JustHillary.com misrepresented Time story to claim Clinton "ripped off Gore's flag story"
On July 13, the political website JustHillary.com used the headline "REPORT: SHE RIPPED OFF GORE'S FLAG STORY" to link to a July 12 article on Time magazine's website. But the Time.com article itself, written by two former speechwriters to Vice President Al Gore, reached no definitive conclusion on the question raised by the article about whether Gore or then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton first used the "flag story" in a speech. In fact, the article indicated that Clinton told the story in question as long ago as 1996, and quotes Gore telling the story three years later, in 1999.
The article, written by former Gore speechwriters Kenneth Baer and Jeff Nussbaum, stated that during a recent campaign stop Clinton "ended her remarks with a poignant story, first told to her by then United Nations Ambassador Madeleine Albright," which recounted Albright's trip to the Czech Republic for the 50th anniversary celebration of the end of World War II:
"As [Albright] traveled around going from event to event, she kept seeing American flags everywhere. But when she looked more closely, she realized they had only 48 stars. And she asked people, where did this flag come from? And everyone told her the same thing. When the American GIs liberated Europe, they passed out these flags. Because remember, back then, Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet. And Madeline said, "But you could have gotten into trouble having these flags." And people said, "They were like treasures. We passed them down from grand parent to parent to child and, yes, if the Soviets had known we had them, we could have gotten into trouble but we would never let them go." And when Madeline asked why they would keep these flags for 50 years, people said, "Because we love America and we love America's values." I want to be the president who restores that feeling about us around the world and equally importantly, I want us to feel that way about ourselves again."
Baer and Nussbaum wrote that Clinton told the story in an address at the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague on July 4, 1996.
The authors then quoted a 1999 Gore address in which, they said, "there was no triumphant Albright returning to her homeland, just a man from Murfreesboro, Tennessee visiting his Senator":
As Gore told it, a man knocked on his Senate office door one day and told him how he had arrived in America after fleeing communist rule in Czechoslovokia. Years later, he and his wife went back to visit his hometown, newly liberated from communist rule, and they were stunned to see American flags everywhere:
"He couldn't understand it until he looked a little more closely at the flags and realized that each one of them had 48 stars on them, because the townspeople had kept them hidden underneath the beds and in the cupboards for 45 years -- waiting until the day that they could be free -- and celebrate the ideas and values and principles for which that flag and for which the United States of America stands."
While Baer and Nussbaum wrote that "Gore backdates his story to at least a decade before his 1999 telling, making it a full six years older than Albright's trip to Czechoslovakia," they offer no conclusion as to who learned of or told the story first and give no indication that Gore ever told the story before 1999.
This is not the first time JustHillary.com has suggested that Clinton might be using the anecdotes of others without proper attribution. As Media Matters for America documented, JustHillary.com also linked to a July 11 The Des Moines Register article, tagging it "HILLARY BORROWS A WAR STORY," in reference to an anecdote that Sen. Hillary Clinton reportedly tells on the campaign trail in Iowa, which, according to the Register, she attributes to former Gov. Tom Vilsack. While the Register headline itself -- "Hillary uses story Vilsack had told" -- falsely suggested that Clinton tried to pass off Vilsack's story as her own, JustHillary.com took the suggestion a step further, asserting that she "borrow[ed]" it.
they seem to be two different stories. why couldn't people have brought out the same flags for the fall of communism and the 50th celebration of v-e day? why does one have to conflict with the other?
The campaign is only a few months old, and yet, Hillary's capacity for "borrowing" and faking is at full swing.So, the pandering "I am an African American too" Hillary has now decided to morph into an Eastern European refugee? LOL
and you really got that out of what she said? i know some of you are delusional.....
They have to conflict or justhillary.com wouldn't have a story.
Now we see: Gore was a liar and braggart; Hillary is just a thief/plagiarist; but so dumb she stole from the liar. Hmmmm . . .
No wonder Dems can't get elected?
