Washington Times repeated false claim that Bill Clinton criticized Democrats
A November 13 Washington Times article on former President Bill Clinton's recent campaign appearances in South Carolina reported, "While Mr. Clinton drew fire on both sides of the political aisle when he compared sharp criticism of his wife [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] by her opponents at a recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia to the 'swift-boating' attacks leveled by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, he was upbeat and less defensive yesterday, assuring the crowd that his wife was strong enough to take a political punch." But, as Media Matters for America documented, Bill Clinton did not "compare[] sharp criticism of his wife by her opponents" at the Democratic debate to "swift-boating." Rather, in a November 5 speech, he criticized Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks.
From Clinton's speech:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: [T]he point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President [Al] Gore was too stiff. When they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator [John] Kerry [D-MA].
When there was an ad that defeated [former Sen.] Max Cleland [D] in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam. And a guy that had several deferments ran an ad with Max Cleland's picture with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, because he dared to vote against the president's version of the Homeland Security bill.
[...]
Why am I saying this?
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses." So, we'll then let the Republicans run an ad saying, "All the Democrats are against the rule of law."
I don't -- look, I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. Illegal immigration needs to be discussed, and it's fine for Hillary and all these other guys to be asked about Governor Spitzer's plan -- but not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.
So, do I hope you'll vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America and good for the world. But, more than that, I came here to tell you today: Don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you and to your children -- and to the future of America.
Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them. Thank you.
As Media Matters noted, several media outlets falsely reported that Clinton had criticized Democratic presidential candidates for "swift-boating" his wife following her response to a question from Democratic presidential debate moderator Tim Russert about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.
From the November 13 Washington Times article:
Former President Bill Clinton told voters in South Carolina yesterday that the "boys" have been ganging up on his wife in recent weeks but that she can take it.
"She's been doing this on her own for a long time now," said Mr. Clinton during a visit to a hair salon and day spa on a daylong trip through this decidedly red state on behalf of the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat.
"She knows that personal attacks are a part of politics," Mr. Clinton told reporters as he greeted the women getting their hair relaxed and curled at Anjea's Hair Studio and Spa. In recent weeks, other Democratic candidates, particularly Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, have sharpened their criticism of the former first lady, the front-runner for the nomination.
Mr. Clinton received a warm welcome yesterday from about 800 supporters and students gathered on Veterans Day at Trident Technical College in North Charleston, S.C., for a rally supporting Mrs. Clinton, who was not present at either rally.
While Mr. Clinton drew fire on both sides of the political aisle when he compared sharp criticism of his wife by her opponents at a recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia to the "swift-boating" attacks leveled by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, he was upbeat and less defensive yesterday, assuring the crowd that his wife was strong enough to take a political punch.
"It's a great time to be a Democrat," Mr. Clinton said to cheers, adding that the Democrats have a strong slate of candidates running for president.
"I like it because even though those boys have been getting kind of tough on her, she can handle it," he said. "I like all the people in my party's primary."
Apparently at least Democrats thought the same thing.
(From the nytimes.com)
“We listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff,” Mr. Clinton said, “and when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he’d done in his life. When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator Kerry.”
“Why am I saying this?” he continued. “Because I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again.”
Mr. Obama, in an interview yesterday with The Associated Press, said the former president was reaching in linking criticism of Mrs. Clinton to the Swift boat advertisements.
“How you would then draw an analogy to distorting somebody’s military record is a reach,” Mr. Obama said.
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said Mr. Clinton had not been referring to Democratic candidates’ criticisms of his wife but to Republicans’ criticism of her debate performance.
“Senator Obama is well aware that the former president was saying that the Republicans will do anything to play politics with a serious issue,” Mr. Carson said.
Mr. Obama’s critiques of Mr. Clinton’s comments were echoed by another Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who termed the former president’s statements “outrageous.”
To have Mr. Clinton come out and suggest that this is a form of Swift-boating, Mr. Dodd said, “is way over the top in my view.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/politics/07campaign.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20BillDang it! My first sentence should have read,
" Apparently at least TWO Democrats thought the same thing."
Sorry for the confusion.
Do you think MMFA will have a thread on Dodd and his comments to the NYT That Bill said the Democratic candidates were "Swiftboating" Hillary? Doubtful
I doubt we'll see an MMFA item that reads "NYT failed to challenge Obama and Dodd on Clinton speech falsehoods", because doing so would forward the conservative agenda. So again, your expectations of adherence to "agenda fairness" are in direct conflict with MMFA's stated mission, which I'm sure you have read at least once by now.
There is one notable difference between the articles.
The NYT article clearly provides a rebuttal from the Clinton campaign:
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said Mr. Clinton had not been referring to Democratic candidates’ criticisms of his wife but to Republicans’ criticism of her debate performance.
“Senator Obama is well aware that the former president was saying that the Republicans will do anything to play politics with a serious issue,” Mr. Carson said.
The Washington Times made no such effort to include the Clinton campaign's take on Bill's criticism.
I doubt we'll see an MMFA item that reads "NYT failed to challenge Obama and Dodd on Clinton speech falsehoods", because doing so would forward the conservative agenda.
How is it a conservative agenda when 3 non conservatives are involved ? Misinformation is misinformation, no?
I didn't mean to give MMFA a pass. I meant to highlight that MMFA's agenda would be seriously tested if they did such a piece.
Obama's and Dodd's comments are misinformation according to MMFA's own insistence. But because they are both Democratic candidates, citing their criticism would give ammunition to the rightwing slime machine in the form of "Dems eating their own! Dems in disarray!", etc., thus forwarding the conservative agenda.
In addition, it will only serve to paint MMFA as the Clinton campaign arm it's purported to be by every other righty poster in these forums. That's why you won't see it here.
So basically they are really no better than say...FOX News?
Well ok then. At least we finally have that confirmed.
And the obvious difference somehow eludes you:
Fox News:
"Real Journalism"
"Fair and Balanced"
"We report, you decide"
MMFA:
"progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
FOX news reports both sides, they simply lean to the Right.
