Wash. Post review misrepresents, conflates allegations in Clinton books
In a June 10 Washington Post review of two recently released books about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. (Little, Brown & Co.) and A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein (Knopf) -- author Kevin Phillips misrepresented both books' contents and falsely conflated their purported findings. Indeed, in noting the assertion in Her Way that Bill and Hillary Clinton "sought and planned for sequential power: eight years in the White House for him, then eight years for her," Phillips wrote that, according to Gerth (whose name is misspelled as "Gersh" throughout the review) and Van Natta, "this long-term plan has actually been set down on paper and confirmed by a former senior Clinton administration official." But while Gerth and Van Natta do assert in the book that, by 1993, the Clintons planned a two-term presidency for Hillary Clinton, at no point in the book do they purport to have written evidence or cite an "administration official" for the claim. In fact, the only evidence they offer of Hillary Clinton's long-term presidential ambitions is a second-hand account of a conversation between Bill Clinton and historian Taylor Branch - an account that Branch has disputed. Moreover, as Media Matters for America noted, Gerth and Van Natta did not defend the claim in recent media appearances.
Additionally, Phillips suggested that both Her Way and A Woman in Charge establish that Hillary Clinton had entertained the "possibility" of becoming president herself as early as 1992. Phillips wrote that, "[i]f you credit the thrust of these two volumes," when Hillary Clinton defended her husband against allegations of extramarital affairs in 1992 and 1998, "she was defending not just his presidency in these appearances but the possibility of her own." In fact, as Media Matters noted, Bernstein's reporting appears to contradict Gerth and Van Natta's claim that, by the early 1990s, Hillary Clinton had planned to become president. According to Bernstein, until 1999, when she decided to run for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, Hillary Clinton had "repeatedly told" longtime friend Diane Blair "that she had no interest in elected office."
From Phillips' review of Her Way and A Woman in Charge:
In Her Way, New York Times reporters Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gersh [sic] have painted the couple's unprecedented duality of skill and ambition even more boldly. The Clintons, they claim, sought and planned for sequential power: eight years in the White House for him, then eight years for her. Whether the authors' evidence holds up -- denials have already been reported -- remains to be seen.
[...]
If a common theme exists, it is that Hillary Clinton, who has been "first partner" and then "first lady," and often the iron fist of their joint success, now aims, with her husband's collaboration, to become the ultimate "woman in charge." To Van Natta and Gersh [sic], this long-term plan has actually been set down on paper and confirmed by a former senior Clinton administration official. If these allegations hold up, such a pursuit of family power is unlikely to further her White House prospects.
[...]
If Hillary Clinton did not know exactly what her husband was up to with Paula Corbin Jones and Monica Lewinsky, she was well-acquainted with his modus operandi, and in her role as chief family strategist had taken the lead in dealing with the Gennifer Flowers scandal.
Sometimes she even interviewed women to get them to sign denials of having had sex with her husband. And the American public saw her dissemble in television appearances in 1992 and 1998, denying her husband's culpability with respect to Flowers and Lewinsky. If you credit the thrust of these two volumes, she was defending not just his presidency in these appearances but the possibility of her own.
In Her
Way, Gerth and Van Natta allege that the Clintons purportedly forged a "secret pact" in the 1970s to put
Bill Clinton in the White House and expanded the "pact" in 1993 to
include a presidency for Hillary Clinton after Bill Clinton's two terms.
But in writing that the Clintons' "long-term ... pursuit of
family power" was "set down on paper and confirmed by a senior
Clinton administration official," Phillips appeared to confuse Gerth and
Van Natta's sourcing for the claim that the Clintons had originally planned on a
presidency for Bill Clinton with the authors'
support for their claim of an expanded plan after Bill Clinton was elected that included a Hillary Clinton presidency. Indeed, Gerth and Van
Natta source the first allegation to former Clinton
chief of staff Leon Panetta, who has neither confirmed nor denied the account
since the book's publication, and an anonymous "former Clinton administration
official." Gerth and Van Natta also report that "[o]ne of Bill's
ex-girlfriends," Marla Crider, claimed to have seen in the mid-1970s a "personal letter" from Hillary Clinton to her
husband that "talked about all of their future plans ... political
plans." Presumably, this is the written evidence cited by Phillips in the
review. However, Gerth and Van Natta do
not quote Crider saying that the letter she reportedly saw contained specific details about a
"plan[]" for either of the Clintons
to become president." Nor do Gerth and Van Natta suggest that the alleged plan for Hillary Clinton to become president existed prior to the 1990s.
The source of Gerth and Van Natta's assertion that the Clintons' purported "twenty-year project" was expanded in 1993 to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for her" is actually a disputed secondhand account by former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband, John Henry, of a conversation they reportedly say they had with historian Taylor Branch. In the conversation, as described by Crittenden and Henry, Branch allegedly recounted a conversation he had with 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.
However, in addition to Branch's statement in the endnotes that he "do[es]n't remember" the conversation with Crittenden and Henry, a May 25 Washington Post article reported that "Branch said that 'the story is preposterous' and that 'I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.' "
As Media Matters noted, in a recent media appearance, Gerth and Van Natta dodged discussion of their claim that the alleged "pact" between Bill and Hillary included two terms as president for her. Indeed, when asked about Branch's objection on ABC's Good Morning America, Gerth simply pointed out that the allegation that the Clintons devised a "plan" in the 1970s that included a Bill Clinton presidency "has not been refuted." Additionally, while Van Natta defended the first claim in a June 4 entry on the Huffington Post weblog, he ignored the dispute surrounding the second allegation.
