Is the Clintons' purported "secret pact of ambition" a Gerth-Van Natta creation?
In an advance copy of the new book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.) obtained by Media Matters for America, co-authors Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. claim that former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "in the earliest days of their romance," "made a secret pact of ambition, one whose contours and importance to the two of them has remained their secret across all these years."
According to the authors, the "pact" -- purportedly referred to by the Clintons as their "twenty-year project" -- initially consisted of "a political partnership with two staggering goals: revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill." Gerth and Van Natta also claim that the alleged "pact" was expanded after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for" Hillary Clinton.
Gerth and Van Natta first refer to the "audacious pact" in the introduction of Her Way and return to it throughout the book -- alternately as the Clintons' "pact," "their plan," or "their twenty-year project." Nonetheless, in criticizing a Washington Post article previewing Her Way and A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein, Van Natta took issue with the Post's "focus on the notion of a two-decade Clinton 'plan.' " In a May 25 report for Politico.com, updated May 27, senior political writer Ben Smith wrote that "Van Natta denied that the supposed '20-year plan' was the book's central premise."
Additionally, according to a May 30 weblog post by Smith on Politico.com, Van Natta wrote to Smith: "[T]he Clinton people should wait until the book comes out before they nitpick everything from our alleged 'main premise' to footnotes." (In a May 25 web posting on her official presidential campaign website, Clinton research director Judd Legum referred to the so-called "plan" as "the book's central premise.") Van Natta's email came in response to an email from Clinton staffer Dana Singiser to the publishers of Her Way asking for a retraction in the endnotes, in which Singiser is cited as having been interviewed for the book. Singiser claimed she did not* have "any contact, directly or indirectly, with either author or their representatives." In his email to Smith, Van Natta acknowledged that he and Gerth did not interview Singiser and claimed that the error would be fixed in the final version of the book.
Media Matters found no examples of the phrases "secret pact of ambition" or "audacious pact" attributed to any source. These phrases are the characterization of Gerth and Van Natta alone. The authors refer to a "plan," "pact," or "project" more than 20 times in Her Way.
In the prologue of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write:
More than three decades ago, in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home.14 Once their "twenty-year project" was realized, with Bill's victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her.15 Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now.
While their plan was hatched together, Hillary had her own ideas about what it would take to achieve victory. She concluded that if she had any chance of winning the ultimate prize of her life, she would need to pursue it her way. That meant, among other things, carefully crafting a persona and a narrative to present to the American public that knew both so much and so little about her. [Page 9]
Associated endnotes:
14. Interviews with Leon Panetta and former Clinton administration official in 2006.
15. Author interviews with Ann Crittenden and John Henry in 2007.
The sourcing for the first version of the Clintons' so-called "twenty-year project" -- to "revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home" -- is detailed on Page 143. The authors describe a 1996 exchange between then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta and then-President Clinton in which Panetta is quoted as saying the Clintons' "twenty-year project" " 'had begun in Arkansas with the goal of establishing a long-term change in where the Democratic Party was heading' and 'included capturing the presidency.' " The endnotes for this exchange cite both Panetta and an anonymous "former Clinton administration official." From Her Way:
One evening in the fall of 1996, during a game of hearts aboard Air Force One, the president was asked by Leon Panetta, his chief of staff, why he had put up with Morris all these years. The president, trying to unwind after a grueling day on the campaign trail, was "taken aback" by the question.64 He paused a moment to think and then told Panetta that in politics "you need to hear from the dark side, and Morris represented that." In other words, Panetta later explained, "in order to win they needed to have someone like Morris to guide them, to understand the Gingriches of the world."65 And Morris was part of that larger strategic plan, conceived, Bill said, by Hillary and him more than two decades ago, their "twenty-year project." The project, Panetta went on, "had begun in Arkansas with the goal of establishing a long-term change in where the Democratic Party was heading" and "included capturing the presidency."66 Victory was the aim, and poll-driven policies were the means. [Page 143]
Associated endnotes:
64. Author interview with former Clinton administration official in 1996.
65. Author interview with Leon Panetta in 2006.
66. Ibid., and author interview with former Clinton administration official in 2006.
As of May 30, Panetta had neither confirmed nor denied the statements attributed to him by Gerth and Van Natta.