MMFA reports one side, ignores the other.
Yeah I know that's their "mission", but it still means they are hiding 1/2 of the facts.
If you're comfortable with that, well ok.
Just because they announce they are one-sided, doesn't make them any better than FOX.
Well, Media Matters does seem to try to get the quotes right and present a complete picture of the issues they address. I don't think Fox does anything of the sort, nor tries to.
You can't very well compare a news network and a website. News networks are supposed to be objective and unbiased, and FOX is not. Websites have no such restrictions.
Which is why you need me, Tommy, AA, Bruce, & other Conservative voices here to keep things a tad more fair & balanced.
Of course some here [not you] don't want the other side to be heard.
But we'll carry on ;-)
Whether we need you guys or not I am personally thrilled you guys are here. You add to the mix and keep us honest. I have actually seen a few times you guys caught MMFA in mistakes or not being complete and a couple of those time I saw them make changes because of it. You guys are good for the site
Thank you Solon :-)
That coming from someone I truly respect means a lot.
And you guys on the other side keep us honest..or at least get us thinking.
I've had several eye-opening moments here.
Thanks Solon, your comments are apprecaited.
Even though we are often at each other's throats, well, not really - we are just one big dysfunctional family here, aren't we?
:)
You complete us !
Which is many on the left want the Fairness Doctrine applied to news media and not the internet.......now we know why.
The internet doesn't need the Fairness Doctrine. Anyone can set up their own site, for any purpose. For instance, you have "instapundit" and then came "instaputz", which addresses what Glenn Reynolds (and others) say.
Besides, I have no idea how one would enforce any such thing over thousands of different sites, even if it was necessary.
I know, for the left only Fox News needs the FD......all the other liberal leaning media outlets don't need it.
Who said that? All news networks should operate under the same standards.
Now that you BUILT that strawman are you going to set it on fire and roast marshmallows?
I am not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.
I am in favor of Fox News marketing themselves honestly.
I agree Pete wholeheartedly. But it probably will not happen, they have their audience and they have made it work, in spite of it all.
I admit, I watch Fox occassionally to see what hysteria culture war they are dredging up, but I never go there for independent analysis on any of their opinion shows - it's just too painful, even though I may agree with much of it, I like people from both sides to intellectually battle it out and have good points on their side to combat the others........Fox opinion shows are for the lazy who only want their opinion reinforced, much like talk radio.
Actually since ANYONE can get bandwidth and start their own website, the Fairness doctrine would be completely unecessary for the internet. I cant just buy some equipment and start broadcasting on radio waves, its illegal, as long as the government gives SOME people a megaphone to reach tens of thousands of people on OUR resource we darn sure have a right to make the argument both sides should be heard. If such megaphones were available to all it wouldnt be necessary
"FOX news reports both sides, they simply lean to the Right."
I heard Dennis Miller say something nearly identical on O'Reilly's show recently. He even referred to Fox News as "fair and balanced" in the preceding sentence. So the obvious question is, how can Fox News be balanced if it leans to the right?
I didn't say FOX was Fair & Balanced.
I said they report BOTH sides but lean to the Right.
I'm not here to defend them.
My point was: MMFA only gives 1/2 the story, which is their agenda & stated mission. But even though they make NO claim to be fair, they are still no better than FOX. In fact, FOX does give both sides, so they may be a tad better ;-)
Since they have different missions, I would question your definition of the word "better." Does Fox "News" do a BETTER job at providing fair-and-balanced news than MM does at what it says it is going to do? On that basis I think I would disagree with you.
I see your point. MMFA mission agenda never wavers. They are biased, report only selective stories & are apparently good it. FOX, on the other hand claims to be fair & balanced, but rarely is. So MMFA is better at presenting their stated biased agenda. BOTH are biased, but ok...MMFA is better at it.
But here's my point:
FOX reports a story. They give it a favorable Conservative slant/spin.
MMFA reports a story that points out Conservative mis-information but leaves out anything that would appear unfavorable to Dem/Libs, even IF it's part of the whole story.
While MMFA comes straight out and admits they aren't fair & balanced, and FOX claims they are, I'd still rather get the whole story, even if it's reported with bias than read something cherry-picked to suit a biased agenda without including the other side.
FOX doesn't omit information to favor their side? If they do, then you're not getting the "whole story" from them either.
In any event, I don't see what's better about it. I would think that it's worse, because FOX gives the impression that they're covering the whole story when they're spinning it. Moreover, if there's a legitimate criticism of an MMfA article because of something they've left out, the comments are there for people to read. There isn't anything similar for FOX.
Jeter,
Fox gives both sides?????? That is quite a reach in my opinion. Starting with Shepard Smith and ending with Hannity and Colmes in primetime I think you would have a hard time proving that. Let's not even try to give that insipid morning show a "fair and balanced" label. Have you ever noticed that if a liberal point of view is given there is always some type of misleading chryon at the bottom of the screen? The guys over at NewsHounds have documented this pretty extensively as well as debunking the "giving both sides" argument. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that it has taken 10 yrs to have them at least admit that they lean right. It used to be that such an accusation of "leaning right" was generally dismissed as sour grapes by the otherwise "liberal media" because of competition. But hey, there will always be those who oppose biased journalism, unless of course it comes from FOX. Then it is somehow o.k. because they have the audacity to label themselves as "fair and balanced". There have been numerous entities and informational guides which have clearly documented FOX's bias. From MMFA to OUTFOXED this has been, in my opinion, proven. I firmly believe the evidence presented is overwhelming.
I am as comfortable with that as the right has been for a LOOONNNG time that MRC and AIM now newsbusters ONLY covers liberal media. What I am NOT comfortable with is unilaterally disarming and allowing ONLY the right to have sites that tell only their side of the story. Since that IS happening and HAS been happening there is nothing wrong with THIS site giving only the OTHER side.
I like Chris. But the more I see of him I realize just how extremely bias he is making no pretense at objective reporting. I guess its true what they say about Chris being an opinion maker ant not a journalist. He doesn't even try to hide his disdain for Hillary and he will go to the greatest lengths to praise Obama.