This is disgraceful. Phillips just LIES. You cannot say "set down on paper" in the review when that phrase doesn't appear in the book. You can't say "confirmed by a former Clinton administration official" when that individuals alleged to have first hand knowledge do the exact opposite of "confirm." As usual, the professional Clinton haters are ignoring actual, fact based reality.
I think it's cute that lefties get their panties all bunched up over what they perceive as lies about the Clintons.
The reason you people are so obsessed with liars, lies, and lying liars who lie to other liars who always lie to more no-good-tellers of many insidious lies is because the Clintons got caught lying for 8 years.
They weren't merely accused, they kept getting caught. Hillary can't even be honest about how she got her name for God's sake. Blaming the whole thing on her mother was especially low, classless, and typical for Hill.
So these days, having watched the congenital liars Bill and Hill make fools of themselves for 8 years, liberals only reply by saying that actually, all the liars are really in the GOP.
What planet are you from?
How does it excuse actual lies about the Clintons if they are liars too? How do the sins of the Clintons, if they did fall short by lying, affect the untruths that others might say or write?
What planet do you live on that two wrongs make a right?
What planet do you live on where it's acceptable for people to lie if they're telling those lies about a liar?
Whether or not the Clintons were liars does not excuse lies told by others. Apologists for Clinton haters might think it does, but that's a lie!
to answer your queries:
1. earth
2. Read the story. The authors quoted Crittenden and Henry's version of what Branch said. Branch now claims he didn't say it. Like it or not, you and I will never know, but you have already made up your mind that Branch didn't say it.
Would you want Bill and Hill mad at you forever? I would not, and Branch, if he did say it and regrets it, made the right call in pretending he never said it. You referred to the comments in question as "actual lies" about the Clintons. You have no freaking clue who's telling the truth here but you assume Branch is, with his denial. Why? Because it suits your agenda. You don't know what Branch said. You never will. This debate stems from the fact that only one of us will admit that.
3. See point #2...you don't know who told the truth so you can't verify if there are in fact two lies here to make a right at all.
4. earth
.
ROGER:
GOOD REPORTING and ethical journalism call for some basics. If you, as a book writer or reporter, intend to QUOTE someone, you get their quote on tape, or as part of well kept contemporaneous notes. THEN, you seek confirmation from a second source, although MORE other sources are even better.
These "reporters" claim that some other people claimed that a guy said something. So far, this is double hearsay. No record. But a "LEAD". What you do with that lead is try to CONFIRM it, by other sources. These "reporters" asked the actual source, and he said he never said any such thing.
In the world of ETHICAL and RESPONSIBLE reporting, this is the end of the line: the lead led nowhere, and so there's nothing to report. There is no FACT to impart, only an unsubstantiated claim. No court would allow such testimony, because it is worthless.
In the world of Rightwing Smearmongering, second-hand uncorroborated hearsay is plenty good enough to run with the allegation. If the only attempt at corroboration produces a DENIAL, well, that doesn't matter.
If you APPROVE of this kind of "reporting", then you deserve every bad thing that ever happens to you or your family, as a result of bad information, people who lie TO you, people who lie ABOUT you, and people who deceive and take advantage of you. If you give weight to this sort of smearing of other citizens, then this kind of unfair and cruel smearmongering should visit YOU, and OFTEN.
On the other hand, if you demand justice, honesty, and fair treatment for YOURSELF and your family, if you expect fair treatment and get angry if a rumor, lie, or made-up story seeks to damage your family ... well, then you should ABHOR this type of "reporting" by these partisan hacks. You should demand accountability, ethics, and standards.
The proper end to this challenge should be the reporters confronting Branch with PROOF that he said what they claimed he said. If the reporters COULD NOT DO THAT, then they had NOTHING ... and decided to print that NOTHING anyway, for whatever value the IMPLICATION might hold. This isn't reporting, it's Hackery and it's dishonest as hell.
Tex,
You wrote "These "reporters" claim that some other people claimed that a guy said something."
Funny, that's precisely how the Downing Street memos came to be such a popular, though eventually useless piece of information for the lunatic-fringers on the far-left (aka, most of the MMFA posters with whom I've come into online contact). They're just another third-hand account of something that might have been said by some guy, as reported by some two bit anti-war low-level aide in another country.
I don't KNOW if Branch said it. Neither do you. The fact that you won't allow for the possibility that he said it and now regrets it is stunning.
As for your very serious desire for the media to always follow the rules set forth in journalism school, perhaps you'll someday soon understand why so few people trust anyone who actually attended one of these schools.
WOW. YOU are so delusional its actually fascinating. The Downing street memos were THE RECORDS of the meeting. They were NEVER denied by those AT the meeting or by the British Government. Thats not only NOT the same thing its not even in the same galaxy. Its not apples and oranges its apples and Velociraptors
"The Downing street memos were THE RECORDS of the meeting."
Is that what they were? To quote James Robbins: "Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber."
Indeed. Imagine if a Republican tried to pass off a third-hand account of ANYTHING as evidence. You sheeple would literally explode.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq found no evidence that “administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities”.
