Washingtonpost.com's Kane, Sun-Times' Sweet rehashed Clinton/Yankees myth
SUMMARY: In an online discussion, washingtonpost.com blogger Paul Kane asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton "tried to have it both ways when she was running for the Senate, claiming that she was a Yankees fan all her life." Similarly, the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet wrote that Sen. Barack Obama said he was "a 'principled' sports fan, a slap, perhaps, at chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who switched allegiance from Chicago to New York teams when she started her run to represent New York in the U.S. Senate." In fact, Clinton's 2003 autobiography contains a photograph of her wearing a Yankees cap in 1992, and The Washington Post reported in 1994 that "Mrs. Clinton ... was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle."
During an October 24 washingtonpost.com "Post Politics Hour" discussion, congressional blogger Paul Kane asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "tried to have it both ways when she was running for the Senate, claiming that she was a [New York] Yankees fan all her life." Kane went on to claim that Clinton "grew up in a [Chicago] Cubs-fan household in suburban Chicago, and nothing in her personal background suggests that she was enough of a sports fan to have actually thought through her fandom enough to have [a National League] and an [American League] team." Similarly, in an October 24 column, Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet wrote that during an October 23 campaign rally in Boston, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was "a 'principled' sports fan, a slap, perhaps, at chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who switched allegiance from Chicago to New York teams when she started her run to represent New York in the U.S. Senate." However, the idea that Clinton proclaimed herself a Yankees fan only after she decided to run for the Senate seat for New York or that she "switched allegiance" from the Chicago Cubs to the New York Yankees during her Senate campaign is a myth commonly repeated in the media that is not supported by evidence. As Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton's 2003 autobiography, Living History (Simon & Schuster), contains a photograph of Clinton wearing a Yankees cap in 1992 -- eight years before she ran for the Senate. Further, The Washington Post reported on September 12, 1994, that "Mrs. Clinton ... as a kid was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle."
Kane's assertion came in response to a question concerning former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's recent statement that despite being a longtime fan of the New York Yankees, he was "rooting for the [Boston] Red Sox" -- longtime rivals of the Yankees -- to win the upcoming World Series against the Colorado Rockies. The questioner did not mention Clinton, instead asking what Giuliani's statement indicated "about the character and political judgement [sic] of this man":
Boston: Insufferable Boston fans?! I resemble that comment. ... What is insufferable if not inexcusable is Rudy Guiliani [sic] rooting for the Sox now. American League or not -- presidential pandering to New Hampshire voters or not -- you never would catch this Sox fan rooting for the Yankees What does this say about the character and political judgement [sic] of this man (on top of his support for World War IV-crazed Podhoertz [sic], which is a little more important)?
Paul Kane: Yeah, Rudy's claim that he's pulling for the Sox is a bit, well, special. Hillary Clinton tried to have it both ways when she was running for the Senate, claiming that she was a Yankees fan all her life. (She grew up in a Cubs-fan household in suburban Chicago, and nothing in her personal background suggests that she was enough of a sports fan to have actually thought through her fandom enough to have an NL and an AL team.)
So, yeah, well, a Rudy-Hillary campaign would be quite a treat for folks that get worked up on issues like that. Oh, in other news, the Southwick nomination just cleared the filibuster hurdle, getting 62 votes. Trading email with a top GOP Senate staffer earlier today, he and I set the over-under on 61 votes, so those of you that took the over, you win.