Seems like I will have to get my news from Jim Lehrer...he's a real journalist
Lean to the right? The same as Fox? O.K. I get your sarcasm, good one...
FYI - a quick scan of November items at MMFA
Defending Edwards - 1
Defending Obamma - 10
Attacking Guiliani - 14
Defending Clinton - 38
While Clintin is indeed the frontrunner and may be subject to more coverage - those numbers show obvious favortisim.
In order to comprehend, swap-out "defending" with "articles describing media misinformation about".
That would be very obvious to almost anyone.
And in no instance did Media Matters ever "attack" Giuliani.
- those numbers show obvious favortisim.- WC4ME
To elevate this accusation above anything more than complete BS, you'd have to provide valid figures on how much media misinformation there has been on each of those people. Get it? You seem to understand that HRC is getting the most media attention, but to prove that the space given to her here is disproportionate, you'll need give us some numbers to measure against.Most statistics are pretty meaningless except in a relative sense.
WC4ME, your hasty analysis is exactly the kind of black-and-white thinking that causes you to be a right wingnut.
In order to make your claim you would have to do some rather extensive research of not only MMFA articles but articles about all of the political candidates in ALL of the media. If it turned out that articles about Clinton numbered 100 times greater than articles about any other candidate, then it wouldn't be surprising or at all inappropriate to see more defense of her in MMFA.
And even you have to admit, the big game here for both non-Clinton dem candidates and repuglikans alike is to take Clinton down. Right ? So don't be surprised that there is more BS printed and spoken about her, and therefore more defense of her here.
And even you have to admit, the big game here for both non-Clinton dem candidates and repuglikans alike is to take Clinton down. Right ? So don't be surprised that there is more BS printed and spoken about her, and therefore more defense of her here.
I understand why fellow Dems want to take her down because they want to run in the general. I also believe the Rebubs WANT to run against HRC in the general - so taking her down now is not beneficial to their cause.
Then again maybe a lot of us just dont like her
Sorry MMfA, but I don't think something that's completely open to interpretation and discussion (like Bill's comments and who they were pointed at) = one interpretation is "false."
Bill could've been talking about Russert too and I'm sure he was, but clearly the other candidates felt that Bill's comments were a shot in their direction. Good post AA.
"interpretation and discussion"
It is a fact that Clinton in his speech never once directed his comments about Swift Boating toward opponents of Hillary.
Claiming falsely, that he DID is what's called "misinformation", not "interpretation.
There is a big difference between 'discussion' and false accusations, or deliberately using misinformation for political advantage.
Dave, so it's completely meaningless to you that Dodd and Obama responded as if the comments were directed at them? Be honest.
"Dave, so it's completely meaningless to you that Dodd and Obama responded as if the comments were directed at them? Be honest."
Oh no. I'm shocked SHOCKED! that a politician would deliberately use misinformation for their own advantage!
But this item isn't about misinformation from Obama and Dodd. It's about the Washington Times (and other media outlets).
The concept that this site is devoted to media misinformation seems so simple as to not require repeating.
So you're saying, contrary to the Dodd and Obama's campaign response, that Clinton never attacked them, never implied that they or other Dems were apart of the group that hammered on Hillary during and post-the Philly debate, and that not only is the Wash Times mistaken, but it's not even up for debate, even though at least 2 democratic candidates took Bill's words as pointed at them?
Again (and this is so obvious that it is almost absurd to have to keep pointing it out):
If you can point to where, in Bill Clinton's speech, he directed his criticism of "Swift-Boat" and other tactics specifically and clearly at Democratic candidates, please do post the quote --or link to same-- here.
To sum it up *again*:
The media and Republicans were the obvious, clear targets of his comments.
The examples Clinton cited ---Swift Boat ads, Cleland ads, 'raise-your-hand' type questions, comments about Gore's stiffness, etc. etc.--- are all examples of attacks from the media or Republicans --not candidates like Dodd and Obama.
It was a "yes" or "no" question, and you dodged it; you want to focus on something else besides the point I was making.
I'm fine with that, but you've lost all credibility to post on any threads that MMfA titles "so-and-so implied..."
"you've lost all credibility"
Say it isn't so.
Well if and when I can get over that crushing blow, maybe you'll supply that missing quote where Clinton criticizes Democratic opponents in his speech.
But I doubt it, because there is no quote.
It must be quite a privilege to be living in the Pretend World, where you get to put words in someone's mouth-words they never spoke, and then to tell someone else that they've lost credibility.
Dave,
I see your point. Yes, Bill is directed most of his criticism at Republicans and the media.
However the link that probably brought Dodd and Obama and elsewhere Edwards to respond as they did was this:
Why am I saying this?
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again.
So to many of us, the implication is that Clinton is using his masterful political voice to link "the boys" in the debate to the Republicans and the media without having to explicitly mention them by name.
I've heard it before, castigate your opponents by implication and then call for the crowd to disdain this type of demagoguery. Masterful! Bill's a genius.
Except that none of the examples Clinton cited in his speech had anything to do with the other Democratic candidates. None. All his examples were of Republicans and the media.
To say that Clinton laid criticisms of Swift-Boating or Al Gore's stiffness at the feet of Chris Dodd or Barack Obama makes no sense except as a case of wishful thinking on their part.
No he is making the right point. Since it COULD be taken either way though all examples were of the media and republicans claiming it WAS an attack on other Dems is not supported. THAT is misinformation they didnt say it could be TAKEN as... They said it WAS an attack on other Dems.
And, Dave, Clinton did not have to specifically mention Dodd, Obama et all to have included them in the greater group that was ganging up on Hillary.
Dex, your question may seem like a simple "yes or no" to you, as you built it around your positions, but take another look at it- it's really between 5 and 10 questions, some of which could contradict each other.
I think accusing Dave of dodging the question is pretty unfair, it was a question that could easily fit into the mold of the questions our media tends to ask.