Gerth and Van Natta also write that according to Marla Crider, "[o]ne of Bill's ex-girlfriends," "[i]n a personal letter she wrote to Bill sometime before she arrived in Arkansas for good, Hillary laid out some of the details" of the "twenty-year project." Gerth and Van Natta acknowledged in an endnote that Crider's account first appeared in former National Enquirer reporter Jerry Oppenheimer's book State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton (HarperCollins, 2000), but that Crider said that account "was not totally accurate." Gerth and Van Natta never quote Crider herself saying that she saw evidence of a "twenty-year project" or of a "plan" -- singular -- only that the note she saw "talked about all of their future plans ... political plans." From Her Way:
Though still unwed, Hillary and Bill had already made a secret pact of ambition, one whose contours and importance to the two of them has remained their secret across all these years. They agreed to embark on a political partnership with two staggering goals: revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill. They called it their "twenty-year project," an auspicious timetable for two young people in their mid-twenties. And they agreed that the only way they would be able to achieve these goals was to do whatever it took to win elections and defeat their opponents. Bill would be the project's public face, of course. And Hillary would serve as the enterprise's behind-the-scenes manager and enforcer. 52
In a personal letter she wrote to Bill sometime before she arrived in Arkansas for good, Hillary laid out some of the details. One of Bill's ex-girlfriends, Marla** Crider, accidentally stumbled upon Hillary's letter sitting atop Bill's desk, in his house in Fayetteville. As Marla Crider scanned the words, she was stunned by what she was reading. This was hardly the usual love letter. It was all about their mutual ambition, a game plan for reaching their shared calling.
"The note talked about all of their future plans ... political plans; that is the best way to put it," Crider said. The letter "had everything to do with their careers," and Crider found it "so unusual that there was no talk of a home, family and marriage."53 Having glimpsed the missive, Crider had not at all been surprised to see Hillary running Bill's first campaign for Congress.54 [Page 54-55]
Associated endnotes:
52. Author interviews with Leon Panetta and former Clinton administration official in 2006.
53. Author interview with Marla Crider in 2006. Crider's account was first mentioned in Jerry Oppenheimer, State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton (New York: HarperCollins, 2000). Crider says Oppenheimer's account "was not totally accurate."
54. Ibid.
In State of a Union, Oppenheimer wrote:
It was sometime later that Marla went to Bill's house and found the letter from Hillary open on his desk. The letter that talked about "the plans we've made, the goal we've set"; the letter insisted his feelings for her, Marla, would pass -- "let me remind you it always does." She stood over it a long time, confused, unsure. What, exactly, was going on here? [Page 130]
The source of Gerth and Van Natta's additional assertion that the purported "twenty-year project" was expanded to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for her" is a disputed secondhand account by former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband, John Henry, of a conversation they purportedly had with historian Taylor Branch. In the conversation, as described by Crittenden and Henry, Branch allegedly recounted to Crittenden and Henry a conversation he had with then-President Bill Clinton in 1993 in which Clinton said both Clintons planned to become president.
In Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write:
By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.
Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer.71 The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions"72 as part of an oral-history project.
Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons' presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry's breath away. "I was shocked,"73 he said. [Pages 128-129]
Associated endnotes:
71. Author interviews with John Henry and Ann Crittenden in 2007. Branch, in an interview with one of the authors in 2007, said, "I don't remember" the conversation but "I'm not denying it." He acknowledged that he knows Henry and Crittenden and that he has been to Aspen many times. But Branch declined to discuss Hillary or Bill, saying it was "stupid" to do so in light of the fact that he was doing his own book on Bill's presidency.
72. Julie Bosman, "Historian Plans Book from Chats with Clinton," New York Times, March 22, 2007, El; author interview with Taylor Branch in 2007. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, says the oral history project began in late 1993. (Clinton, My Life, ii.)
73. Author interview with John Henry in 2007.
In addition to Branch's statement in the endnotes that he "do[es]n't remember" the conversation with Crittenden and Henry, The Washington Post also contacted Branch for a comment about the Crittenden-Henry account for the May 25 news report on Her Way. According to the Post report, "Branch said that 'the story is preposterous' and that 'I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.'"
Additionally, in a May 29 post for TPMCafe.com, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted that according to Bernstein's A Woman In Charge, Hillary Clinton "repeatedly" told confidante Diane Blair that aside from briefly considering a run for Arkansas governor in 1990, "she had no interest in elected office" until 1999, when she expressed interest in running for the U.S. Senate. As Sargent noted, Blair's comments to Bernstein appear to contradict the allegation in Her Way that the Clintons, in Sargent's words, "were already plotting two terms for her in the White House." [Sargent's emphasis.]
Bernstein's account also appears to undermine the suggestion by Gerth and Van Natta that Hillary Clinton had specific Senate and presidential ambitions by "early 1998," which determined her handling of the Monica Lewinsky matter. Gerth and Van Natta write:
Privately, Hillary was hopeful that "people might start to understand" the argument that she had been making for years: She believed that the prosecutors were attempting to undermine the office of the presidency and her husband's agenda through an abuse of their power.32 Omitted from her account was an acknowledgment of the peril endangering her own political career. Her friend and adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, observed, "For her, the stakes were greater than for anyone. They encompassed not only everything she had worked on politically for a lifetime, but her marriage. She had to defend both."33
A political future was by no means a vague hypothetical. She was nearly certain by early 1998 that she was going to seek a Senate seat, possibly in New York. And this scandal, it appeared in those early days, directly threatened that prospect. More immediately, the Clintons' reported plan for eight years for him in the White House, followed by eight years for her, was now in peril. Hillary was just furious that such a stupid, sad mistake on her husband's part now endangered all their plans -- no, all her plans.34 [Page 177]
Associated endnotes:
