is simply overwhelming."- NL207
This is a pretty good two-fer
First, the same impossible "prove it's not true" fallacy, and.
Second, the accusation of a "secret plan" in a soon to be released book,proven by the fact that it "predicts" parts of that plan that have already happened.
Bra- Vo !
Pretty soon Hillary will be able to give stump speeches on the piles of these tell-all insider hit books on her life and her secret plans to take over the world.
She will most likely not even respond to any of them, if she's smart, and she is.
That is true. I have never been a big Hillary fan but she is definitly a smart lady
I'd call her cunning, but not smart. She's good at conning the foolish, but against real intelligence, she'd shoot dirty looks and try to hide behind her fame. She's as readable as a Dick and Jane book.
Thank God the Bushs' never planned to take anything over...especially the White House...Maybe Repubs will vote for Sen. Clinton because at the least she attempts to ACCOMPLISH HER MISSION.
Is it me or are the Republicans pooping there pants concerning Sen. Clinton? To put their collective IQ's at rest, I am not sure that I will vote for her and that is based on issues, not the sexcapades which these Repubs seem to enjoy.
My only concern is that, if she does win, it will only make idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity even more popular. The thought of that gags me.
You are correct, in my opinion. Rush flourished during Bill's presidency, which is when all the wannabees were created......expect a new wave if Hillary gets in.
True that, if HRC gets elected, the vitriol from the usual suspects will be intense.
I had a hard enough time feeling I had to defend Bill back in the day. I am not looking forward to the prospect of either defending President Hillary *shudder* or joining the flying monkeys in their attacks on her.
You guys will probably not see me after January 2009 if that happens. I'll be on Wonkette.
In a rare moment of political insight, I predicted the "Republican Revolution". In '92, when we still had a "liberal" talk show host on local talk radio, she asked the rhetorical question, what is the worst thing that could happen if Bill Clinton wins? I answered, to myself, that the Right Wing, led by Rush Limbaugh, would become so galvanized that they would take over the government. Lo and behold, I was right.
I'd have to agree with the above. Should Hilary win, some on the right will predict the end of the world, or at least the end of a blow job free oval office.
The usual suspects will rant and rave and oppose and hate everything that she does and says.
She'd never get my vote, but it won't be the end of anything if she's elected. even if you hate her policies it's hard to argue that she isn't reasonable, studied, capable politicain with access to another such person in good ole Bill.
Bt you woudn't hear that on talk radio
True enough, but whining vitriol from a sore loser is one thing. Whining vitriol from a sore winner, to which we've been treated for the last 6 1/2 years, is really contemptible.
Take some consolation in reviewing the possible alternatives (to her winning):
_______________
_______________
_______________
If this were a report about a prominent Republican couple, who when they were young formulated a plan to become President I'm pretty sure it would have been spun a little differently.
It would be called inspirational, heroic and a fulfillment of the American Dream.
I'm not a big fan of Senator Clinton, but with each new attack, I'm becoming one.
Worrier,
The reason this gets such play, in my opinion, is the Clintons are endlessly fascinating to the public - considering Bill's trysts while in office and their reported tumultuous relationship, it just breeds these types of books and speculation.
But I agree with you, if too much of this is thrown at her she will begin to be viewed sympathetically and it will appear that her critics are just piling on for personal reasons - which is why it's smart that she stays above the fray.......and it may backfire on those that hate her so much. I am no fan of her politics, but I admire her grit and willingness to put herself through all this crap spewed at her....she is a tough lady.
King, naturally I bow to you, but keep repeating what the believers of this crap keep telling themselves...I am a DITTO HEAD I am a DITTO... but if you chant that three times in a row, you will become a DITTO HEAD...defined as: A true believer of everything an admitted druggie radio host tells you. Another question, who is going to buy this book? My guess is R's, so you need sex somewhere in it. If you see some bent pages during the sex parts, you'll know that the reader is a Republican.
A marriage is a secret pact?
Is a birth then a secret smuggling operation?
Wait a minute....Hillary Clinton is (GASP!) Ambitious?? But she's a WOMAN, how could she??
And she wants to...be PRESIDENT?? She's done a brilliant job hiding that ambition, except for her announcing her candidacy and raising money and giving speeches and participating in debates, of course....
This is all such crap. These people need therepy. WHO CARES if Bill and Hillary planned for Bill to serve two terms and then Hillary to serve two? That doesnt reach the level of Conspiracy to me- the American people had the final say on Bill, and they will have the final say on Hillary. If I come to believe that Hillary will be as successful a President as Bill was, she's got my vote.
Secret ambition? Just what is your point mmfa?
Having the ambition to become president of the US is hardly scandalous...secret or open. If mmfa has taken offense to this content...they better hire more staffers to rebut the rest of the allegatons on both books.