Contrary to Kane's assertion that "nothing in [Clinton's] personal background suggests that she was enough of a sports fan to have actually thought through her fandom enough to have an NL and an AL team," Clinton wrote in Living History that during her childhood she "became a serious fan and occasional competitor" because her father and brothers were "sports fanatics." From Living History:
Surrounded by a father and brothers who were sports fanatics, I became a serious fan and occasional competitor. I supported our school's teams and went to as many games as possible. I rooted for the Cubs, as did my family and most folks on our side of town. My favorite was Mr. Cub himself, Ernie Banks. In our neighborhood, it was nearly sacrilegious to cheer for the rival White Sox of the American League, so I adopted the Yankees as my AL team, in part because I loved Mickey Mantle. My explanations of Chicago sports rivalries fell on deaf ears during my Senate campaign years later, when skeptical New Yorkers were incredulous that a Chicago native could claim youthful allegiance to a team from the Bronx. [Page 13]
As Media Matters has noted (here and here), several conservatives and media figures have claimed that Clinton proclaimed herself a Yankees fan only after she decided to run for the Senate in New York and have used Clinton's statements regarding the Yankees to question her "authenticity."
From Sweet's October 24 column:
Deval Patrick, who rose from poverty on Chicago's South Side to become Massachusetts' first black governor -- elected on a message of hope and change shared with White House contender Barack Obama -- urged his grass-roots army at a rally Tuesday night to campaign for his friend in New Hampshire and Iowa.
"Welcome to Red Sox nation," said Patrick. Referring to the upcoming World Series here, his own win in 2006 and perhaps to Obama's lagging performance in the polls, he added, "Around here, we know how to come from behind and win."
"I am a White Sox fan," declared Obama, raising a mass groan. "You don't want somebody who pretends to be a Red Sox fan to be president of the United States." Obama said he was a "principled" sports fan, a slap, perhaps, at chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who switched allegiance from Chicago to New York teams when she started her run for the Senate.
How about Rudy life long avid Yankee fan, yet he is rooting for the Red Sox? I wonder if Rudy rooted for the Sox in 04 or is there a quote somewhere out there showing his support for the Cardinals.
I WONDER IF THIS MATTERS AT ALL!
Stop giving creedence to these dumb media stories and manufactured controversies by responding to them!
JLyons- my husband is a life long Yankee fan who would normally root for any American League team over a National League team come World Series time, but not when it comes to the Red Sox. He's rooting for Colorado this year. A real Yankee fan would never cheer for the Red Sox under any circumstances, so I'm surprised Rudy claims to be doing so. He might think he'll get a few votes from New Englanders, but I bet he'll lose a few more from New Yorkers.
I don't know if Hillary is a long time Yankee fan, it's certainly possible or maybe she also thinks it might be worth a vote or two.
Most politicians will pander to every group out there, and I suppose saying you're a fan of a particular ballclub fits that mode.
I'd prefer a honest guy like Obama myself.
Hill being a Yankees fan (because she had to pick an American League team besides her Cub fandom) seems silly and kinda pandering. But whatever.
When I was a boy in Northern Indiana most of the guys in our town were White Sox fans (Comiskey Park was closest to us, natch). I was a Cubs fan, but always liked the White Sox, too (my American League team, I suppose). When I moved to Chicago I found out that natives could never like both (Hill was from Park Ridge, so I suppose her AmerLeague claim could be true). Long story short, I got to enjoy the White Sox World Series victory in '05. As for the Cubbies, still waiting.
Rudy must be a Yankees fan.
He was at the stadium more than he was at ground zero in the fall of 2001.
Who knows, maybe he was protecting us from the terrorists there.
Good grief MMFA, you're now four for four today with the Hillary stories. A lot of people on the left don't trust this site because they believe it isn't just about exposing conservative misinformation but specifically a pro-Clinton vehicle. During the primary season, that would seem pretty unfair and even sneaky. I've been trying to make the case with people that isn't the case, that you're just about exposing the right wing BS. But you're making it pretty difficult.
If you're taking the position of supporting Clinton for the Democratic nomination, it would be more honorable to come out and declare that. Otherwise you are behaving in a way similar to the right wing propagandists; hiding behind a veneer of 'Fair and Balanced' that conceals a specific agenda.