Beach, I'm simply taking exception to Dave's assertion that Bill had to say "Dodd and Obama are swiftboating Hillary and need to stop it" to pass his test of "attacking" Hillary.
I asked Dave: If Dodd and Obama thought the comments were directed at them and said so, it's still so outlandish for the media to assume Bill was including them in his comments?
My answer is: No. He could say "yes", and I would disagree with him, but at least he's addressed the issue specifically instead of answering a question with a question.
Excuse me, but until you are crowned Official Moderator here, simply because you demand only a yes or no, doesn't mean that the other person is required to reply exactly the way you demand.
Wow, you're reeling. I never said you have to do anything, I simply pointed out that you didn't.
If you didn't expect or want a "yes or no" response, what's the purpose of pointing out that you didn't get one? That seems odd.
I was clearly looking for a "yes" or "no" answer, I'm not sure where you got that I wasn't.
"I never said you have to do anything..."? So you expect a type of answer, criticize him for answering it differently, but you never said he had to answer it the way you wanted?
Do you see how that might come off as a little bit disingenuous?
Oh yes, my mistake ---you very benignly, and "simply" said I didn't answer your question.
That's all.
You never said I "dodged" it. You never said I "lost all credibility". You never said I instead "answered a question with a question".
I was just "reeling" and imagined all of that.
Right.
Ya know, I just plain old forgot that right-wingers never haul-out the "here's what Mr./Mrs._____ really meant", despite what Mr./Mrs._____ actually said.
My error.
Ah yes, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. That really makes me feel good since I'm a Democrat, you saying we're just doing the same thing the Repubs do, so it's "ok".
It's more like the "if it walks and talks like a duck" argument. As in: if it leaps to the defense of the right-wing Washington Times' misinformation...
I think you made a nice defense of Clinton and I think that if you parse out what was said, you are correct. Bill did not specifically point out Democrats criticizing Hill.
Do you think Dodd and Obama are deliberately fostering this little kerfluffle in order to make political hay or do you think they were implicated by Bill's comment:
Why am I saying this?
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again.
Just curious.
"Do you think Dodd and Obama are deliberately fostering this little kerfluffle in order to make political hay"
Thank you for the question.
I think they are using misinformation -either purposely or unintentionally I do not claim to know- for political advantage.
If deliberately, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a politican has done that.
But my point was: it doesn't matter what Dodd or Obama say.
This site is about media misinformation. And the media is reporting that Clinton criticized her opponents. He didn't. It is simply false to say he did.
It doesn't matter what Chris Dodd says.
If someone wants to offer an opinion that they think Bill Clinton really meant Hillary's opponents, so be it.
But it is simply wrong to report it as fact.
"Washington Times repeated false claim that Bill Clinton criticized Democrats."
Media Matters Gets it Wrong Again - Democrats Obamma and Dodd claim that Bill Clinton criticized Democrats.
Where exactly does Media Matters say Obama and Dodd DIDN'T?
If you'd re-read the item (or, more accurately, actually read it), the complaint is about the Wash. Times saying -falsely- that Clinton criticized opponents.
Media Matters narrow opinion says Bill C. didn't criticise the fellow Dems - and that's what they want this story to convey. They are wrong - he did. The Dem's know it - the media outlets know it. If you need me to explain anything more you need to learn how to listen to a politician and pick to up on Media Matters activism.
None of Clinton's comments were directed at other Democratic candidates.
None. Zero.
If you have a quote in which Clinton takes a shot at a Dem, then supply it. Put your money where your mouth is.
His remarks are clearly targeted at the media and at Republicans.
That is not an "opinion", that is a fact.
Sorry, with the Clintons everything is left open to dozens of different interpretations - just beyond the extended reach of specifics into the valley of vagueness and ambiguity.......it's where they are, so to say it's a "fact" is a stretch indeed.
Yeah, that is true. They are politicians and speak like politicians. That suprises you? If you want to make THAT criticism, it a fair one. To make a definitive claim that they meant whatever is convienient for you is NOT. Which is WHY politicians talk that way.
If you need me to explain anything more you need to learn how to listen to a politician and pick to up on Media Matters activism.
If you have a quote in which Clinton takes a shot at a Dem, then supply it.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Dave, I posted this above, but in case you missed it, Bill said the following:
Why am I saying this?
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again.
It seems to me that a good case can be made that Bill is implicating the fellow Democratic hopefuls to his prior remarks regarding swift boating, Clealand, Gore, etc. Do you disagree?
"Do you disagree? "
I disagree. Strongly.
Because he specifically singles-out attacks that came from Republicans and from the media. Not from Democrats.
The meme from certain Republicans and certain media outlets is that the Clintons are ruthless and vindictive. That doesn't make it right for them to shoe-horn what the Clintons say --as they are doing in this case-- so that it fits that meme.
"Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses." So, we'll then let the Republicans run an ad saying, "All the Democrats are against the rule of law.""
It wasn't Obama or Dodd who asked for this hypothetical hand-raising. It's the moderator that Clinton is referring to, and he specifically talks about Republicans' behavior afterwards.
The full quote does make a difference, I think.
No you cant. Not really had he said the last debate SHOWED him they were getting there you would. Saying AFTER the last debate could mean a dozen different things.
You havent explained anything. You have shown you dont understand the concept very well.
Nowhere does MMFA make the statement that Clinton DID NOT make an attack on Dems. THAT would be making the same false claim in reverse. There is no way to establish either claim so to call it definitively either way would be to make a false claim that is making accusations you cant back up or assuming facts NOT in evidence. This is fairly simple
Doesnt make any difference what they thought or how they thought they could use it. The evidence isnt there to make the claim a factual statement had they said it could be seen as an attack on Dems that would be accurate claiming it WAS an attack on Dems is misinformation. They are assuming facts NOT in evidence. So NO MMFA is NOT wrong you are again. What a shock
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
Of course Bill C. was attacking other candidates and the media for daring to question or even criticize Hillary.