The WaPo story talks about lots of issues that are really explosive:
- a tortured relationship with her husband...skirted along the edge of the truth...less-savory moments in the couple's rise to power...terrified she would be prosecuted...thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband's indiscretions...Bill Clinton wanted to divorce his wife... -
This secret ambition story is a real nothing...but I'm sure mmfa staffers are in full overdrive in preparing for the multitude of threads that will be required to defend Hillary.
Should be a good match...Berstein vs. mmfa.
IT however is the claim that was made that the CITED SOURCE denies. THAT qualifies as misinformation. Who cares about the pact OR the marriage. Neither say anything about Hillary that I care about. My mechanic might be a real jerk who has a horrible marriage if he fixes my car well I couldnt possibly care less. Same with a politician.
- IT however is the claim that was made that the CITED SOURCE denies. THAT qualifies as misinformation - solon
Not necessarily...it proves a difference of opinion or someones lack of memory...history is full of both.
I agree with you on the marriage bit...means little to me.
It's interesting that mmfa would take offense at someone claiming that Bill and Hillary had ambitions for the White House...when the books are bursting their spines with other more salacious charges.
I'm buying stock in whale oil...because mmfa will be burning the midnight oil in the coming days in their efforts to debunk Gerth and Bernstein...and I'll repeat...Berstein vs. mmfa is going to be real interesting.
Wesley,
You beat me to the punch.
I can't wait for Bernstein's biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton to hit the stands. I read it will be sometime in late June.
I hear it contains a few blockbusters.
This from the link that mmfa provided:
- "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted. While in Arkansas, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed one woman alleged to have had an affair with her husband, contemplated divorce and thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband's indiscretions. -
Looks like a real donnybrook brewing...
Yes NECESSARILY, no one is disputing that the CITED SOURCE is denying he said any such thing calling it preposterous. THAT is a cold hard fact IF you are claiming he might be lying now that is a different argument. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that is the guy who wrote this book. His cited source is DENYING he ever said any such thing THAT is a refutation by definition. Whether the story is true is not a judgement either I or MMFA is making. They havent met their burden of proof
- IF you are claiming he might be lying now that is a different argument. -
That's exactly what I'm saying...and you can save your breath on me with your Perry Mason legalese...I'll make my own assessments.
Yes we have seen that and its no problem for you if they happen to have no basis as long as you like them.
Just dropping in to see what condition my condition is in. Just a reminder to all when 40% of the electorate says that they will NOT vote for you no matter what.....here it comes.....I can feel it......YOU CANNOT WIN! As a statistician I will inform you that if 34% of the electorate will not vote for you, you are screwed also, completely outside the MOE....its a math thing. Sorry all, no Hillary in the white house. No need to respond, I will not read it. Happy Memorial day everyone. And please DRIVE SAFELY!
No one cares what you read troll and no one cares what YOU think WE think about Hillary.
In Republofantasy Land, black is white, up is down, saying no means yes. So if I say George Bush is an idiot and a liar, every Republican will accept me because they hear...Bush is a genius and a truthful man.
The guy said it is not true, what is so hard to believe...the guy who says it is not true or the bums selling their books. FACTS is FACTS. Even in Republofantasy Land.
my god, everybody, what if it's true? what if the clinton's had long-term plans for their professional careers and the foresight and drive to actually realize those plans? gasp! so, this is it? the right-wing attack machine has been reduced to attacking her because she knew what she wanted when she was younger and she was able to achieve it? so wait, would it be more damaging if this story were true, or if it were false?
The rightwing has learned that one of the keys to success is to attack an opponent's strengths.
John Kerry's military credentials outshone Bush's by a mile. So, what did they do? Unfairly smeared Kerry's military credentials.
One of Hillary's strengths? Her ability to plan ahead and think long term. The rightwingers can't think long term to save their lives! So, what will they do? Unfairly smear Hillary's ability to think long term!
Well put, NotThatGeorge.
Kerry was also attacked by quoting people who knew him when he was younger saying that he really wanted to be President.
I guess their angle is the "calculated politician" smear.Portraying Bush as a regular guy who just wants to do "hard work", and ended up in the White House through Destiny rather than by his own devices.
I look at politics a little like parenthood, I feel more comfortable with somebody who really wants the job.
Let me get this straight.......Bill & Hill sit down at the kitchen table in Dogpatch, Arkansas and devise a plan that will lead them both to two, count em', two terms in the White House? If this were true I'd vote for her tomorrow given the current paucity of administrative acumen in the Bush administration she looks like god incarnate. What next, we find out that Bill prefers McDonalds to momma's home cooked meals and he has an eye for the ladies? How about some fascinating books on the Gingrich love affair with his high school geometry teacher and what exactly was Rudy doing living with gay friends after his bust up with Donna? Nice to see that Carl managed to pick up the pen after he put down the bottle. Hey Carl, how about a book about Bush and his connection to the moonies. Why was his dad Bush 41 flacking for them in DC on May the 17th at their 25 Anniversary Bash that featured a harangue by the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon himself. How does this look having your dad speaking for his supper when you're the commader -in- chief?
Beltway Greg.