During a primary season you cannot take attacks on one specific Democrat by the right wingers at face value. What they may be trying to do is create a 'circle the wagons' mentality in the Democratic party that helps that candidate to the nomination. If they are doing this with Hillary Clinton right now, you are simply providing them with more of an echo chamber. Without taking a more measured approach to reporting these ridiculous attacks on Hillary MMFA may simply be serving as a branch of the right wing media machine it is your stated effort to expose. Other than being specifically pro-Clinton, I really can't see how you can ignore this possibility. Is it really too complicated that the right wing media would use their uneven influence to intentionally create a backlash?
An easy explanation: the right wing machine attacks Hillary Clinton more regularly than the other candidates, hence, more MMFA stories about misinformation concerning Clinton.
I understand that is the easy explanation. But it's not necessarily a satisfactory explanation.
If the right wing media is using their undue level of noise to chase Democrats into Hillary's corner, shouldn't the response from the left (ie MMFA) be measured to take that into account? There is a real chance they are getting played here. (Intentionally?)
They have documented well that the right wingers have undue influence on what gets talked about. So, shouldn't they question why the right wing would choose to make so much noise about one of the Democrats running in the primaries? This trick has been pulled before. It's a fairly uncomplicated bit of reverse psychology to pick out the candidate you know you could beat in the other party and attack them unfairly during the primaries to get that party to rally around them.
Does MMFA act as a completely unthinking mechanism of response to right wing media or do they have an editorial brain? They don't simply report these things, they make analyisis and give opinions all the time. So barring specific support for Clinton, how can they ignore the possibility that the right wing is using their bullhorn in this manner? It makes more sense than the notion that they just can't help themselves. These are very crafty, calculating and coordinated people, as MMFA themselves have been documenting for years.
If the right wing media is using their undue level of noise to chase Democrats into Hillary's corner, shouldn't the response
Sundog you are reaching for a conspiracy theory. No such convoluted explanation is needed (Occham's razor). The right wingers hate Hillary and can't help but attack at every opportunity. MMFA responds. You are a concern troll, or you are suggesting the same approach that failed for Kerry. Don't respond, stay above the fray and hope the arrows and slings don't hurt too much. If you are left of HRC, as many are, then perhaps we need a website devoted exclusively to misinformation related to Obama or Edwards.
A 'concern troll?' Boy, that's the first time anyone has ever called me a troll. I've been posting on this site for an awful long time supporting the mission of MMFA.
And just a little more background middleleft. After the 04 election, some of Rove's own people talked publicly (briefly) about how they spotted Kerry as the candidate they could beat. So they intentionally ignored attacks coming from John Edwards no matter how harsh he got towards Bush. They fought with Kerry during the primaries because they wanted him to get the nomination. By ignoring Edwards they made him appear to Democrats as less of a threat because they knew he was MORE of at threat.
Is this really that complicated or are you just so hooked on Hillary as the nominee that you are being obtuse?
What I'm talking about is AVOIDING the mess with Kerry this time, not reapeating it as you say.
"... you are suggesting the same approach that failed for Kerry..."
I agree completely.
Negative campaigning works and make no mistake about it that's what the Republican Party and its surrogates are engaged in. They see the same numbers we do which is why they're off to such an early start this time.
The solution isn't to ignore it as Kerry showed.
There are posters on this site who still believe the Republican propaganda from that campaign because it wasn't refuted instantly and forcefully.
You guys are still ignoring the fact that this is negative campaigning during the PRIMARY season, not the general election. It's two different things. I feel like you're not really refuting my point but just not understanding it. Because comparing Kerry's limp response to the Rove attack machine in the general election has absolutley nothing to do with what I was talking about here.
During the Democratic primaries we are not running against any Republicans. What they are at this point is the common enemy. It's just like an American politician getting attacked by an outside enemy. It rallies people around him.
Is this really too complicated? If this is too complicated for people to grasp, it would mean that the GOP could influence every Democratic nomination from here on out by going ballistic on whichever top-tier candidate they hope to run against. Anyone who suspects their motives is just "reaching for conspiracy."