The liberal magazine - The New Republic - has a great current article on the Clinton strategy:
Bunker Hillary by Michael CrowleyClinton's strategy for crushing the media.Post Date Monday, November 12, 2007
--- start quote ----
The defining quality of that machine is, simply, impenetrability. Reporting any story the Clintonites haven't specifically encouraged can be like wading through mud. "Their rule is never to volunteer information--ever," says one reporter who has experienced this. (Process stories are particularly verboten.) Another is a willingness to offer access to Clinton only under strictly controlled circumstances--as when she agreed to appear on the major TV networks the day her candidacy launched on the condition that the interviews be short and unedited, allowing precious little time for unrelated queries. In a testament to the enormous power of Hillary's celebrity, her single greatest point of leverage with the media, no one refused.
---- end quote ----
Now that Hillary's campaign has stumbled pretty badly recently:
1- her inability to answer a simple question with a straight answer during the last debate
2- her stumbling during a campaign stop when she could not manage to explain how a mysterious "tip" somehow fanished
3 -the revelations about how her campaign has made a habit of planting questions
And this last story about planting questions in the audience is only getting started -
November 13, 2007Student given question to ask Clinton: I wasn't only one---- start quote -----
GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) — The college student who says she was told what question to ask at one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events told CNN Monday that she wasn't the only one at the event who was a plant and said "voters have the right to know what really happened."
In an exclusive interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Iowa — whose story in her campus newspaper has now been widely circulated — said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.
----- end quote ------
So it only figues that the defensive and angry Clinton machine is going to go after people who threaten Hillary's campaign.
Bill C.'s remarks (when you look at them closely) are a frightening reminder of the 'take-no-prisoners' approach to politics that the Clinton's engage in. To complain that a perfectly legitimate question and criticism of Hillary is out of bounds is just ugly politics.
And now I'm seeing that the Clintons are already on a strategy to intimidate and scare Wolf Blitzer before the next debate -
--- from the drudge report ----
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Developing.
--------------------------------------------------------
It's only getting started, but already I afraid that our democracy - under the Clintons - might start resembling Pakistan.
Dear Mr. "Truth":
Please link to the specific quote where Bill Clinton specifically directs his "Swift Boating" criticism to the other candidates.
Hey Dave. Just couldn't help noticing how few words it took you to clearly outline the issue, compared with the very lengthy posts trying to cloud it. Funny how it usually works that way.
Although, you did get dragged into expanding below.I'm glad some of you have the time and patience.Tough to come here for a discussion, and have to distinguish between those wanting to join a discussion, and those who only want to test the limits of their denial. Cheers to you.
Thanks. Cheers back.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking
Dave -
Can we be serious for a moment? Good. What Bill C. is telling the other candidates in the Democrat Party is to "shut up" because the "evil" Republicans will use your criticism to "attack" Hillary.
This is the worst form of political intimidation because it says to Edwards or Obama that they should not say ANYTHING against Hillary - legitimate or not.
If a third world dicatator thug made a similar attempt to intimidate the democratic process the world would denounce him.
"What Bill C. is telling the other candidates in the Democrat Party is to "shut up" because the "evil" Republicans will use your criticism to "attack" Hillary."
Supply or link to a quote where Clinton tells other candidates to "shut up" or calls Republicans "evil".
You won't, you can't, because there isn't one.
That's the difference between "truth" and "making s#!t up".
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking:
One thing I learned from watching the "Sopranos" was that you had to learn the 'code'. In other words, when the FBI is recording the conversations of mobsters, they don't expect one of the 'wise guys' to just come out and say, "We went down to Luigi's office and committed first degree murder."
More likely they will use terms such as "Dingo whacked Luigi - only cost a dime."
Likewise, in trying to understand the Clinton family you have to understand the 'code'. And believe me, Edwards, Obama and Wolf Blitzer know that they better be afraid for their political and professional lives.
When asked for facts to back up his ridiculous claims, he references a fictional TV show. >:-) That's about as good as providing links to CBN.
Comparing Bill and Hillary Clinton to "mobsters".
Brushing aside the need to deal in "facts" by somehow reading someone's mind.
Placing words into a person's mouth, and asserting (with apparent seriousness) that they actually really used a secret "code", and didn't really mean what they in fact said.
These are the things that you called ---with a straight face--- "fact-checking".In case you can't read the bottom line of that post:
These are things Mr. "Truth" called ---with a straight face no less--- "fact-checking".
On a positive note, Truthand justice can now add "crime-fighting" to his name, for the invaluable help he's provided to law enforcement with his code-cracking.
Now, when they hear "Dingo whacked Luigi", they won't be completely baffled by the meaning.
Thanks Justytruthy!
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
Nowhere in any of my posts have I ever compared the Clintons to a 'mob' or 'crime family' - that is totally unfair.
I simply made an analogy how one has to understand the 'code' to know what the Clinton's are saying.
And your evidence that this CODE exists somewhere outside your fictional TV show is WHAT? I have to call this for you being deranged.
JT has access to a manual that all candidates use, except when they don't, and then he has to point out that they did'nt. Reference the whole tipping story, JT reveals "All candidates know to carry cash and tip in person". Except Hillary did'nt; conclusion she is an idiot who is not fit to lead.
Now, JT may not have said "she is an idiot who is not fit to lead." but we know that is what he meant in code.
"Nowhere in any of my posts have I ever compared the Clintons to a 'mob' or 'crime family'"
Except for saying mobsters use "code" and "likewise" so do the Clintons, you're absolutely correct, there, Mr. "Truth".
I don't know where we got the idea you compared the two.
Justice AND Truth:
Dave - that last post was so unfair. I'm never ever ever going to compare any legit politician who is serving his nation to a mob crime family.
As an honest and open seeker of truth, I'm simply trying to understand the meaning of Clinton's "code" and I find it is a lot easier to understand when you read a transcript of Bill clinton if you imagine a big, greasy gumba just oozing garlic oil from every pore saying something like:
"Eh, youse guys better just leave Hill alone - if you know what's best for you and your family. Capiche? Youse guys have no friggin idea how bad i'm gonna beat your skulls in for this!"
