Gerth and Van Natta misrepresented Clinton's account of Foster's last month
In their new book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown and Co.), Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. claim that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) blamed deputy White House counsel and longtime friend Vincent Foster for failing to find time to spend with her in the month leading up to Foster's July 20, 1993, suicide. They write: "Hillary's painful reconstruction of their last month of silence focused not on her inability to meet with him, but his own failure to find the time to reach out to her." As their source, the authors cite Clinton's autobiography, Living History (Simon and Schuster, June 2003). But in her autobiography, Clinton wrote that both she and Foster were busy; she had spent that month "working to keep health care reform on the congressional agenda" and had been "preoccupied with preparing for my first trip out of the country as First Lady." She also wrote on page 174 of Living History: "I will go to my grave wishing I had spent more time with him and had somehow seen the signs of his despair."
In their book, Gerth and Van Natta wrote:
The next day, Foster unburdened himself, telling [then-associate attorney general Webster] Hubbell that the reason he and the First Lady rarely spoke of late was because "she's so busy." When they did talk, it was nothing like those days back in Little Rock, Foster said. At the White House, Hillary only had time to bark orders at her mentor, telling him, "Handle it, Vince."
Even that was about to end. Hillary's painful reconstruction of their last month of silence focused not on her inability to meet with him, but his own failure to find the time to reach out to her. Though their offices were near each other in the West Wing, "Vince was busy," she recalled. [Page 126]
Gerth and Van Natta cite page 175 of Living History as their evidence for the claim that Clinton's "painful reconstruction" of the last month of Foster's life concentrated on "his own failure to find the time to reach out to her" rather than "her inability to meet with him." In fact, while Clinton did write on page 175 of her autobiography that "Vince was busy" during this period, she also noted that she was preoccupied as well, specifically stating that her work promoting health care reform and preparing for a state visit to Toyko kept her from seeing Foster:
For the rest of the month and into July, Vince was busy with Bernie Nussbaum, the White House counsel, in vetting candidates to replace both retiring Justice Byron "Whizzer" White and William Sessions, who had been asked to step down as head of the FBI. I was still working to keep health care reform on the congressional agenda. And I was preoccupied with preparing for my first trip out of the country as First Lady. Bill was set to attend the G-7 summit, an annual meeting of the seven leading industrial countries, in Toyko in early July, and I was going with him. [Page 175]
(Then-D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually nominated to replace White on June 14, 1993, so the White House counsel's office would likely have spent that month preparing Ginsburg for her Senate hearing, rather than vetting potential Supreme Court nominees. The hearings began on July 20, the day Foster committed suicide and the day that then-Judge Louis Freeh was nominated to replace Sessions.)
Twelve articles defending Hillary in the last few days...that's enough evidence that they are hacking for Hillary as president.
Journey over to the liberal dailykos...and if you have a microscope...you might find a mention of the new books on Hillary.
A stroll through the lanes at the Huffington Post finds Arianna Huffington absolutely skewering Hillary...using the facts from Gerth's book:
- When it comes to Hillary's shape-shifting stances, explanations, and votes on the war, Gerth and Van Natta offer a definitive and chilling portrait of a politician solely driven by political expedience -- even when it comes to life and death matters such as Iraq.
- Clinton's serial manipulations, prevarications, rationalizations, and calculations on the war are laid out chapter and verse.
- Gerth and Van Natta show that, according to all evidence, Hillary did not actually read the "best available intelligence" on the war before the invasion
- Hillary has repeatedly insisted that her vote to authorize Bush to use force was actually a vote for diplomacy...
No, in fact, it's not evidence that Media Matters has a bias towards protecting Hillary.
It shows that the right has a bias towards attacking her.
Media Matters covers their deceit and their distortions.
When they were covering the Swift Boat Vet lies, their concentration was about that issue. It's the conservative misinformation that gets the spotlights and if those pieces of misinformation revolve around Hillary, that's what they'll cover.
People like you cannot refute what Media Matters says, so you turn it into an unfair attack on Media Matters. That's the tactic of losers who cannot fairly address the issues being covered.
...The authors turn a fan on this smokescreen.
- Her Way documents that the triangulation and shiftiness...the book details how Hillary again tried to have it both ways in January 2007
mmfa is in a full court press to defend Hillary...while several of the other liberal heavyweights like dailykos, newshounds, and huffington post show little defense for Hillary's portrayal in the new books.
wesley, what is your comment on this specific story? is mmfa saying anything not true? if not, you're just whining.
THOSE sites are liberal ideology sites THIS one is a conservative misinformation site. So when more misinformation comes out about Hillary they are obligated no matter what they think of her to cover that. Your attempt at more mindreading is weak. When they call for people to VOTE for Hillary or send her money get back to us until then you are looking increasingly like a troll just trying to tweak us and not enter into substantive discussions. That is too bad since you have the chops when you want to contribute
mmfa is not obligated to do anything...they choose to run volumes of stories supporting Hillary. Here's a helpful hint...they could stop shilling for Olbermann's worst person...that would leave a lot more space for their cherished mission...you know...standing astride the bulwark.
A cursory search of the last year on "Hillary Clinton" finds 376 articles...almost as many as Obama/Edwards combined.
- When they call for people to VOTE for Hillary or send her money get back to us - solon
Straw man...mmfa is a "not for profit" 501c3...Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.
So they cannot overtly call for votes for Hillary...it's a pretty thin veneer...in view of their charge of the Light Brigade defense of all things Hillary.
WESLEY:
In case you haven't noticed, MMFA is entirely a REACTIVE site. It comments on what is appearing IN THE MEDIA.