Why you'd want the world to know that you believe a third-hand account of what a junior aide thought about what someone thought about what a guy on another continent might have been thinking, instead of the SSCI...you'll have to figure out for yourself.
Keep it coming Solon, it's just too damn easy with you around.
that "low-level aide" you refer to was the head of british intelligence.
James Robbins from the National Review? Lets go to the source
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece
Is that what they were? To quote James Robbins: "Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sure looks like minutes of a meeting of the British cabinet to me. Not direct dictation but minutes notice they are marked secret. The fact about who he talked to being unnamed is irrelevant we are talking about Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of the MI6 Secret Intelligence Service the equivilent of the head of the CIA we can assume he didn’t go to Washington talk to some people at Starbucks then report what THEY had to say to the Prime Minister.
Indeed. Imagine if a Republican tried to pass off a third-hand account of ANYTHING as evidence. You sheeple would literally explode.
Please Cheney tried to pass off a RUMOR about Atta in Prague AFTER the FBI said they knew where he was and he wasn’t in Prague and you guys are STILL pretending it has credibility. IF it was George Tenet saying he went to London and they told him something YOU guys would be eating it up. If Tenet said Iraq had been breeding Giant Lizards with lazer beam eyes to attack the US brainwashed morons like YOU would be telling us that liberals were soft on the giant lazer eyed lizard threat.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq found no evidence that “administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities”.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Right they were too busy pressuring them to come up with Iraq al Queda links
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14824384/site/newsweek/page/0/
Democrats also publicly report that an internal CIA watchdog known as the “politicization ombudsman” had looked into complaints that the administration was pressuring intelligence analysts to come up with intelligence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. According to the Democrats, the ombudsman told committee investigators that he felt the “hammering” that intelligence analysts got from administration policymakers on Iraq intelligence was, in the Democrats’ language, “harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career” at the CIA. The Democrats also report that former CIA chief George Tenet told the committee that analysts had felt pressured by policymakers “The issue where there was intense focus and questioning where the analysts felt pressure was Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
Of course Mefirst is right C in the memo was Sir Richard Deerlove the head of M-I6 I am sure you find it easy to toss out such weak nonsense for me to shred. Probably as easy as I find shredding it. If you ever develop the capacity for higher brain function you may suddenly realize you are embarrassing yourself
I choose to believe members of the Senate Select Committee on Intel, people like Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin, John Rockefeller and Russ Feingold.
You choose to believe a third-hand account from a low-level aide. You and Mefirst can lie all you want, the person who took the notes was Dearlove's aide. Must I show you the WaPo link or can you google "Downing Street Memos" all by yourself and click on the 7th link?
The notes of the meeting were "taken by a British national security aide at the meeting". The report came from Dearlove.
Make up anything you guys want, it doesn't mean it's true.
I don't need to call you out as a pair of liars, the Washington Post did that for me.
(by the way I like the part about how the Butler report says the U.S. tried to present "fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case". Oddly, this works in your favor. But when I mention that Lord Butler also determined that Saddam did indeed try to buy unranium from Niger and that the "16 words" from Bush's SOTUnion were accurate, you people act as though I've committed a felony.
So which is it? Do we only trust the Butler Commission report when it's convenient for liberals, or may we assume they knew when they were doing when they put it together? Have fun with that one : )~
I see the problem you call us liars becacause you are too stupid to understand plain English. Before you embarass yourself further find a five year old to read and explain these posts to you. You keep pretending the DSM was a rumor instead of a report from the head of British intelligence to the Prime Minister of England about his fact finding trip to Washington. Unless you believe we would have sent George Tenet to London to interview cab drivers about British policy its plain this is a high level policy discussion and you are flat out delusional. As for the Senate Intelligence report, the claim is that ON WMDs they didnt pressure CIA agents to give them what they wanted even if you accept this you brainwashed ignoramus, it wouldnt stop Bush from fixing facts around policy by cherry picking and distorting the intelligence. Nothing contradictory there. There isnt any evidence of such a deal or attempt at a deal. Not only do you keep changing the argument you keep changing your standards. YOU believe that the Senate Intelligence report that DOESNT conflict with the Downing Street Memo means the meeting between the HEAD OF BRITISH INTELLIGENCE reporting to the PRIME MINISTER OF BRITIAN is little more than some rumor but the Butler report trumps the Senate Intelligence reports own claims about the Niger uranium claim.
http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf
The report states the former minister of Energy and Mines Mia Manga stated there were no sales outside IAEA channels since the mid nineties....Mia Manga also describes how the French mining consortium controls Nigerian uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded on ships for transport overseas. Mia Manga believes it would be difficult if not impossible to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Also given that Iraq already HAS 500 tons of uranium AND that they turned down an offer by the Congo to sell them Uranium (see below for citation) the whole thing seems as unlikely as State Dept intelligence and the US embassy in Niamey have said all along. How suprising is it that Butler publicly stands by an embarassing report after an even more embarassing disclosure that their white paper on Iraq was plagiarized from a US students 11 year old report on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50228-2004Jul14.html
More recently, the Butler panel learned from International Atomic Energy Agency officials that the leader of the Iraqi delegation told IAEA that he and the others went to Niger in February 1999 to invite that country's president to Iraq, not to seek uranium. The Niger president was supposed to visit Baghdad in April 1999, but he died before the trip.