32. Clinton, Living History, 442.
33. Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars, 339
34. Author interviews with two Hillary friends and a former Clinton administration official in 1998, 2006, and 2007.
So, Gerth and Van Natta build the case for what they describe as "a secret pact of ambition, one whose contours and importance to the two of them has remained their secret across all these years" using this information:
- Panetta's statement that the Clintons' "twenty-year project" "had begun in Arkansas with the goal of establishing a long-term change in where the Democratic Party was heading" and "included capturing the presidency" -- which was also attributed to an interview with an anonymous "former Clinton administration official."
- The statement by "[o]ne of Bill's ex-girlfriends" that she had seen a letter "about all of their [the Clintons'] future plans ... political plans."
- The disputed secondhand account about the Clintons purportedly updating their "twenty-year project" in 1993 to include Hillary Clinton becoming president.
Based on these three accounts, Gerth and Van Natta refer to the Clintons' "secret pact of ambition" throughout Her Way. Those references include:
Page 9:
More than three decades ago, in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home. Once their "twenty-year project" was realized, with Bill's victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her. Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now.
While their plan was hatched together, Hillary had her own ideas about what it would take to achieve victory. She concluded that if she had any chance of winning the ultimate prize of her life, she would need to pursue it her way. That meant, among other things, carefully crafting a persona and a narrative to present to the American public that knew both so much and so little about her.
Pages 53-54:
Though still unwed, Hillary and Bill had already made a secret pact of ambition, one whose contours and importance to the two of them has remained their secret across all these years. They agreed to embark on a political partnership with two staggering goals: revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill. They called it their "twenty-year project," an auspicious timetable for two young people in their mid-twenties. And they agreed that the only way they would be able to achieve these goals was to do whatever it took to win elections and defeat their opponents. Bill would be the project's public face, of course. And Hillary would serve as the enterprise's behind-the-scenes manager and enforcer.
In a personal letter she wrote to Bill sometime before she arrived in Arkansas for good, Hillary laid out some of the details. One of Bill's ex-girlfriends, Marla Crider, accidentally stumbled upon Hillary's letter sitting atop Bill's desk, in his house in Fayetteville. As Marla Crider scanned the words, she was stunned by what she was reading. This was hardly the usual love letter. It was all about their mutual ambition, a game plan for reaching their shared calling.
"The note talked about all of their future plans ... political plans; that is the best way to put it," Crider said. The letter "had everything to do with their careers," and Crider found it "so unusual that there was no talk of a home, family and marriage."53 Having glimpsed the missive, Crider had not at all been surprised to see Hillary running Bill's first campaign for Congress.54
Pages 56-57:
THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 1976 was a milestone for Bill and Hillary's twenty-year project. A Georgia governor named Jimmy Carter demonstrated that Democrats could take back the White House, after eight long years. More to the point, Carter proved to the Clintons that a little-known southern governor could win enough electoral votes to become president. Perhaps most important for the Clintons, after narrowly losing his first campaign for a House seat two years previous, Bill scored his first electoral victory in 1976, winning the race for attorney general of Arkansas.
Pages 67-68:
THE 1980 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION had been a heartbreaker for the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan's defeat of President Jimmy Carter launched a twelve-year Republican reign in Washington. As if that outcome was not depressing enough for the Clintons, Bill had lost his reelection bid for governor that November, a humbling defeat that he would later describe as a near-death experience. Her husband's failure left the thirty-three-year-old Hillary in tears; Dorothy Rodham would tell a reporter in 1992 that it was the only time she saw her daughter cry as an adult. Bill's defeat must have seemed an unimaginable roadblock, one that neither he nor Hillary had envisioned when they set off on their twenty-year project. Hillary was shedding tears not only for Bill's future but for her future too.
Page 96:
Hillary had long ago made a pact of her own with Bill; no allegations of Bill's womanizing, accurate or not, would stand in the way of reaching their shared goal. And if she was OK with it, why should anyone else object?
Page 117:
ON INAUGURATION DAY, January 20, 1993, Bill and Hillary's "twenty-year project" was realized, right on schedule. Given the project's history, it was a certainty that Hillary would play a crucial, behind-the-scenes role in her husband's presidency. The question swirling around Washington was what formal role, if any, would she assume?
Page 124:
Hillary had long been a fighter who -- in the smaller Arkansas pond, at least -- had relished political combat and prevailed. And her steadfast devotion to her husband and their twenty-year project had certainly continued in large part because she and Bill were able to fend off attacks from their few antagonists in Arkansas and produce results. As long as she could do something good, she felt she could ignore her critics. Not surprisingly, Hillary's most ambitious goal -- her insistence that a health care bill be submitted to Congress within one hundred days -- turned out to be the most unrealistic one, rejected by Senator Byrd, a fellow Democrat. Perhaps it was merely because Hillary was no longer thinking like a cautious lawyer; she was now the client, and an exacting and demanding one at that. (In a number of travel office documents, White House aides referred to Hillary as "TC," an acronym for "The Client." Her former colleague Webb Hubbell described her as "a very demanding client indeed.")