In honor of the Yankees hat story and the World Series tonight (Go Rockies!) I'll use a baseball analogy. You guys are claiming that Occham's Razor applies because it's simple that they attack her now because they just hate her and can't help themselves. So when a batter sees the pitcher put the ball in his glove before the windup with his fingers on the seams for a fast-ball, the batter should just forget about any possibility of a curve and just sit on the fastball. Because the simple explanation is that if you saw him getting ready to throw the fastball it's because he's going to throw the fastball.
I'm thinking million dollar a week GOP strategists could well be as tricky as any pitcher out there. That's pretty simple too.
I addressed the question about why the Republicans are starting out so early with the negatives this campaign a few posts down.
They think the light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train.
Come on, the far right drops as much misinformation/propaganda about HRC into the discussion daily as our military did ordnance on Baghdad during Shock and Awe.
When's the last time you heard what the pet situation in the Obama household was 7 years ago?
The right wing does that because, well....there are not other democratic candidates that stand a chance of getting the vote. As of right now, Hillary would stand the best chance to beat the republicans in presidential election - Obama really would not stand a chance this election.
However, its not fair to blame only the right wing media for going after Hillary when its well known that the liberal media is a much larger base and makes the same type of remarks and smears (lately the smears have been much worse for the left wing because the democrats have not chosen wisely which people & topics to smear on)
hi there billybob!
heh. That's what I was thinking. Maybe this will be the magic name that gives him super-mental powers.
What are you basing that on? How does Hillary stand the best chance? I maintain that it is the right wing media themselves who are stoking that information. I had Hannity's show on for about two minutes the other day (as long as I could take) and in that amount of time he had made this very claim.
Instead of repeating conventional 'wisdom' maybe it would make sense to examine it. Hillary Clinton has the highest 'negatives' of any of the top Democratic candidates. The GOP consistently runs on the negatives of their opponents more than the strengths of their own.
There is a lot of evidence that many of the people supporting other Democratic candidates will not come out to the polls to support Hillary in the general election. But Hillary's supporters who tend to be more long-term party Democrats would likely show up to vote Obama in November.
Obama is drawing in new supporters from independants and even disgruntled Republicans, people who wouldn't touch Hillary with a ten foot pole. Hillary's support is coming primarily from established Democrats. It's reasonable to see that her numbers would be the most stagnant after getting the nomination. People have known her now for 18 years so they're less likely to change their minds about her. The people voting for her in the primaries are most of the people who would vote for her at all. That's a classically bad recipe for a nominee.
The latest Zogby poll that asked "Who would you NEVER vote for" found that a whopping 50% of the general electorate answered Hillary Clinton. That leaves only half of the electorate who would even consider voting for her. Not a good recipe for success before an ugly campaign fight has even begun.
The same poll found 37% answering "Obama." This number corresponds quite neatly with the number of people who still support Bush no matter what. It appears that the only people who wouldn't consider voting for him are those hard-core Bushies who we know there is no talking to. Basically, there are a hell of a lot more voters in play for him than for Hillary.
So, can anyone give me ANY information that supports the idea that Hillary is somehow more electable other than their own feelings?
Go to Rasmussen Reports.
[link to www.rasmussenreports.com]
Look at the polls that pose head-to-head match ups for the 2008 election.
Note which Democrat beats all the Republicans and by the widest margins too.
There's your answer.
Johnny- I'm not sold on any of the national polls out there, preferring state polls for a truer picture. I believe Republicans would love to run against Hillary, in fact I'd suggest they are salivating over the prospect of doing just that.
I have a feeling she'll probably get the nomination, which isn't great news. If you think the Right is digging up just about anything to discredit her now, wait till the national elections.
I honestly think Obama might stand a better chance against a Republican opponent.
Don't buy into what the Republicans are saying.