Now - go read a clinton speech and see how well it all makes sense!
---"As an honest and open seeker of truth..."---
First you claimed you didn't compare the Clintons to mobsters.
Now you're wallowing in the comparisons like a sow in mud.
As an honest and open seeker of truth, you're a fraud.
Code now. So in other words your claim he meant Dems was gleaned by your amazing mind reading powers. Not that he SAID something that was an attack on Dems but that he MEANT, through some code you cant show exists that he was attacking Dems. That was weak even for YOU.
It wasn't that long ago we had Rush defenders screeching about context and the exact words he used. But now, we have to look at the "code" the Clintons are speaking in.
Rush isn't running for political office, what comes out of his mouth is of far less interest to me than a presidential candidate's.
It has nothing to do with your interest. We're talking about interpreting what people say. I don't see how it's wrong to do it for a radio host, but then when we're talking about politicians it's valid to say they're speaking in "code". That's a big step further than anything anyone was doing for Rush.
If you don't care, then don't care. Obviously there were a lot of people who came here to defend Rush who would have howled if someone had said he was speaking in code.
Your problem is that you spend far too much time worrying about rightwing radio hosts "code" words, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous comparison; instead of elected officials, primarily Democrats, who are paid by you to conduct the people's business.
You are a partisan politician's dream, not to mention quite a tool......Congratulations!
Actually the standard for what is a logical argument doesnt change. Except for morons who are the GOP dream demographic.
I can worry about both, actually. And I never said anyone was speaking in code here. It's a double standard, whether you care about one part of it or not.
What's with all the personal attacks? I don't see what I'm doing to make you fly off the handle so much lately.
You're right, you didn't deserve the snarky reply at the end of my post, I apologize. I'm sorry, it was uncalled for.
Your point is noted.
I appreciate that, thank you.
Sometimes I am oblivious as to how condescending my posts come across until I go back and reread them, thank you for being honest and pointing it out, without sinking to my level.....I deserved to be called out for it, I appreciate the straigthening out. That kind of nastiness I exhibited does nothing to further anything.
Thanks for accepting my apology.....
Just to clarify, sometimes people do speak in code, but since it comes so close to mind-reading one has to make a solid case based on context and/or a pattern of similar remarks.
Tommy and Brabantio, that was so sweet my teeth are hurting. Luckily, there's some Solon action below to save me. ;0)
Since you are too stupid to even know the NAME of the largest political party in America there is no reason to take anything you post seriously.
Yeah Smearsliesandstupidity, You show once again why you simpleminded morons resemble the Borg Hivemind. Lots of repitition of stupid talking points and very little actual talking about the subject.
President Bill Clinton who had this to say yesterday about his wife’s (all-male) presidential rivals: “Those boys have been getting tough on her lately.”
I read THAT as all the boys, BOTH Democrats & Republicans!
If "getting tough on her" = Swiftboat smear chock full of falsehoods about Hillary.
Pssst.. Jeter... there's no "swift boat" there.
Pssst.. Beach
Clinton is criticizing her Democratic opponents. As well as her Republican opponents.
Read MMFA's HEADLINE.
Of course he is. She and her husband are now playing the gender card to diffuse any poll slippage and/or an Obama uprising. If Barack hopes to get his party's nomination, he'd better learn how to combat the Clinton machine and fast........they will not sit by quietly.
"Obama uprising"
Tommy, I don't know if you coined that yourself, but if I were you, I'd copyright it immediately. On the off chance that Obama gets the nom., it could be a useful catch phrase in certain parts of the country.
Psst...Jeter
Read the WaTimes ARTICLE:
Mr. Clinton drew fire on both sides of the political aisle when he compared sharp criticism of his wife by her opponents at a recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia to the "swift-boating" attacks leveled by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry
Exactly. Her DEMOCRATIC opponents.
Therfore he thinks they [the Dems] are swiftboating her!
Which brings us right back to the same wacky math given to us by the WaTimes:
"getting tough on her" = Swiftboat style smear chock full of falsehoods about Hillary.
Come on Pete, read between the lines.
Clinton is blasting both sides, even if he doesn't come right out & say it. Even her Democratic opponents figured that out.
Hillary better put a muzzle on this guy, if she hopes to win the nomination!
WHAT LINES????
There's ONE LINE:
"those boys have been getting kind of tough on her"
And...
In their article, the NYT actually bothered to get the Clinton campaigns take on what Bill said about the debate:
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said Mr. Clinton had not been referring to Democratic candidates’ criticisms of his wife but to Republicans’ criticism of her debate performance.
“Senator Obama is well aware that the former president was saying that the Republicans will do anything to play politics with a serious issue,” Mr. Carson said.
There is no accusation of swiftboating by Clinton directed at the Dems.
Pete,
Sorry I wasn't more specific--when I wrote "read between the lines" I meant the culmination of everything Bill has been spouting lately about everyone picking on poor little Hillary.
His use of "swiftboating" wasn't even applicable here. No one has "swiftboated" her. They've simply pointed out that the lady tends to dance around her answers.
That Bill attacked the Right when it was Hillary's DEMOCRATIC opponents "piling on" shows how disingenuous this couple really is.
Jeter,
For many on the left, swiftboating is used as a shield by Democrats whenever one of their vague answers is questioned and clarification is asked for.
For that is out of bounds as the topic is far tooooo complicated to be specific, so to straddle an issue is the new mantra for 2008 Democrats to avoid being pinned down on those inconvenient details, darnit!
For many on the left, swiftboating is used as a shield by Democrats whenever one of their vague answers is questioned and clarification is asked for.
Bingo Tommy! You called that exactly correct!
Let them call Swiftboating every time anyone questions Hillary about some vague answer...after awhile folks will catch on it's like Crying Wolf.
Bill Clinton even bringing up swiftboating in this instance was a joke. The guy is really off his game.
Me thinks he so desperately wants back in the White House that he's losing his cool.
I hope he sinks her campaign.
Do you have some examples?