David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said in an interview that his group had discovered a memo in Iraq from Congolese officials offering to sell the Saddam Hussein government items including uranium. He added that it had a note in Arabic saying the country was under too much scrutiny at the time for such a deal
See the problem isnt that we are lying which you didnt come within light years of showing but you are so ignorant and your reading comprehension skills basically non-existant that you simply NEVER know what you are talking about.
It's ok Solon...you make up anything you like.
I'm sure TheRick will believe you : )
Sure Roger IGNORE anything you want because it doesnt conform to your delusional fantasies.
you and robbins are apparently unable to read plain "english". you quote robbins: "...impressions of british cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the united states..." there is no "they" to this, and it was not ordinary "cabinet officials" but the head of british intelligence who made the trip and spoke to people in the know in washington. obviously you and robbins are the ones who need to distort by presenting this as some gossip, instead of what it really was: an intelligence report on what dearlove found in this country.
forgot this part Solon, (and try using punctuation occasionally)
As for the Senate Intelligence report, the claim is that ON WMDs they didnt pressure CIA agents to give them what they wanted even if you accept this you brainwashed ignoramus, it wouldnt stop Bush from fixing facts
Cool. You are hereby no longer allowed to EVER cite ANYTHING from a Senate committee report, quote, or bit of info, since in your estimation these people (Levin, Rockefeller and Dem/GOP pals) cannot be trusted.
Pity...you just lost a great source for future arguments.
Look up non sequitur. I think they use this bizarre statement as an example. As for your attack on my bad punctuation, and you can include spelling free of charge, you finally made a cogent argument though an irrelevant one. I plead guilty
"(by the way I like the part about how the Butler report says the U.S. tried to present "fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case". Oddly, this works in your favor. But when I mention that Lord Butler also determined that Saddam did indeed try to buy unranium from Niger and that the "16 words" from Bush's SOTUnion were accurate, you people act as though I've committed a felony."
Someone posted portions of the Butler Report on here about 6 months to a year ago and it looked as though the British built the case based on a bunch of assumptions. The report said something like Saddam did so and so in the past so it’s more than likely that so and so occurred today. This procedure was used throughout the report.
No I dont see the point becuase this thread is about THIS guy making claims that are NOT in the book. NOWHERE doest he book say there was a written down plan for instance. So its about this guy pulling claims like that directly out of his ass. Personally I am tired of the troll tactic of telling us not to look at the guy behind the curtian. Lets not talk about the TOPIC, lets talk about the trolls obsession with the Clintons. What Clinton did or did not do really isnt relevant to the FACT this guy is making claims that the book is about things IT NEVER SAYS. Try to keep up.
maybe hillary's mom did tell her she was named after sir edmund hillary. who knows, who cares? it's such an unimportant thing. what did hillary have to lose or gain with the story? it's really telling of you right wingers that you go on and on with this trivial nonsense. do you wake up in a cold sweat worried about this stuff? move on and worry about real problems. oh, that's right, there aren't any, no global warming, we've turned the corner in iraq, yada yada...
"what did hillary have to lose or gain with the story?"
answer: credibility
I mentioned the Sir Edmund story since it's funny, and indicative of who Hillary really is. If you'd like to discuss the whereabouts of the 900 FBI files that turned up in Hillary's dressing room after she had pretended for months that she didn't have a clue where they were, fine by me.
global warming, lol...it's CLIMATE CHANGE damnit!
I wonder why Gore won't debate anyone on that topic...
you still have not proved that hillary's mom didn't actually tell her that.
MEFIRST:
ROGER is under no obligation to "prove" anything. He chooses to hear this story, where Hillary Clinton met Sir Edmund Hillary and told him that her mother claimed to have named her after the mountainclimber, and conclude that this is a LIE told by Hillary, and is a window to her entire character.
In sum, the whole exchange tells us NOTHING about Hillary (could a mother have told her young daughter this story? Without any doubt.), but it tells us exactly the kind of person ROGER is.
Yes it does, Tex.
It tells people I'm not dumb enough to think Hillary is anything remotely resembling an honest person.
You on the other hand...
roger, just curious. do you suppose you will still be posting here in a couple weeks? you guys seem to "disappear" so fast.
It's not that fun...
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT that these books be believed, and even EXPANDED UPON without evidence, by the Rightwing "Mainstream" Press (like the rightwing Washington Post here)? Why are these exercises in mindreading and assigning motives and "reading between the lines" and outright amateur psychoanalysis the stuff of story after story? Why is this such an important topic, as if it's emergent and breaking news?
Phillips offers the defining motivation for HIMSELF and the rest of Rightwing Media: "If these allegations hold up, such a pursuit of family power is unlikely to further her White House prospects."
That's it, folks. He doesn't say the allegations (read; Made Up Smears) "PROVE TRUE", he says they only have to "HOLD UP".
So, what does "Hold Up" mean? Look to the Swift Boat Vets for the answer. The Rightwing "Mainstream" Media will be working overtime to fashion a narrative about Hillary that will "HOLD UP" by deceiving, buffaloing, and fooling JUST ENOUGH PEOPLE with Media lies and innuendo that it will fatally harm the candidate's prospects. That's it, a direct admission of a propaganda assault. A direct admission of an attempt at character assassination by LIES. Not TRUTH, but only allegations that will "Hold Up" in the minds of the most gullible in the audience.