Pages 128-129:
By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.
Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer. The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions" as part of an oral-history project.
Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons' presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry's breath away. "I was shocked," he said.
Page 143:
One evening in the fall of 1996, during a game of hearts aboard Air Force One, the president was asked by Leon Panetta, his chief of staff, why he had put up with Morris all these years. The president, trying to unwind after a grueling day on the campaign trail, was "taken aback" by the question. He paused a moment to think and then told Panetta that in politics "you need to hear from the dark side, and Morris represented that." In other words, Panetta later explained, "in order to win they needed to have someone like Morris to guide them, to understand the Gingriches of the world." And Morris was part of that larger strategic plan, conceived, Bill said, by Hillary and him more than two decades ago, their "twenty-year project." The project, Panetta went on, "had begun in Arkansas with the goal of establishing a long-term change in where the Democratic Party was heading" and "included capturing the presidency." Victory was the aim, and poll-driven policies were the means.
Page 177:
A political future was by no means a vague hypothetical. She was nearly certain by early 1998 that she was going to seek a Senate seat, possibly in New York. And this [Monica Lewinsky] scandal, it appeared in those early days, directly threatened that prospect. More immediately, the Clintons' reported plan for eight years for him in the White House, followed by eight years for her, was now in peril. Hillary was just furious that such a stupid, sad mistake on her husband's part now endangered all their plans -- no, all her plans.
Around the world, reporters spoke of the risk to Bill Clinton's legacy. But the view from Hillaryland was simple: She had the most to lose.
Page 338:
THE SHOWDOWN OVER the legacy of 9/11 was as good an example as any of the unique complications of Hillary's campaign for president. As much as she had intended to go forward on her terms, she knew that her political future, like the twenty-year project she and Bill had forged three decades ago, would depend on her husband's assets and liabilities, for better or worse. If she could only have cherry-singled out Bill's great successes, the dependence might not have been so strong. But, of course, that was not possible.
Page 343:
A few days before the 1993 inauguration, Father Tim Healy, the former president of Georgetown University, died of a heart attack while typing a letter to Bill Clinton. The letter was posthumously sent to Bill.
Father Healy wrote of his hope that Bill's election would "force the spring." Hillary was struck by the phrase, understanding it to mean that her husband's presidency would bring about a "flowering of new ideas, hope and energy that would reinvigorate the country."23
For Hillary, Healy's phrase was a fitting metaphor for her husband's ambitions -- and thus her own. Bill and Hillary Clinton had been connected personally and politically for two decades, and with his arrival in Washington, their twenty-year project had been realized.
Fourteen years later, it is Hillary's turn. She is the most viable female contender in American history for the nation's highest office. Her landmark campaign has inspired women of all generations, giving them hope that their time has come. Her election too would "force the spring."
** Correction: In an earlier version of this item, several of the references to Marla Crider in portions quoted from Her Way were misspelled.
These two people (the Clintons) have been involved in politics much of their lives, going back to JFK and Goldwater. Did they have a "pact of ambition", probably not. Has their thinking evolved because of their political successes over the years, probably. Look at the field of presidential candidates, is there not a lot of ambition there? Gerth and Van Natta have probably taken some literary liberties here to suggest the "pact" goes back thirty years, but so what if it does? If it does, it just goes to show that people can set goals and go about obtaining them. Except in the way it may be framed by these authors there is nothing wrong or diabolical for individuals or groups to set long term goals in their lives.
Why is it that when children have quaint aspirations about being President of the United States some day, it's considered 'noble' and 'cute', but once they enter the adult world, regardless of their political leanings, that same aspiration becomes connving and scandalous?
Probably because someone thinks they can make $$$ by spinning that way.
So simple, yet so accurate.
And since so much mud has been slung at the Clintons from so many angles, the NYT authors have cooked up the "twenty-year plan" sham.
Why are these people allowed a voice at all? C'mon, a secret pact? Like they married dreaming of becoming political powerhouses? Now, I would guess no one ever enters into a marraige with grand hopes of failure, but politics? This is just another attempt to paint the Clintons as shallow opportunists.
I hope Leon Panetta comes out of the woodwork soon to shed some light on this. Without knowing how his relationship with the Clintons has fared over the years since he served under Bill, I still find it hard to believe that he would know so much about a "secret pact of ambition", much less be willing to stab Hillary in the back with it for the benefit of a couple of NYT reporters.
One small critique: it would be somewhat more accurate to describe them as "NYT propagandists" or even "NYT liars", one would think, given the substantial demonstrations of invention and discriminatory application in this and prior Clinton work by Gerth set forth in the several other threads debunking this book.