(C'mon guys, check my historical record on The War On Gore before deciding whether to cite me for stupidity or irony.)
"No wonder Dems can't get elected?"
Excuse me, but what happened in Nov 2006 again? And what happened to all or most of the incumbent republicans?
Thats what i thought.....
Try using your brain next time....
Apparently you didn't read the last sentence of the posting?
I read it....the preceding sentence is still quite inaccurate. WTF does the last sentence have to do with ANYTHING? And where is your "historical record"? Sorry, Im gonna have to cite you for utter stupidity...
conley, i know your record, but it did not come out very clear.
Thanks. Perhaps the posting is not entirely clear. Let me try again to see if I can improve it:
1. The underlying article is summarized thus: Gore is a (proven) liar; Hillary is so dumb that she stole the story of the (discredited) liar, rather than stealing something credible.
2. Internal summary: These stupid, lying, candidates expect that we will vote for them?
[ If that is not what you read at justhillary, then we followed different links. ]
3. A choice - a contrast - is afforded to allow reflection as to whether I am reciting my personal feelings regarding the candidates, or their party [ stupidity ]; or engaging in a playful attempt to deride the base article [ irony ]; and my past postings, readily available to Google, together with some subject guidance, offered up as my bona fides.
For those whose reading is hindered; and for those whose prediliction is to cry "stupidity" as the fundament of each difference of opinion; please go forth and use this as a teaching aid for good intentions gone bad.
"For those whose reading is hindered; and for those whose prediliction is to cry "stupidity" as the fundament of each difference of opinion; please go forth and use this as a teaching aid for good intentions gone bad"
Right, like my reading was "hindered", how about we try your post was convoluted? Would that be accurate?.. Considering, I wasn't the only one who didn't know what you were blabbin' on about in your post.
Difference of opinion? Its impossible to have a difference of opinion since I didn't actually understand what your "opinion" was... judging by your reaction, I guess you were trying to be sarcastically ironic or something?! Look, I'm sorry your "good intentions" went bad, but, next time, make sure your posts are at least somewhat coherent. Finally, don't get mad at me for "citing you for stupidity" after you said this in YOUR OWN POST: "..... before you cite me for stupidity or irony". Sorry, I just didn't see any irony in your post...
NEXT!!!!!
NEXT: apparently you have since (based upon your iteration thereof as "sarcastic irony") looked up "irony". But you seem unable to apply that definition to your reading. Let me try to help: "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning". Whether or not you agree with what was said, whether or not you understand what was said, that is precisely what you read: irony.
Even with all the "Slow Down" signs in the contested post - the phrasing of the synopsis, the "?" after a statement merely summarizing the message of the justhillary article, the (I felt unnecessary, but my spouse/editor insisted) disclaimer in the final sentence - you attempted to collect your $200 without even passing "GO". I think it clear that you half-read, jumped on your horse, and went for "stupidity" in a paroxysm of paranoid delusion. 'SOK with me - I have those myself from time to time - everytime I even think of the Corporate Media Oligopoly: I just cannot stop myself from linking MORA, and pointing out that I would rather cut ownership/reach limits to half or less, enforce the licensing requirements for public service, and drop the Fairness Doctrine controversy.
Still, perhaps the posting was less clear than would have served, and for that I do apologize, as does my editor.
"apparently you have since (based upon your iteration thereof as "sarcastic irony") looked up "irony". But you seem unable to apply that definition to your reading."
Apparently, it must be exhilarating to have obtained telepathic enlightenment via aforelinked medium. Forgive my skepticism and velleity on the supernatural.
Your characterization "sarcastic irony", amidst aforesaid verbiage, is inherently false and misleading. The original language "sarcastically ironic", was used interjectionally, as a pejorative.
The repetitive feature inherent in the quote should have been a clue to the swipe, although my foray into subtlety, far short of paroxysm, was mostly successful to say the least. Explanation aside, an intelligent and "not stupid" chap such as yourself, can appreciate the intricacies of the abyss that is the progressive mind, bereft of the 2-color logic that so afflicts the neocon rightwing.