For a Made Up Smear to "HOLD UP", the formula is simple: Keep REPEATING it, over and over. Have lying books, but REVIEW those books as if they represent documented truth instead of Made Up Smears. Talk about the "allegations" as if they are grave and serious, and then repeatedly "predict" that these revelations will doom the candidate's prospects.
Write "investigative" articles, analyses, and Editorials expounding on the seriousness of the implications. Get every voice on AM radion exercised to a crecendo, condemning the candidate as if the allegations are proven absolutely true. Make it a "matter of fact" that the Made Up Smears are instead "Conventional Wisdom" and simply ACCEPTED as true (Al Gore said he "invented the internet" ... an absolute LIE, but accepted as true by all of the Rightwing Media ... and thus much of the American Public was fooled into believing a LIE. Saddam has WMDs. Same tactic.).
Set up endless panels of Rightwing bloviators on the cable "news" shows, to discuss in ever rising alarm about what it means for the candidate to be "calculating", "overly ambitious", "power mad", "shrewd", and it never hurts to say the candidate will "DO ANYTHING" to win. The American People HATE such qualities in their candidates, right? So let's just attribute them to Hillary ... with NO FACTUAL BASIS whatsoever!
Heavenly Father, hear my prayer: Let the American People WAKE UP to the evil mechanations of this Rightwing deceptive deceitful underhanded conspiracy. Let the American People see clearly WHO is lying to them, WHO is making up smears in order to denigrate their political opposition, WHO is violating every ethical and moral tenet in order to try to regain POWER. Let the American People CONTINUE to see through the evil plots of the Rightwing Smear Machine, and judge these people unworthy of any respect, let alone be given the least avenue to POWER. Let us recognize and scorn the Rightwing's despicable tactics. Amen.
Tex.....hey Tex.........TTTTTEEEEXXXXXX wake up....its ok...just relax big guy. Your dream about the Clinton administration was a little confusing wasn't it?
TWEAK: Do you have a cogent question?
Tweakingtroll with another pointless inane post.
Tex: Another accurate and eloquent rendering of the intersection of Repugnant lying and Corporate Media echo! Keep up the good work!
With regards to Tex's delusional comments about the "RightWing Media":
You wrote: "So, what does "Hold Up" mean? Look to the Swift Boat Vets for the answer."
You mean the Swifties who were ignored by the mainstream press from May to August 2004, aside from CBS News' effort to trash them? Why did the rabid "right wing media" ignore the swift boaters for almost four months after their first press conference on May 4, 2004? If the networks are right wing as you delusional freaks claim, surely they'd've had stories about the Swifties on every evening news broadcast for months. Instead they ignored those guys for months.
CBS was the only network to mention the Swifties after they held their May 4 press conference, and CBS did all they could to trash them as angry losers from the Vietnam era.
Byron Pitts said in his report: “If you think this is just a concerned group of veterans, think again.”
Thanks for telling us how to think, Byron. No liberal bias there at all, lol.
He also said in the same report: “It’s the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam.”
The swifties had nothing to do with Cleland or the campaign against him. Pitts made an asinine assumption in order to discredit the Swift Boat Vets.
All those right wing news networks (so you claim), and none of them talked about the Swift Boat guys, other than to trash them.
Interesting.
I am not claiming the networks are rightwing but anyone not as ignorant as you would know that AUGUST is a crucial election month. MUCH more important in an election year than May. In August the entire media was saturated with the Swift boat liars for Rent
"I am not saying the networks are right wing"
How many Democrats reading this agree with your fellow lefty that the broadcast networks are not right wing? Any? Many? Let us know please.
Solon, thank you for proving you don't even know the basics. The reason the mainstream media finally, after almost four months, began talking about the Swifties is only because Kerry finally responded to what they had said. Once Kerry responded, they had to stop pretending the Swifties didn't exist.
You claim that the mainstream media only began talking about the Swifties because "AUGUST is a crucial election month. MUCH more important in an election year than May."
Right, and the plot to blow up JFK airport was on page 37 of the NYTimes because that's where all the really important stories go. Are you currently drunk, high, or otherwise mentally challenged at the moment Solon?
You're saying the media chose to ignore the story not because of what they thought about the importance of the story, but because they felt the story would only be of use to them and of any importance to the voters in August when they assume more people are paying attention?
Dude, sleep it off and get back to me when you rethink that theory for just a bit. It's pretty funny, even for you.
The only thing I keep proving is that YOU are a complete and utter moron with less mental capacity than the average dustbunny. The media serves power, they reflect elite opinion and the business community that does the advertising that pays their budget. That usually breaks down to socially liberal and economically and foriegn policy conservative. It is also not monolithic so contrary examples can always be found. Imagine an ignorant rightwingnut like you oversimplifying, what were the chances?
I am not claiming ANY vast conspiricy YOU are so its YOU that needs to cough up the evidence of any such conspiricy. What I am claiming is that they DID pick up the story in August which undeniably is a more important month in an election year than May and that pretty much undercuts your theory that it was done to help Kerry. Try to keep up, if you get any dumber you will have to hire someone to remind you to breathe.
Solon you keep getting more and more amusing, I should post to you and only you.