Just trying to keep the discourse "elevated", LOL ;-)
This is simple.
Anyone who has a "SECRET PACT" to obtain power is a BAD PERSON, overly ambitious, powerhungry, and ruthless.
Since these authors wished to portray Hillary in the worst possible light, they INVENTED this so-called "secret pact" for Bill and Hillary to be following, in a conspiracy theory with NO journalistic backup. Their footnotes are no kind of confirmation of the existence of such a "pact". The "authors" even admit that the "pact", if it exists, is "secret" ... yet the "authors" claim to know the specifics. And the specifics they provide are made up out of thin air.
This is typical of rightwing smearmongering and character assassination, and this book will nosedive as a result of these writers' lack of journalistic integrity.
I can't help thinking Gerth was on a streetcorner on rightwing publisher's row (where Regnery resides) with a cardboard sign crudely lettered, "WILL LIE FOR CASH".
That sign is much better than her current one, "$5, suckie f**kie"
SNOOPY:
By "her", do you mean Hillary? Wow. If she's wearing such a sign (as you indicate she DOES), then you can do no less than approach her with the $5 bill and demand services.
This I would pay to see, because of course she has secret service protection, and if you had the decency and courage of your statements, they'd get a chance to exercise a variety of their techniques on you.
Tex, you OK? you seem to be off a bit lately. 1st Monk, now me. Have you ever known me to speak derogatorily of Hillary? I was adding on to your sing wearing mention, it didn't look like you were referencing Hillary to me. Snap out of it, man! You usually have a much better game than this!
Snoop:
You're right, I blew it. I shouldn't post when I don't have the time to read all the relevant previous posts, which was what happened ... only a short time to be online this time around, and your post seemed to be referencing Hillary. It happens, sorry. (But as you see, you easily dispelled my misconception ... something the rightwingers don't seem to be able to do.)
More droning by mmfa...in their incessant defense and support for Hillary's presidential bid.
Secret pact? Secret ambition? So what...many in politics have the ambition to lead their party and become president. This entire episode of trying to debunk Gerth is pretty lame...if after 15-20 attempts...this is the best they can do.
Also, mmfa finally slipped in the fact that when confronted by the authors in 2007...he would not deny his statement. Later he has a senior moment and denies his statement...oh my aching behind.
In fact, the authors praised her..."She is the most viable female contender in American history for the nation's highest office. Her landmark campaign has inspired women of all generations, giving them hope that their time has come."
With this type of tedious and obvious campaigning for Hillary...it's no wonder her negative poll numbers are so high. mmfa has debunked nothing except their credibility as mature and seasoned media watchdogs.
You want a 'secret pact" in regards to political families?
How about the Bush family?
"Oh that's different!"
WESLEY:
You're obviously sick of the "droning" by MMFA. My question to YOU is, do you think MMFA has had a part in the dismal decline of the GOP, and the fortunes of Bush and his crew, or do you think the GOP and Bush have curdled to almost universal dislike and distrust all on their own, independent of outfits like MMFA?
See, there's no denying the GOP and Bush are in the toilet, circling the drain, as popular as bubonic plague, but you treat MMFA as if they are somehow responsible for the undoing of the Right. If MMFA were irrelevant, wouldn't you just ignore them?
Which is it? MMFA responsible, or does all the "credit" belong to Bush and the GOP for simply self destructing?
Wrong on your first premis cowboy...I'm not sick about mmfa. But, they are droning in their pandering to support Hillary.
Now to your questions. Nope, I don't think mmfa has had much to do with the republicans losing the majority in congress. We don't have anyone to blame but ourselves...the republican party abandoned their conservative base and have paid the price.
Don Quixote escapades by mmfa have had little effect on the republican party...the wounds are self-inflicted.
Do I think mmfa is irrelevant...nope. I mostly enjoy reading this site. There is lots of good info to be gleaned...particularly if you do more than read their headlines and scan the articles.
I learn lots of things by following the posted links...which inevitably leads me to search out other links on the subject at hand. mmfa has invited us all here...to read their articles and comment on them.
When I find something of interest...I comment. Mostly I come out opposing the views of mmfa. Big surprise...I'm conservative and they're liberal.
In this case...they're droning...in their not too well disguised stumping for Hillary.
But this site is actually conservative. It sells right-wing Dem candidates. It never questions their "progressiveness" at all. It's a purely partisan operation without any independence at all. It will NEVER criticize a Democrat for being conservative.
WESLEY:
Fair enough. It must be extra hard on real "conservatives" when supposed fellow travelers like Newt are moral basket cases in their personal lives, when Reagan ballooned the SIZE and COST of government, when BUSH wants wide-open borders, when Nixon and Bush blaze new trails into secretive and undemocratic governance, when the GOP trashes all environmental concerns, when the GOP has ALL the law-making power with both houses of Congress AND the Presidency and they can't do a THING to get school vouchers, to get a balanced budget, to get "Loser Pays" tort reform, to "fix" Social Security, to outlaw abortions, or any of the "conservative" want list.