Bill compared the swiftboat ads used against John Kerry to the recent criticism of his wife - for dodging a question about illegal immigrats getting drivers licenses. And then proceeded to say how unfair it was because the issue is to complicated for a straight answer.
There's example #1 in a long campaign to come. The Clintons are just slick enough to take the swiftboat term and use it, as I said, as a shield against any and all criticism. Let's hope the voters don't fall for it. A few of us here haven't.
You have one example, which I think is questionable, yet you appear to have made a pretty sweeping generalization about what many on the left use swifboating for.
Don't you think your being a little dramatic?
It's early yet, wait until the Clintons get cornered or seriously challenged. Dramatic? No......Realistic, Yes.
Don't be so naive.
Ha ha good one Lefty... Yes I know, the funny part is making Tommy sweeping accusation against democrats and liberals about being vague and too general. Don't try to pin them down for a specifics or many of them are going to give the "swift boat" defense. What's Tommy's defense for doing the exact same thing? Instead of admitting that he overstated this issue and was being general with his sweeping accusation (only one example) he has to engage his fortune reading powers and accuse me of being naive. No worries, it's all good. I will happily take naive over being cynical, hypocritical, stubborn and a drama queen anytime.
One doesn't need to be a fortune teller, or even a drama queen, to look at history and know how the Clintons conduct political campaigns.
If they have figured out how to use swiftboat to their advantage in an attempt to disarm their opponent, by all means they will do so.
will they use robots to help them, Tommy? What do the 2009 Chevy trucks look like? ;0)
"One doesn't need to be a fortune teller, or even a drama queen, to look at history and know how the Clintons conduct political campaigns. "
Tommy ---> if taking a walk down memory lane gives you insight into how the Clinton's have run their previous campaigns then you should be able to come up with multiple examples to prop up your original argument. If not then I would ask you why do you continue to defend your original premise?
Maybe your too willing to attach sinister motives to all things Clinton?
Did you get that, MHK? "Swifboating" is used by many on the left as a shield. Examples? They're in the future, where time machine Tommy has apparently traveled to warn us of these things. Har.
It really looks like BRABANTIO clearly put this to bed earlier in this thread by pointing out to all that the entire quote was not given. The "cutesy land" statement that everyone thinks was a veiled jab at the Democratic candidates was obviously aimed at the moderator. Clinton didn't attack the Democratic candidates. It is pure speculaltion based on what has turned out to be a quote taken out of the full context of the statement. Non-issue all the way.
For that is out of bounds as the topic is far tooooo complicated to be specific, so to straddle an issue is the new mantra for 2008 Democrats to avoid being pinned down on those inconvenient details, darnit!
Tommy which issues are you refering to? Immigration, the war?
In this specific case, illegal immigration.
NO ONE has swiftboated her? Baloney you are WRONG she has been swiftboated. Didnt I read about Hannity bringing up Vince Foster's 'murder' when talking about Hillary? What has Limbuagh been saying? If you meant that none of the CANDIDATES have swiftboated her then I would agree. Now if you look closely at what I just did its really the same thing YOU are doing. That is taking MY interpretation and just ASSERTING it is what you MEANT. You could just as easily have meant the candidates when you said nobody but if you say you did I will DENY that and just SAY you obviously meant NOBODY ON THE PLANET. It is a fun game but not an honest one
And your EVIDENCE this is true. I mean beyond WISHING IT WERE SO? That would be WHAT? Oh you dont have any. No more than the Moonie Times does.
When you're finished with the headline, read the first paragraph. If you're not too tired. ;0)
Beach, I read it first time around.
Now read my post to Pete [above]
Clinton's Democratic opponents read between the lines, give it a try yourself.
Bill Clinton is gonna be Hill's undoing. I find that kinda funny ;-)
OK, I see your point, Jeter. The headline itself doesn't specify "swift-boating", and BC does seem to say that Dem opponents aren't pulling punches with HC.
I guess different interpretations of this item could be affected by ones opinion of the original Swift boaters, i.e., "tough opponents" or " discredited patsys".
Beach, I agree with you that it probably isn't to the level of "swift-boating."
Beach, I just don't see where anyone has "swiftboated" Hillary. This is Bill's pre-emptive attack I suppose. But in reality, it's her Democratic opponents that have been "piling on". Actually, all they've really done is challenge her to stop talking out of both sides of her mouth.
If Bill & Hill are getting in a tizzy over this--wait till the general election...IF she gets that far.
I pray she doesn't!
I for one am sick of the Clintons.
Thanks for the memories Bill, you were a good Prez, but we don't want your other half. She ain't your better half ;-)
Jeter, you are not allowed to ever speak ill toward Hillary on this site, you will now be targeted by the partisan posters on here. Shame on you!
Bring it on ;-)
Yeah Sue, I know some here will have a nervous breakdown & come at me claws out.
Let them. Stressing like that only hurts them...I'm just sitting here laughing :-)
Actually I've seen many liberals say that they don't want Hillary to win the nomination. Haven't you?
Stop it, Brabantio! You're disagreeing with the little fantasy they have going! I'm just going to sit back and let Tommy, Jeter ans Sueeld tell us what life's all about. ;0)
On the other hand Sue is ALLOWED to come in here and make absolutly STUPID statements. I dont like Hillary and have said so many times. I agreed with several of Sundogs posts attacking her HONESTLY. You may not be a rightwinger but you sure seem to share the same simplistic Manichean thinking they personify
And Solon you come on here and are allowed to attack and spew hate toward other posters. We all have our specialties.