They ignored, for almost 4 months a story that according to every source on God's green earth was damaging to the Kerry campaign once it hit the mainstream media in August...because of ad revenue concerns? Serving the elites? Too funny.
You know what a "sweeps month" is right Solon? Nielson diaries, ad rates are set, all that stuff?
What you're pitifully referring to must've been the "2004 August Sweeps", lol. You know, the fictional one, the one never mentioned by anyone, ever; the sweeps month they created just for 2004 and haven't used (or discussed) since...not May, July or November, which is WHEN SWEEPS HAPPEN. July was a sweeps month in 2004, just as it is this year, along with May and November. August was NOT a sweeps months, so why wait until many people are ON VACATION in August to break a story to hurt John Kerry?
You wrote, no doubt impressed with yourself: "The media serves power, they reflect elite opinion and the business community that does the advertising that pays their budget."
Wow. They wanted to "serve" the corporate "power" by ignoring a devastating story for Kerry in a SWEEPS MONTH, July, and instead decided to hurt Kerry by putting stories on the Swifties together when more Americans were on vacation than during any...other...month?
Why not put together stories on the Swifties in July, a sweeps month, when they knew more people were watching? Holy chit man, you need to stop making things up.
This is very simple, except for the far-left it seems. The networks ignored the story until Kerry was finally forced to respond to the Swifties. In August, poll after poll kept showing that the Swifties were hurting him more and more (the net, talk radio, etc...mainstream media still ignored it completely). At that point, Kerry began to talk about it. Then the NYTimes wrote about it, to trash the Swift Boat guys, naturally. THAT'S when the nets started covering it.
You're a very poor liar. I'll assume you learned from Bill and Hill, who pretty much sucked at that as well.
I've tried this before and it works pretty well: if I don't know the answer, I type "I don't know".
I am not a liar at all you are just incredibly ignorant. Astonishingly you seem to get dumber and dumber. Vacation? Sweeps month? So what? It is THREE months before the election instead of SIX months before the election. Are you so stupid by design or are you really that cognitively challenged? Why did they ignore the Swift Boat Liars for Rent? How about their agenda was clear, they had no really credible evidence to contradict the official story and the vast majority of those who served directly WITH Kerry refuted their lies? So it didnt really become a story until Kerry started talking about it. Again I am not claiming any shadowy conspiricy so your speculation about WHY they waited until August is irrelevant, as is mine, I was only explaining what I meant when I said I dont consider them rightwing, apparantly fruitlessly since your vast ignorance renders you incapable of understanding the simplist of concepts.
I was never a huge Clinton fan, not then, I am still not. As for typing I dont know I am sure you do that a lot since the huge libraries could be filled EXCLUSIVELY with things you dont know. However I fail to see how YOUR stupidity is MY problem
“How many Democrats reading this agree with your fellow lefty that the broadcast networks are not right wing? Any? Many? Let us know please.”
I wouldn’t necessarily call the media rightwing unless they’re blatantly biased like the FOX News republican propaganda channel. I would describe the media as looking out for their corporate interests and they know republicans will protect corporate interests at all cost.
“Solon, thank you for proving you don't even know the basics. The reason the mainstream media finally, after almost four months, began talking about the Swifties is only because Kerry finally responded to what they had said. Once Kerry responded, they had to stop pretending the Swifties didn't exist.”
When Kerry responded to the growing noise from the Swift Boat liars, I thought this would end their fantastical dreams but to the contrary the MSM latched onto the liars’ story. The MSM actually gave the liars a platform to spew their lies instead of marginalizing them. It was a complete disgrace the way the MSM treated Kerry.
“Right, and the plot to blow up JFK airport was on page 37 of the NYTimes because that's where all the really important stories go. Are you currently drunk, high, or otherwise mentally challenged at the moment Solon?”
A lot of these plots turn out to be nothing at all. If the guys are convicted of anything related to terrorism, I’m sure the NY Times will put it on the front page.
“You're saying the media chose to ignore the story not because of what they thought about the importance of the story, but because ‘they felt the story would only be of use to them and of any importance to the voters in August when they assume more people are paying attention?’”
I’m still trying to figure out why the MSM gave these liars a platform to spew there lies. They should have been shunned.
I wouldn’t necessarily call the media rightwing unless they’re blatantly biased like the FOX News republican propaganda channel.
I see. So when lefties spot Bias at Fox, of course that's legit. Everyone knows Fox tilts to the right.
When I see bias at the other networks, I'm naturally just making it up, as only Fox has "blatant" examples of bias?
Grow up dude. Bias is everywhere. I KNOW Fox tilts to the right, I'm just always astounded that lefties refuse to admit the other nets tilt left.
I've asked a few others, so I'll ask you. Who are the conservatives at ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN? If MSNBC mattered to anyone I'd ask about them too, but....
They dont TILT left in the way Fox carries water dependably to the right. I am sure you can find legitimate examples of them tilting left on some issues like we can of them tilting right on others. Fox is just a rightwing shill network. None of the other stations are left wing shill networks in the same way. I am a liberal and none of the stations is consistantly pushing my lefty beliefs or agenda.
I am a liberal and none of the stations is consistantly pushing my lefty beliefs or agenda.
Oh..well, if a liberal claims there's no liberal bias in the news, then I guess that pretty much settles that.