The GOP is good about TALKING conservative rhetoric, but when they get power, they piss all over you good Conservatives. It's sad for you when the Dems get elected, and do what they claim they will do about social justice and social programs, but when you vote those GOPers in to service your agenda, and they turn against you -- that must burn something fierce.
But the Dems haven't done what they said they would do. Social justice? Look at our prisons, look at our poor. Where's them Dems? Voting for more prisonerss, more corporate profits and more war-mongering.
We liberals are not buying the Dem lies anymore. They barely talk the talk and they sure don't walk the walk. They walk like fascists.
I really don't care about whether Hillary and Bill had a secret pact. I think it's quite fine, frankly. These are the kinds of things people do to become President. I do, however, care about the fact that this website, which pretends to be exposing anti-liberal bias, has become a Hillary Clinton for President website.
You're not alone.
Nah, they just go after anti-Democrat bias. The great dream is that the conservative media will stop attacking conservative Dems and start attacking conservative Repubs instead....for the conservative Dems. There's no liberalism involved here at all. Just the two fascist parties arguing over who gets to lie to the American people the most.
This is not obvious campaigning troll. When they ask for Hillary donations or solicit us to vote for Hillary get back to us. Until then its still confronting misinformation.
The day mmfa solicits money or votes for Hillary is the day they have to close their 501(c)(3) status...the rebuttal is a puny strawman.
What is obvious is the constant drivel about all things Hillary...with that mission, mmfa better add more staff to keep up the campaigning.
Most of the lies and misinformation coming out these days is directed towards Hillary Clinton. Most conservatives believe she will be the nominee so they’re attacking her as early as possible. Likewise, Media Matters is defending her because they also believe she will be the nominee. The left can’t afford to wait too long to counterattack because the lies and misinformation will turn into ostensive truths.
That's what you would think if you only read mmfa. There are many liberal sites that have found plenty of things to keep them busy...like the issues.
Spilling tons of ink on whether the Clinton's had a secret ambition pact...or whether Hillary flunking the bar exam is "old news or new news"...only marginalizes the credibility of mmfa.
My two cents on her chances of being the nominee...pretty good...and this is one conservative that hopes like heck that happens.
“That's what you would think if you only read mmfa. There are many liberal sites that have found plenty of things to keep them busy...like the issues”.
Many liberals (including me) don't want her to be the nominee so they try not to focus on her. But Media Matters is taking a more realistic approach. Right now it looks like she will be the nominee with Obama having an outside chance. Misinformation directed towards both Clinton and Obama has to be countered quickly and aggressively.
“My two cents on her chances of being the nominee...pretty good...and this is one conservative that hopes like heck that happens.”
This is one liberal who hopes her candidacy goes down in flames.
And THOSE sights are concerned with progressive politics overall which precludes Hillary. THIS site shows misinformation and spin. Much of it right now is about Hillary.
SOLON:
Shouldn't we Liberals take Wesley's advice, and stick to all those ISSUES out there, while the rightwing is busy distributing lies and accusations and smears against the Democratic Presidential Frontrunner?
I mean, after all, Democrats should take the HIGH ROAD, much as nominee John Kerry did in '04, virtually ignoring the SWIFT BOATERS while defining issues.
Rightwing disinformation works much better when not challenged, so Wesley's advice to simply let it go unchallenged, while focusing on "other issues", is great advice if one wants the rightwing to be most effective. Big surprise from Wesley, offering poisoned advice to the left: "Quit correcting our distortions! Stick to issues while we're busy with our character assassinations!" Thanks, Wes, but NO SALE.
NOT a strawman. Try to keep up its pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. The day they start CAMPAIGNING for anyone they lose that status. They are NOT doing any such thing. They are doing for her what they do for everyone. Correcting misinformation and exposing the spin. There is MORE of it directed at Hillary right now so there are more Hillary threads. The fact YOU have some obsessional hatred of the woman is the only thing demonstrated here. That I actually understand. It isnt likely that I like her anymore than you do for reasons both different and similar. Projecting your hatred onto MMFA for doing there job is just dumb. When the rightwing gets over their obsession with Hillary you will see less of her here. NO Campaigning going on here except in your delusional mind
- There is MORE of it directed at Hillary right now so there are more Hillary threads. - solon
Right now? This is not a recent trend...from the beginning mmfa has run a high content of Hillary threads...a simple search of the sight proves that.
Concerning your ridiculous comments about my supposed hatred of mmfa...my disagreement with many of their positions is simply that...a disagreement.
On many occasions you have chided posters about their "mind reading" skills when expressing an opinion...well you can put that one trick pony back in the barn...in light of your Carnac approach to my thoughts on mmfa.