Do you remember in 2006 right before the election when Karl Rove sat with reporters saying Republicans will keep their majority in Congress because while reporters have access to polls Rove has access to THE poll (whatever that means).
The Republicans see the same numbers we see. HRC beats any Republican nominee no matter how you slice it.
My opinion is things are so bad the Republican Party will be happy if they lose the White House and can limit their losses in Congress.
It sure is fun to speculate about it in the meantime.
One thing we know for sure is they won't go quietly and they're already revving up the "voters have Clinton fatigue "campaign along with their "Clinton was elected by less than a majority of the people so she's not legitimate" campaign
Hey Mr DumbassBush
Do you think posting your dumb baseless assertions and delusions is the best use of your time? Maybe a bit of adult education would free you of the need for the hivemind telling you what to believe.
MMFA may be acting pro-Clinton, but so many in the media are anti-Clinton.
If Clinton resided in the long shot column and wasn't throwing every media hack into a feeding frenzy, then I'd be more inclined to accuse MMFA of a campaign affiliation conspiracy. But that simply isn't the case. She is the media's undisputed favorite target, and I don't see that changing any time soon.I'm not questioning that she is their undisputed favorite target. What I am questioning is why. If conservatives really feared her getting the nomination, they would be more dismissive of her instead of sounding alarm bells. During the primary season, the more noise the other party makes about you the better. If they were really just hell-bent on stopping her, they would diminish her in the eyes of Democratic primary voters, not build her up with their frantic opposition. They would save that for after the nomination.
The claim of going after her now in order to stop her nomination is patently false. A guy like Hannity knows that Democrats hate him. So when he is on the air pleading with Democrats to nominate Obama, should we really take that at face value?
During the primaries, it would almost make more sense to cover the LACK of attention the right wingers give to certain candidates. Without taking this effect into account, MMFA risks becoming a cog in the very machine they set out to dismantle.
I thought it was the right wingers who were supposed to be irnoy impaired not mediamatters.
The polls show her not only getting the nomination they show her beating every potential Republican nominee and a recent WP poll shows more people won't vote for the top 4 Republican candidates than won't vote for her.
There's nothing for Republicans to be dismissive about. There aren't going to be any "there she goes again" moments this campaign that will stick with the public who are sick of 8 years of Bush and a Republican Congress for most of those years.
The Republican Party is reading the tea leaves and see a defeat of historic proportions coming in 2008.
That permanent majority Rove was so intent of forming has turned into a wave that's going to crash on the shore.
The Republicans are desperate and I think that's the answer to questions about what you're seeing.
Johnny, those are the numbers the GOP can change over the course of a year, particularly if Hillary gets the nomination.
They will want to go with a new face, an empty suit with a haircut who recites the lines. When they put the haircut up there next to Hillary, the Bush effect is much reduced. She can criticize the GOP for the mess we're in and the war but it's going to stick to her instead. They'll fire back that she's the one who voted for the war and the middle of the roaders who don't know jack about the parties will associate her with the past ten years more than the haircut standing next to her.
The left won't show up again just like 2000. They hate her as much as the right at this point because of the Iraq vote among other things. (just ask Redking) And her very presence is the one thing that will help the GOP shake up their base to show up.
The case the Hillary supporters seem to be making is that it's unfair that so many people don't like her so therefore it doesn't matter. But in the general election someone needs to vote for her that didn't already vote for her in the primaries. It's going to be much more difficult for her to find new support with the nomination in hand than it would be for Obama.
There are a lot of potential train wrecks in 08. But one of the big ones is President Romney. People respond to that the exact same way they responded to W. Bush at this point in the game. Doesn't bode well to me. There is a real arrogance among Democrats right now that could really sink us. Hillary's campaign slogan might as well be, "Because it's My Turn." That flies with Democrats, but the rest of the country is pretty turned off. Nominating Hillary is the one thing that gives the GOP the chance to run their new haircut as the candidate of change. Disaster.