I felt the brain cells being sucked right outta my head as I read that.
That was worse than your 'media serve the elite so they waited til August when people were on vacation to try and hurt Kerry' theory.
And that, I was certain, was going to be the dumbest post I'll ever read.
Not anymore.
I have explained this so any reasonably bright five year old could understand it. It really isnt my fault you are so unbelievably stupid you still dont get it. Did you think that repeating your baseless assertions somehow gave them extra credibility? You HAVE to be lying, as stupid as you are if you had really lost one more brain cell they would have to water you and turn you toward the Sun twice a day. Sometimes the media will exhibit some media bias one way and other times the other way. I have said this more than once also the media isnt monolothic, have a five year old explain the big words to you. You are both stubborn AND a moron. Neither is my fault. You dont know what you are talking about since you are completely incapable of higher brain function so you just repeat the mantras rightwing bloviators have programmed into the tape recorder you have instead of a brain. The media itself nor the networks are liberally biased consistantly, You SAYING they are doesnt make it so.
"I've asked a few others, so I'll ask you. Who are the conservatives at ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN? If MSNBC mattered to anyone I'd ask about them too, but...."
The conservatives are the ones that sign the paychecks of the employees at these networks.
I wouldnt have missed this the first time but reading your inane, logic free posts sometimes has my braincells begging for the sweet release of a coma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He also said in the same report: “It’s the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam.”
The swifties had nothing to do with Cleland or the campaign against him. Pitts made an asinine assumption in order to discredit the Swift Boat Vets. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
Hey Gump, he didnt SAY the Swift Boat Liars for Rent had anything to do with campaign ads against Cleland he said it was the same STRATEGY, so there was no assumption there at ALL, just an observation. You are an intellectual bottom feeder. Adult education look into it.
Pitts ASSUMED they employed the same STRATEGY.
They did not, as Cleland was a piss poor candidate and didn't require much effort to beat him once his record of voting was known to the public.
Angry lil fella aren't ya?
It wasnt assumed it was an OBVIOUS OBSERVATION. One you can deny but its ludicrous to call it an assumption. The word doesnt mean what you seem to think it means. Both were SMEARED, both attacked on their strengths. It WAS the same strategy, I dont see how you can deny it but even if you do it was his OBSERVATION not his assumption. And no I am not the least bit angry. You assume facts not in evidence I amuse myself here nothing more.
I can only assume you have never seen Hannity's show where he constantly had these guys on. Come on now, you can try harder than that!
These books are nothing more than smear tool by the Karl Rove RNC machine to bring out bad press in the critical Summer fundraising period. The Smear Machine is afraid of Senator Clinton, they want to do anything to disrupt her candidacy. This is only the start, look for them to reach all time lows this next few months with attack and hate toward Senator Clinton that will make the way they treated President Clinton look like Sunday school. These people are such a threat to our future its scary.
I don't think any Hillary donors will be turned off by these books. People that like her will continue to like her. People that don't like her, Well, they will still not like her.
And their release was designed for a time to get maximum exposure. Just good marketing really.
I bet they don't cost her a dime.
Side note and off topic
Where is NJGuy? I miss him and his enlightened posts.
Sorry to go off topic but wanted to get that in.
Roger7:
I talked to Geary, he's pissed.
Why are Seagull Posters so facinated with liberal underwear?
If you've got a phone number for transvestite phone sex, I'd say go ahead and use it. You'll feel much better.
So far you haven't put up anything I haven't read about and seen debunked. Before you come back with a few oh yeahs, read a couple of the recent columns on the books. They do nothing positive for the republican cause, and neither do your clueless posts.
Media Matters:
All Hillary Spin-zone, all the time.
So grasshopper, where do you live now? I mean since you're an ex-pat. Or are you living here as an ex-pat of another nation? Or were you once a true patriot of the U.S. and are now just a loyalist like so many others of your probable ilk. Surprise me by saying something unexpected.
Julia,
Yes, my expat label is from awhile back. I still was using it for continuity (I lived out of the country for two years in New Zealand and returned last year). Most sites I have changed it, but I haven't gotten around to doing it here and my computer does the name and password automatically so I lose any momentum I have to come up with a new login. Is that okay with you? As to your question about patriots, you might call me an expatriot as well as a former expatriate. I don't believe in patriotism in this modern world. I think it is the source of a lot of strife and war and justifications for slaughter and torture. I know you might lecture me about patriotism vs. nationalism, but unless we are talking about cheering on the U.S. Olympic baskeball team (which, I must confess, I like to see lose, although I would like to see the U.S. do well in soccer), you are talking about essentially the same thing. Say what you want about Democracy, but I don't really believe that Democracy brought us into a war.
Did that surprise you at all, Julia?
Doesnt suprise me. I have seen you are basically a lefty. I bet we agree on about 90% of political issues. I certainly understand your contempt for Hillary. I just dont think your criticisms of MMFA has a shred of validity
I agree with you about jingoism and false partiotism. It serves only power brokers. But your railing against all things Hillary and MMfA's stories highlighting slant against her are very tiresome. As tiresome as Redking's blathering about how there is NO difference between the two major parties. Conflating Gore and Bush as the same is politically infantile imo. That said, it seems like most righties and most far lefties do hate Hillary, so that's why I said probable ilk. I think the ink spent and talk time spent on her is debilitating to our democracy. But your posts are designed to distract instead of enlighten. At least Salon is trying to enlighten.