Running thread after thread on such minutiae as "a secret pact of ambition" or Hillary flunking the bar exam and "keeping it a secret" proves that mmfa will go to any length to support Hillary.
Disagree with that? Knock yourself out.
Baloney. I am here all the time sometimes there are months without a Hillary thread. I concede your point about mindreading. I was stretching and you called me on it. Good for you. You still have NOTHING with your constant whining about this being a Hillary site its ludicrous. It wasnt an anti OReilly site when he had a run it wasnt an Imus site when HE dominated. It is what it always has been. They DID prove their point no matter how stubborn you are about it that when a cited source DENIES being a source you have no evidence for you claim it has effectively been debunked. Their sloppy work. Not MMFAs problem as for the secret its so weak. For you to show she was keeping it a secret under lock and key you need an affirmative action showing she did something to KEEP it a secret, simply not talking about something unflattering does NOT make this point. So either cough up this affirmative action or you have zip on that one. Its misinformation according to MMFAs judgement. YOURS doesnt count. Doing their job as THEY see fit in no way qualifies this as a pro Hillary site.
- I am here all the time sometimes there are months without a Hillary thread - solon
Ok, mister burden of proof...I'll challenge your claim...prove it.
All the threads are archived...I'll believe it when you back up your assertion with facts...but I'm betting you won't go to the effort.
You are right. I am not taking the time to sift through all the archives. In fact it might have just SEEMED like months went by without any Hillary threads it in no way shows this site will go to any lengths to support Hillary. I tell you what when YOU support THAT statement get back to me. There is a portion of the Rightwing that has an obsessive hatred of Hillary. I think THAT is self evident. This creates more media misinformation about her thus more threads showing there are more threads about Hillary in NO WAY proves this site is all about supporting Hillary. Since we are talking about burden of proof this accusation is YOURS. YOU have not substantiated it or come within LIGHT years of proving it.
Here's some fun reading on the Democracy Alliance, Hillary and Media Matters (oh, and this group does directly fund MMFA)
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/hillarys_hit_man_strikes_again/
Will this book be on the fiction or non-fiction list of the NYT?
Inquiring minds want to know!
More like the "non-fiction" bargain bin, like "Chariots Of The Gods" by Eric Von Daniken.
This upcoming book by Gerth and Vatta, the same story is in a paper Every day. Talk about cheap advertising. I think about 'The Swift Boat guys" everytime I start to read it. Its a Slam after Slam everyday, then you tell us the things are not true. Can't things like this be stopped???
I really don't care what she wanted or where she plans on going.
If she gets into the White House, we will have 8 years of socialism.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com
If you think Bush was bad, my god I can't imagine the craziness with the Clintons all over again.
Sure Hillary is a socialist. Or maybe you are just a moron. Give it up. Hillary is no more a socialist than she is Brittney Spears
Hillary is as socialist as Mussolini. She's DLC, corporatist, thru and thru. If this were 1934, she'd be backing Franco and the fascists.
<i>If she gets into the White House, we will have 8 years of socialism.</i>
Not a chance. Hillary is as corporate as they come. Would Rupert Murdoch support a socialist? (even a social Democrat?). The corporations are lining up their dollars behind HRC (including an $850,000 Newscorp fundraiser). She has never been a liberal, even if she was the most left leaning of Wal-Mart directors. She is the corporate candidate - with the right-wing backers to prove it. Unfortunately, she also has people like MMFA masquerading as progressives who support her. Can anyone say "flag burning amendment?" HRC=GWB
Yup, fascism in a power-skirt. I'ts Maggie Thatcher all over again.
I would be giggling away at this secretive cops and robbers type of book. You know, on supposedly based on what a jilted girlfriend said she found while snooping in a private letter and from some vague interview supposedly with Leon Panetta.
Golly, gee these guys have truly scraped the bottom of the barrel for this hit job. It is refreshing to come to Media Matters to check the facts on these issues ssince I do not have time nor the resources to check out the facts and I refuse to buy their disgusting book so full of lies.
One of the really sad things about the Republican Party is that they have left me long ago with their disgusting behavior. It sort of shows how worried they are about losing Republicans like me, but alas, if they think this swill gets me to vote for the scummy antics of folks like these authors, well they misjudge many of us Republicans.
I can see why the party has lost so many telephone canvassers (including some friend of mine) with this sort of disgusting stuff. Actually most Republicans I know were thoroughly ashamed of the Swift Boat crew and we do not intend to be boonswoggled by that sort of crap ever again..
What a bunch of nothing these Hillary-bashers are up to. Do political couples often discuss life goals? I hope so. It's the construction of a sinister "pact" from a bunch of probably misheard or mischaracterized conversations that's sinister. Is a female politician "ambitious"? Of course. Conservatives have no problem with Thatcher and her inconsequential hubby and derelict boy; that's none of our business. But for the Hillary-bashers, the planting of the idea that she's "manipulative" and that she has "secret pacts" is as important as characterizations of "hooked noses" and "pushiness" is for anti-Semites.