Sundog, I don't think asking Redking would be indicitive of anything...he hates everyone and wouldn't vote for your choice of Obama either. I think you are only looking at information that supports your theory. There are also polls showing Hillary leading both the democratic and republican candidates so pointing to the who would you never vote for has to be taken with a grain of salt as do most polls. I support Clinton and I don't think the negative publicity should be ignored because it is not fair as you claimed I think it should be debunked and that when given a chance people come away with a positive view of Clinton. Many thought there was no way Clinton would win in New York but she proved them wrong she got out and campaigned and met the people and gave the people a chance to debunk the myths about her by seeing first hand. I think she has a legitimate chance to win the election and she is my first choice among the candidates. As you said I would vote for Obama if he wins but I think many will also vote for Clinton if she is the nominee even if she is not there first choice. I think you are wrong about MMFA they point out misinformation on the other candidates and if there seems to be more articles on Clinton it is because she is smeared the most.
Yes, when given a chance they do. But count on it that they won't be given that chance once the general campaign has begun. Is MMFA really going to explain to my mom why she should learn to trust Hillary? I can't even do that and my mom likes me.
The nominee will have to pick up voters who didn't vote for them in the primaries. Between Hillary and Obama, it's going to be much much more difficult for her to pick up new people. Just because we are aware of the right wing media machine doesn't mean it has been defeated. The campaign aint gonna happen on MMFA because they've exposed FOX. It's gonna happen on FOX and CNN just like the last one.
Sundog, I don't think it is MMFA's job or their intention to convice anyone to trust Clinton. They simply debunk the misinformation. Many people have had their minds changed about Clinton as evidenced by her New York campaigns. Again polls show her leading even in the general election so she can't be too much of a lost cause as you contend. You could also look at it as all the negatives about Clinton are out there and not really news anymore and open to being debunked. There is a chance that the more that is learned about other candidates the more the chance that the negatives could rise...Obama has taken a hit in the polls as time goes by as people learn about him some are less then impressed. Basically, we are reading tea leaves here...it could go either way really. I just disagree with you that Clinton isn't electable. They didn't think she was electable here in New York and she proved them wrong. I think you underestimate her ability to win over voters.
You might right about Romney but I don't agree with you about the Left sitting out.
Not after 8 years of the worst president in a long time, not after having the election stolen in 2000 and being so close in 2004. A record number of people voted in 2004, 60% of those eligible, and I believe we will top that in 2008
I don't believe any candidate can get elected by going against the will of the public and supporting "stay the course", not in a general election.
Did you see the numbers at Rasmussen Reports?
HRC beats every possible Republican nominee and by the widest margins of any possible Democratic too.
Of course that's today, slightly more than a year before the votes are cast.
But I think Iraq is as much a galvanizing issue as was Ford's pardon of Nixon in 1976. Exit polls then showed that was the issue that swayed voters most and I think Iraq will do that this time around.
But that's why nominating Hillary is such a mistake. Her record on Iraq is convoluted at best. The only way she could look sort of good on it is running against Bush himself. But the Bush effect that is influencing those polls will fade as he does. She won't be running against Bush and many of the middle of the roaders will associate her with the past decade more strongly than the GOP nominee.
The swing voters didn't skip on Kerry just because of the swift boat liars. His record appeared convoluted. He seemed to be trying to play from both sides of the deck on Iraq. Hillary will have this problem at least as bad.
The Iraq war wasn't just fought badly, it shouldn't have been fought. Anyone who didn't see that the Iraq resolution was going to be used by the administration to launch an invasion would have to have been really naive. Hillary herself likes to remind us that she's not naive. The only real conclusion is that she voted yes because that was the politically expediant thing to do. In other words, one of the biggest decisions she's made can be painted as calculating and cynical. Exactly her problem with the general electorate. These things will be amplified times ten if she has the nomination.
The way to beat the right wing noise machine is with a clear-speaking, candid, intelligent candidate with a relatively uncomplicated record. We have that candidate. And it aint Hillary Clinton.