If the Media is working overtime churning out MISINFORMATION about Hillary Clinton ... and they ARE ... then REACTING to that misinformation shows only that the energies to smear Hillary are accelerating and deserving debunking.
So, if your complaint is that there is "too much Hillary" in this site (and conclude falsely that this means MMFA is "hacking for Hillary"), then you need to reconsider that it is YOUR people, YOUR side, the Rightwingers, who are setting the pace. If the Rightwing would quit lying about and trying to smear Hillary, MMFA would have no reason to feature items about her. Get it? It's YOUR guys, not MMFA.
Sorry texas...it's mmfa that is leading the charge to defend Hillary. About a dozen defenses of Hillary...a couple for Obama...and one for Pelosi and Edwards.
As stated earlier, some of the other popular liberal blogs have hardly yawned...where mmfa shows outrage...and works overtime to placate Hillary.
No, the supposed conservative misinformation does not run that heavily towards Hillary...but mmfa does.
or the right wing are going out of there way tosmear her more then the others because they fear her either way there is no basis of fact for either of our assumptions because they are exactly that
Sorry, Wesley, but you need to practice your reading comprehension skills a bit more and then re-read Tex's comment. MMFA is not leading a charge, it's standing astride the bulwarks defending the truth against right-wing/conservative assault. Right now, the principal target of the right-wing/conservative assault is the truth about Sen. Clinton. The number of MMFA pieces on Sen. Clinton is determined by the number of assaults, and not by any bias in favor of the Senator on MMFA's part. When the assaults on Pelosi or Edwards or Obama pick up, then so will the number of MMFA pieces on them.
- The number of MMFA pieces on Sen. Clinton is determined by the number of assaults - linus
Wrong...most of the recent onslaught of Hillary defending has to do with one book...one...not an all out assault by the right. Boehlert wrote a credible defense that did more than all the yammering by the mmfa staffers.
Many of the other liberal blogs are happily and vigorously defending all the liberals...not just being front groups for Hillary.
Despite the melodrama of "standing astride the bulwarks" defending against the Hillary onslaught...mmfa is mostly alone in their unflagging support of time and resources to support Hillary.
Conservative misinformation is the exact opposite of military intelligence. Got Milk?
anything untrue in this article? were hillary's words misconstrued?
Although I realize the number of items about HC are in response to the smear books coming out, I gotta admit they could become the second most tedious thing on this site.
In first place by a mile are the hundreds of comments whining about the number of Hillary items.
on the other hand, you don't ignore something because it may seem tedious.
Wesley, why do you even bother participating on MMFA if you disagree with their mission to correct all intentional misinformation in the media? This site exists precisely because of attacks not just on Hillary but anyone who's ever had the courage to run for political office. If you have a problem with correcting misinformation, then go back to dailykos and stay there. There is no Hillary quota. If any Democrat is the subject of lies and distortions, then those distortions need to be addressed. Each lie. Each distortion. As soon as it becomes public.
Either cough up the misinformation about Obama and Edwards MMFA is NOT covering or show yourself out in disgrace. A book coming out at THIS time filled with misinformation IS a bigtime smear. Where is the book smearing Edwards and Obama? MMFA did a good job you just dont like the way journalistic standards are measured. No one cares. Ya got nothin.
Pretty tricky, Solon...but no I'm not going to fill in for mmfa's overburdened staff.
But I will offer this:
- It's no wonder that Hillary Clinton did her best to quash the book...This desperate dismissal is going to be believed only by those who don't read the book - Arianna Huffington
With that...I'm going to officially announce my resignation from the Lil Rascals "He-Man, Woman-Haters club...besides, it was getting too crowded in that little clubhouse.
Well Solon, MMFA may be tackling this at some point [if they can tear themselves away from Hillary]:
Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.
In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"
"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."
When did that come out, J2? I hadn't seen that one.
Bruce,
I heard about it several days ago, I think on Hardball. Sounds like a great book. I love it when Liberals eat their own ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/No-Excuses-Concessions-Serial-Campaigner/dp/0743296516
=====
Some background on the guy:
Robert M. Shrum is now a senior fellow at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. He was at the center of progressive politics for more than a third of the century as a speechwriter, admaker, and strategist for 30 winning senate campaigns in addition to campaigns for governor across America and the mayors of virtually every major city. He served as senior advisor to the 2000 Gore and 2004 Kerry presidential campaigns. He has been a consultant overseas for the campaigns of Ehud Barak in Israel and the British Labour Party. He is a political analyst for MSNBC and appears regularly on Hardball. Shrum's book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner, will be published by Simon and Schuster in June 2007
=====
Amazing isn't that the allegedly Conservative biased MSM hasn't been all over this... LOL!
Which is indicitive of the conservative distortions about her compared to Edwards and Obama nothing else the other sites are not about media misinformation specifically. No liberal I know is enamored of Hillary I would be shocked if they defended her. MMFA isnt defending HER they are correcting the onslaught of lies distortions and unfounded claims against her. Ya got nothin.
Wesley,
How many smear stories have come out in the last few days about the candidates you mentioned? If there was an anti-Obama or Edwards book this site would be all over it.
Psst! It's not just the book ... it's that every rightwing pundit is picking up the misinformation in the book and blathering about these smears all over OUR airwaves. One book, but a THOUSAND sycophantic rightwing voices in the great ECHO CHAMBER of the rightwing smear machine. And they demand to be corrected ... every time.
Like wesley, i cannot stand hillary clinton. unlike wesley, i cannot stand lies about hillary clinton. gerth and van natta must be seriously dishonest reporters to churn out such easily refutable horse poop. wesley must be a seriously desperate if he would rather suck down those lies than let the facts speak for themselves.