And you don't have to be a Hillary fan to despise this kind of political slander. If they can do it to Hillary, there sure as hell can do it to Obama or Edwards or anybody that comes into their view. Kucinich, or Paul, would be ground up and spit out in days. The only reason they're doing it to Hillary now is that she's the front-runner. If she loses the nomination, or God forbid, the presidency should she get the nomination, you'll see a lot of fond tributes to the "surprisingly charming and effective" Senator from New York. Sort of like Al Gore now that he's a saint, instead of that crazy old Internet inventor.
So, Wesley, now, cards on the table, who do you support? If it's a Republican, well, that's not surprising. If you'd prefer a more left-leaning candidate, then please make that argument. The fact that you react so badly to defending one candidate from a smear doesn't make me think very highly of your political judgment. Go ahead: reject Hillary on any basis you want to, as long as it's the truth.
In other news, when Obama (or another candidate) has two lying books written about him within a week, I'd expect MMFA to respond as usual: with a fact-based rebuttal of the false claims, as it has done in the past.
I know that David Brock was commissioned by the right to do a smear job on Hillary, and he didn't respond the way they thought he should, but instead did a reasonably thoughtful job. A year or so later, he deprogrammed himself and wrote an indispensable book on the right-wing propaganda machine and his conversion experience. I'd recommend the book highly: it's called "Blinded by the Right."
- So, Wesley, now, cards on the table, who do you support? If it's a Republican, well, that's not surprising - swift
Of course it's not surprising...my views run consistently counter to the liberal agenda.
Who do I support? I'll preface the answer with this caveat...I'm not too enamored with the leading republicans at this point...Rudy, McCain, or Romney.
On the flip side...when looking at the leading democrats...Hillary, Obama, and Edwards...I have mostly the same thought...is this the best America has to offer?
If the election were today...with the current field...it would be a case of holding my nose and voting for the best of a bad lot.
While trying to avoid being a pollyana...I think the answer lies in a third party...which would break the stanglehold of the current career politicians whose only concern is getting re-elected for personal power and gain.
I was not a supporter of Ross Perot...but discounting his politics...he was proving a real force in the viability of a third party...until his personal peculiarities caused his campaign to implode.
While I have no personal angst about mmfa's unabashed support of Hillary...their personal ties to Hillary and their support of her politics is very transparent. Disagree with that? It's okay with me.
"Blinded by Hillary" could be the title of a future book.
is this the best America has to offer? From both parties? Well that statement I have to agree with. I like Kucinich but then again he has no shot all the press ever says about him is he has no shot. As for your delusions about this sites unabashed support for Hillary it exists only in your head. Disagree? Fine by me.
When does this site ever criticize Hillary? It supports her without question or conditions. This is self-evident.
They will criticise Hillary WHEN she tosses out some CONSERVATIVE media misinformation which could easily happen anytime. NOT criticising someone is NOT the defintion of supporting them. You dont see me criticising Desperate Houswives does that mean I somehow support it? They defend her against the rightwing attacks and sping which is what they do. I get you dont like Hillary, I feel the same way most likely EXACTLY the same way you do about her. Its not MMFA's job to point out her weak progressive credentials only to expose conservative media misinformation and spin.
shorter wesley:
i'm desperately hoping my fellow rightists and i can emerge from the catastrophic rubble of our brainless bush abasement by trolling progressive sites and sprinkling seeds from the limbaugh tree. no place to go but up. goal no. 1: push meme that branch had a 'senior moment' and gerth and van natta were accurate on the incompetently sourced 'secret pact' canard. after all, in wesley world, we get to believe what we want to believe. oh, and there were dinosaurs on the ark.
June 3, 2007Columnist/author arrested in spin room
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN ) – Columnist and author Eric Alterman was arrested Sunday night inside the debate spin room and charged with criminal trespass after police say he refused repeated orders to leave.
Goffstown, N.H. police say Alterman was in the spin room as a guest of the Creative Coalition and went to an area reserved for a private reception for WMUR-TV. Police say he was asked by an executive at the party if he was invited to the private area and was asked to leave. A police officer was called after a verbal altercation ensued. He was asked by police seven times to leave, and police say he became increasingly loud as he refused. After ignoring a final request, police say he was handcuffed and taken from the building. He is charged with criminal trespass, and a bail commissioner will determine if he will be released.
Alterman writes a column for “The Nation” and writes the “Altercation” blog for Media Matters. He also has authored several books, including “Why Presidents Lie.”
– CNN Political Desk Managing Editor Steve Brusk
Is there supposed to be a point to that completly irrelevant tidbit? You should put more effort into obtaining the necessary equipment for higher brain function and less doing whatever this useless display was. Beg, borrow or steal some brain cells you DESPERATLY need them.
maybe you better beg, borrow or steal some bail money for
old Eric. He had an Altercation.