I really don't feel comfortable making the case for or against HRC as you obviously are when making the case against her.
You asked the question what makes people sure she's the best candidate to win the general election and I tried to point you to some hard numbers which suggest she is.
All the rest is conjecture.
Indeed, even those numbers are just a means of making a guess. It's not that I don't appreciate it. I was asking for some counterpoint to my concerns. If I was supporting Hillary those polls would look good to me too.
I can't deny that it's not more of a Blink kind of thing than any hard numbers for me. I've just had this feeling before. I argued with Democrats in 04 that Kerry was a big risk for the nomination and it would just be simpler to run a pretty face up there like Edwards. People told me that Kerry was somehow the 'electable' one. It seemed nuts to me. Ed was smart enough and sounded great on the stump and the swing voters would have liked him and seen him as a relief from the Bush mess. And then after the election I hear some of Rove's minions talking about doing the very thing I felt like they were doing. Baiting Democrats into thinking the least electable candidate was somehow the most electable candidate. Including the use of polls that showed Kerry beating Bush before he'd gotten the nomination.
I argued with nearly everyone I knew in 2000 that messing around with Nader was nuts becuase Bush would be a terrible president and people would die because of it. I even said we'd wind up in Iraq if we didn't keep him out of office. People said things like Bush was way too stupid for people to elect him or that there would be no difference between Al Gore and George Bush as president. Yikes.
I even remember people laughing off Ronald Reagan because the Bonzo actor guy was just a joke. Seemed like people might go for the scary foriegner line to me.
I'm not talking about being freakin Nostradamus here. It's just that all the talk of the Republicans simply conceding the White House feels real familiar to me. Not that other elections were just the same but I saw the major trap before it was sprung and everyone I talked to said I was wrong.
To me it seems as obvious as Kerry's sonorous voice and horse face and confusing history. Hillary is the best chance the GOP has of keeping the White House. They don't want us to think that. They want us not to think about it at all. They're not even trying to win the White House. It's just Her Turn this year.
It's going to be really ugly if she gets the nomination and then it could go either way.
I'm an Iowa political junkie. I'm around these campaigns. I stand in the same room with these candidates when they give their speeches. I shake their hands and wish them luck. I can see that if we gave Obama's campaign the spotlight and the prominance of the nomination he would absolutely destroy the GOP nominee and basically the Rove method along with them in 08. Hillary would try to beat them with the Rove method and her supporters are calling that 'seasoning' not cynicism. It all seems like a really bad idea to me. Cynicism and a disgruntled, fearful electorate always favors the GOP.
Maybe I'll be wrong this time and I can relax a little more in 2012. I'd prefer to finally see my choice of candidate run against these clowns and see what we can do.
Great point! HRC is on record claiming to have "started" MMFA (even though Waldman called her a liar).
Best laugh line of the day - (from above)
As Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton's 2003 autobiography, [link to www.simonsays.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?Living">[link to www.simonsays.com] History (Simon & Schuster),
So, MMFA cites HRC's own "auto" biography to support her story.
Yah, good one. No wonder people are of the opinion that MMFA is in the tank for HRC.
The genesis of MMFA is not a secret.
In fact it's well documented.
[link to query.nytimes.com]
The disagreement is about what "started" means.
If you want to characterize that as a lie go ahead.
Most reasonable people wouldn't.
From your link (above - NYT)
Mr. Brock has also said that he knowingly lied ...
Yeah, we all know Brock is an admitted liar. The Liar even lied about what the purpose of the MMFA. The real purpose of the MMFA is to take Soros money and help HRC.
Yes, Brock has admitted to lying when he was part of the far right propaganda machine.
I congratulate him and I wish more of them would do it.
Get lathered, rinse, repeat (I think I stole that from another poster here, but with BB it is always appropriate).
And we all know you are a liar a fool and a moron so there you go.