Steve All WAAAAHHH all the time. MMFA doesnt run its site to suit you, get over it.
Solon,
Using silly attacks doesn't make your arguments more convincing. Again, why shouldn't this site defend Joe Lieberman if it defends Hillary Clinton? If Joe Lieberman suddenly started pandering for votes and pretending he was against the war he voted for and was "misled", would he then warrant a defense from Media Matters for America? Do you believe that Hillary Clinton was misled? Were you misled?
Your attack is just as silly and just as unfounded. IF Lieberman changed his mind and WAS attacked by the conservative media dishonestly I am sure MMFA WOULD expose the attacks. I dont even know what your point here is. The bottom line is the right hates Hillary and I dont disagree with a lot of their criticisms overall but they are using dishonest attacks to do and are focusing on her thus putting out MORE attacks on her so she gets a proportionally higher coverage here that is NOT evidence for this being a Hillary for President site and your constant whining that it is, contradicted by their reporting on dishonest attacks on her main rival, are becoming annoying. Look you and I most likely agree on a lot more than we disagree on including Hillary having NO progressive credentials but this is NOT a progressive political site its a conservative media misinformation site. You seem to think that since Hillary isnt a progressive which I completely agree with they ought to ingnore the dishonest conservative attacks on her that isnt how it works.
This is all pretty bizarre to me.
1) The Washington Post is about as right wing as Bill Clinton. Yes, the paper was really stupid in the run-up to the war, but overall it's liberal.
2) Kevin Phillips is about as right wing as Hillary Clinton. Have you read any of his books? The one on the Bush dynasty is pretty good.
3) Why would it make one whit of difference if Bill and Hillary Clinton did have designs to have both of them be president? Who cares?! The question is whether she would be a good president. I don't see how wanting to be president somehow disqualifies someone from being a good president if elected. I think the fact that the writers of the book, and its reviewers, have to play up the possibility that she thought about this a long time ago just goes to show that there's not much new or insightful in the books.
Why don't we talk about something important instead, such as how to get out of Iraq?
Can I point out one more time that Hillary voted for the war?
Are you kidding? That just scratches the surface of my disdain for Hillary. Oh yeah among many other things she not only voted FOR the war she still isnt much of an advocate for getting out.
Because that isnt what this site DOES. IF that is what you are looking for there are plenty of flat political sites out there. THIS site is about conservative media misinformation. That is what it does. IF it were a liberal political site I dont think they would have any reason to mention Hillary's name she isnt a liberal or within a mile of being a liberal. However the rightwing hates her and she is the object of a lot of conservative media spin
Solon, name the conservatives at ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN please.
Thanks...
I probably could but what would it have to do with my point here? You can read right? Is there anything in my post that has ANYTHING to do with ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN specifically? YOU do know what the word MEDIA means right? What it DOESNT mean is exclusively television networks.
Not only does it have nothing to do with you rpoint, it has nothing to do with the Karl Rove machine of smearing the Clintons. If you want to debate the number of conservatives on other networks bring it up on that type of thread.
Thank you for refusing to name the conservatives at the broadcast nets and CNN.
I can understand why you'd question the importance of such a thing, especially on a thread at a website devoted to exposing conservative bias in the media. One would think it would be helpful to, you know, find out if there are many conservatives at the major nets.
You won't name even one. You are not alone with your refusal to answer.
The fact I am not following a troll trying to change the topic of discussion means NOTHING. Ask me when its relevant to the point I made. When that happens get back to me. Until then pretending it makes some point is ludicrous
Uh, Mr. Rove sir -- I mean Roger -- the conservatives at all the networks are named THE OWNERS.
There is plenty of conservative media misinformation that doesn't pertain to Hillary Clinton. I don't see where you can call Carl Bernstein a conservative, by the way. So the site is really about media misinformation related to Hillary Clinton with some token attention to others. In fact, some of what is being called media misinformation is just fact. Hillary Clinton did vote for the war. She did call for more troops in 2005. She did suggest THIS YEAR that we keep a military presence permanently in Iraq. So, again, the best description of this site is that it is a Hillary Clinton spin-zone. I wouldn't even object to such a site, if they weren't pretending be something else.
I don't think Carl Bernstein used to be conservative, but he is aging, fat and lazy. And he is trying to sell a book. Regardless of his persuasion politically, he is like so many other people in media. That being that they are more interested in selling something and being close to the source of power, that they have essentially sold out. He is entitled to his opinion, but he seems to be selling his opinion as fact rather than what it is. Whether you like to beleive it or not, and regardless of your obvious contempt for Hillary, there is a media bias against her. And since corporate media is essentially aligned with Republicans, there is a lot of misinformation slanted against her. Trying to deny that is like voting for Ralph Nader. It does no good and can actually do harm.
What makes you think ONLY conservatives can reapeat conservative media misinformation? That is not logical. It comes from the kind of Manichean Black/White thinking I expect from rightwingers not progressives.
Hilary isn't a liberal? How would you describe her?
She is very moderat, a bit of a conservative Democrat. Its a bit subjective but I know a liberal when I see one and Hillary has NEVER been one.
Hillary spin zone? Given the amount I hate Hillary posting on site, their not doing a very good job.