Ultimately, your intent on conveying irony in lieu of mere verbage (misspelling intentional) is noted and well supported, though not entirely clear at first glance.
DTrain- as much fun as it was for me to observe two liberals fighting, even I got what conleytgwinn was getting at in his first post without further explanation.
You're one angry dude. Lighten up.
With the story of her supposedly stealing a story a few days ago, is this a trend?
Why yes it is a trend.... perpetrated by ANTI-HILLARY WEBSITES/ORGS and conservative "drive-by" media... its called:
CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
Ever heard of it? Here..... let me educate you...
Did that come off kinda azzholish? Sometimes I can't tell who's on what side?
If you agree with me its character assassination, just ignore that last sentence... if you don't, well this Bud's for you!!
Seems to me Media Matters is calling Al Gore a liar.
could you explain? i missed that.
no i think it was clear media matters were calling the former gore speech writers liars
Fair enough DTrain, it was a leading question. I think we're on the same page. Have a nuggie fer free.
LH, perhaps confused instead. If you need the emotional loading of liar, well thats you I think.
I know, i eventually realized it... thats why I made the second post, admittedly I get pouncy when I detect... well... wingnuts or conservative idiots or a general difference of opinion. Its an instinct. I am mostly respectful though. If its deserving. Kinda like a progressive attack dog... you know.. we need them too.. can't let repubeecons have all the fun now can we?
How many times did conservatives sit through the Gipper's delusional war stories saying, "Brilliant! So he liberated Buchenwald (he was never overseas, not even as a Hollywood star for the USO), and he caused the Berlin Wall to tumble by saying the magic words, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!'" All those folksy, semi-true stories. Does anybody doubt either Gore's or Albright's story, as recounted by Clinton? Not me. It is a true reflection of the way they felt in Eastern Europe, and very moving as well.
Just a question: how many Iraqis will be saving American flags for 50 years, until it's safe to display them again? Answer: none.
GREAT question - and bonus points for the right answer!
Who cares who told this twisted fairy tale first. Either way, or both, it's still horseshit. But here are a couple of interesting facts to contrast. First, the design of the American flag with thirteen red and white stripes and a field of blue in the left corner was pilfered directly from the flag of the first multinational corporation , the East India Company. They were contracted by Britain to occupy, pillage, subjugate and loot India. So while Old Gory has more than 300 hundred years as the symbol of corporate evil, it's design isn't even as imaginative as that of the equally repugnant swastika. Second, if you ever attend a native american powwow, notice that at the beginning of the procession, the leader comes in carrying an American flag. That has nothing to do with any allegiance, quite the opposite. It is carried as a coup or trophy taken from an enemy in battle, much like a prized scalp.
That doesn't sound like any powow I've ever been to. I've gone to the local intertribal powows here in Florida for the past 6 years, and they've taken the time to honor American servicemen and veterans at every one.
as much fun as it was for me to observe two liberals fighting...taz
=============================================
Not as much fun as it is watching you wingnuts self-destruct, Taz. Starting with your dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks president, who apparently never learned now to admit a mistake.
Bush CANNOT admit a mistake.
His entire administration of corruption, lies, abuse of power, and crimes from petty to greatly serious are protected by a balloon-shield which cannot be breached under any circumstances.
If Bush were to admit a mistake, that would puncture the protective balloon, and it would be hell on earth. People would ask, well, if you made a mistake HERE, let's look OVER THERE as well. And Bush would no longer be able to claim omnipotence and infallibility ... he will have admitted his ability to make a MISTAKE.
The balloon is losing air, but it has not been punctured yet. It won't be long. POOF! The false undeserved protections Bush is claiming, to keep all his activities cloaked in the secrecy of "national security" and "executive perogative", are about to fall apart. Then, we will have a successful set of impeachments.
So, no, Bush simply CANNOT admit a mistake ... it would be his utter destruction to do so.