Keep up the stupidity BJsurrendermonkey. Making yourself look like the fool you are is the only thing you excel at.
Another crucial campaign issue for voters to consider.
Heck, the point of the article is not that Hillary is attacked, but rather that the Corporate Media Oligopoly starts or joins the chorus of lies - as they tend to do whichever Dem is attacked. So, the solution is obvious: ban the ownership of more than a single outlet by any person or Corporation; license even the print media, just as we do the "broadcast" media; and require weekly public service evaluations of each such outlet, by the community in which it is licensed, with the license to be revoked on any violation. That way, there is a certainty of diversity, since there would need to be 20,000+ new owners, and some of that ownership might even become available to some liberals.
Meanwhile, MMFA is doing what it is supposed to do: pointing out the rightward bias of that so-called "liberal" media. Short of the legal execution of the corporation as a viable entity, this will do for now.
Thats exactly what I find humorous. The "RIGHT WING" bias of the "LIBERAL" media.
Liberals are biased, conservatives are biased. But well known fact that there are more liberal media outlets and liberal drive by media than there is on the conservative side.
Both exist, just that the liberal media is much larger.
Yeah - good luck with that storyline around here!
Sorry.
The term "drive by" gives you away immediately.
Try thinking a term up by yourself in between posts.
Did you just subconsciously refer to your fictional world as a "storyline" ?
You know, when you reply to a comment, everybody can see it. oops.
True as a talking point it is too ludicrous to take seriously.
Hey Mr DumbassBushYou mean it is what you brainwashed hiveminders have been TOLD to believe and pushed relentlessly. That it is ludicrous wont stop you guys from repeating the lie over and over. I love the way the SCLM pushed were cheerleaders for this war in Iraq the left never wanted and hid out from the Downing Street memo for a month while it was the biggest story in Europe. Your DELUSIONS do not constitute reality
So Hillary's life began in 1992? Where was the picture of her in a Yankees cap taken? Could it have been while she was campaigning with her husband in New York? And what is the full context of the 1994 Washington Post article? Again, was she in New York campaigning for Democrats when she made the statement?
I don't think MMFA has debuked anything here until we know the full context.
And you won't think they have even if they meet all your requirements.
And if she "understudied Banks and Mantle," which is her better position, Shortstop or Center Field? She will campaign as a "Center Fieler", but should she win and the Ds maintain control of Congress, it will be only a "Shortstop" to higher taxes (for everyone that pays taxes).
Alright Oscar. Way to leg out that weak bunt of a joke. But I'll give you credit better than most tortured (or is that rendition) sports/politics metaphors. Good use of the pun at the end. But "The man that would make a pun would pick a pocket." -- M&C
Fair assessment of a foul form of humor.I've ground out a few here, sacrificing my dignity, but still don't balk at pitching the occasional pun. You may want to shut out all puns on principle, but I'd suggest it would be safe to first base your opinion on the individual case.
Must admit there is more money to be made in picking pockets than making puns. Be very careful in a crowd, that "accidental" bump may be a punster and his nimble fingers.
Actually yes it does. Perhaps you should learn to READ. Here is what Lynn Sweet wrote that WAS debunked
Lynn Sweet wrote that Sen. Barack Obama said he was "a 'principled' sports fan, a slap, perhaps, at chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who switched allegiance from Chicago to New York teams when she started her run to represent New York in the U.S. Senate."
When did she run for the Senate again? 1999? Well by my reconing that is AFTER 1994. So I guess that DOES pretty much debunk the claim that she switched her alliegence from Chicago to New York WHEN SHE BEGAN HER RUN FOR THE SENATE.
I understand being a two team fan. In football all my life my two favorite teams were the Rams and whoever was playing Dallas.
So Hillary's a "true" Yankee fan? She just lost my vote! Go SOX!
(And Rudy pullin' for the Sox? Give me a break. He's just a no good Yankee fan anyway.)