Hate? You made a snarky broad statement that was just dumb. Ok, if you say so I guess my speciality is hate and yours is stupidity
No Jeter. All the boys cannot mean ALL BOYS ON PLANET EARTH. Since it doesnt it is a subset of those boys all being a colloquilism. Therefore it is open to interpretation which subset he meant and making any claim on WHICH subset that is without evidence, the sort that exists ONLY for republican attacks, that is mentioning swift boating and Cleland is assuming facts not in evidence. Since it cannot be SHOWN this is true it shouldnt be decisively STATED that it is true
ABC News also had a story last week on how Obama was stunned Clinton would use the "Swiftboat" comparison. Obama really is a good man.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=3827184
I wonder if the media will cover the Hillary Planted question issue also, Newsday did , will others? Edwards said this
John Edwards said the Clinton campaign's use of a planted question was deceptively inconsistent with a free democracy, and likened the practice to past campaign appearances by President George W. Bush, from which protesters have been barred."That's what George Bush does, George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they are only allowed to answer questions if they are favorable to George Bush," Edwards said. "That's not the way democracy works in Iowa and that's not the way democracy works in our country.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill1111,0,7025279.story?track=rss
"I wonder if the media will cover the Hillary Planted question issue" Sueeld
Sue, It's been all over the media for the past few days, at least I've seen many reports on it. Unlike the many phony news reports, press conferences and photo-ops of the Bush admn., which I usually had to dig to find.
That's just my P.O.V.,Please don't make me Worst Person in the World. ;0)
About the planting of questions.If the MSM would ask better questions instead of trying to trip up canidates they wouldn't have to bring questions with them to the debates.I will have to say the MSM messed this one up.
Planting questions is something most campaigns do if not all of them. Hillary was sloppy for getting caught. I think its dishonest and cheap, but its not something only Hillarys campaign ever thought of
Summary of Bill Clinton's criticisms and who they were directed at [in bold]. Just marvel at how Bill beat-up on Hillary's opponents:
"When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President [Al] Gore was too stiff."
Media
"When they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life."
Media
"When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator [John] Kerry."
Republicans.
"When there was an ad that defeated [former Sen.] Max Cleland [D] in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam."
Republicans.
"A guy that had several deferments ran an ad with Max Cleland's picture with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."
Republicans.
"We were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses."
Media.
Just get a load of all that criticism of Dodd and Obama by Bill Clinton.
forgive my repeated posts, but I do believe the quote: "We were about to get into cutesy land again. misses the important part where Bill is referencing rival Democrat Presidential contenders.
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again.Please post a quote where he refers to the other candidates with that remark about "cutesy".
Bill Clinton specifically referred to the driver's license & immigration question that the moderator, Tim Russert, posed.
That remark was clearly directed at the media----not at other candidates.
Unless you have some kind of quote from his speech, it is completely false to say, in effect, 'he really meant so-and-so despite what he actually said'.
Actually, I didn't mean it's "false" to say that. If that's your opinion, then whatever...
But to state it as if it were a fact is just plain wrong.
AA, I think you're reading that as a comment on the content of the debate (..which stopped ...at the end of it...), where I read it as referring to the aftermath (media reaction...at the end of it..) to the debate.Guess we'd have to ask Bill to settle it!
HBL and Dave,
That is genius of Bill. You have to decide what the meaning of "is" is. He always leaves wiggle room.
For what it is worth, I think this has been a good discussion everyone!
Maybe genius, maybe just the typical "open to interpretation" nature of public statements made by anyone.You seem to naturally assume a "calculated" motive when it's one of the Clintons speaking, though.
Not to imply, based on what I know of you from this site, that you have any strong feelings for the Clintons. ;0)
Now THAT is true. It is called being a politician and Bill is a master. THAT is a valid criticism. It is when you take YOUR interpretation of what he said and say that THIS is what he meant that you slip into that amazing mind reading powers area again.
Fair enough to point out my political dislike of the Clintons. I don't think I've ever made it a secret.
I guess I'm as guilty as the next as to interpreting what Bill actually means by what he says. I feel his ending 'cutesy' statement was unambiguous and referring to everyone at the debate.
Obviously if others have their own bias, and interpretation they'll come to different conclusions. It is a good point to bring up even though I do believe many of us take it for granted.
"I feel his ending 'cutesy' statement was unambiguous and referring to everyone at the debate."
Unambiguous? Now that's definitely pushing it. If you actually read the entire passage, he immediately afterwards referred to the moderator's actions. If you want to look at it out of context, then one might be able to interpret it the way you seem determined to.
And your evidence that meant because of what DEMS said instead of the questions from the moderator or the issues that seemed easy to demogogue or many other things it COULD have been other than what you WANT it to have been?
Another interesting quote from Bill Clintons visit to SC yesterday
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_po/bill_clinton_2
Former President Clinton said Monday his wife can handle the criticism from her presidential rivals even though "those boys have been getting tough on her lately."
So?
They have been getting tough on her, and he knows that this is the way campaigns are, tough. He didn't say they shouldn't, and he didn't criticize them for doing so (in the link that you provided).
And in the speech that the WaTimes was talking about, again, he never mentioned anything about Hillary's democratic challengers.
but yet the Clintons never are critical of Democrats ever even when they get tough on them?
Not the ClintonS. She is in the race, she is free to get as tough with any of them she wants. Actually so is Bill if he thinks its a good idea however there isnt any evidence as yet he HAS.
hmm. Most of Bill's comments had to do with stereotypes manufactured by the press and by the Republicans. I do wish this COULD be the subject here. There is an insane obsession with trivia; and not all of it even true.
Both Clintons are very good with words. Bill was careful not to take any shots at his fellow Dems, but it wouldn't be a big surprise that his intention might be to include anyone criticising his wife. It's a political campaign, duh.
However, he ended his speech with this: "But, more than that, I came here to tell you today: Don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you and to your children -- and to the future of America.
Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them. Thank you. "
Hi Mary,
Nice post.
Any idea who Clinton is referring to at the end of the quote when he says "them"?
Maybe it's one of those meaningless wrap up statements that don't mean anything except to provoke an emotional response. I just don't understand who are the "them" Bill thinks is trying to take the election away from us and our children. *snicker*
"Them" refers to the specific examples Bill Clinton gave in his speech.
The Swift Boat ads, the Cleland ad, the stupid 'raise your hand' questions. Etc.
ALL of those as well as the other examples Clinton cited came from Republicans and the media ----not from the other Democratic candidates.
Dave,
If that is the case, then Bill tossed out the classic straw man argument. (Or in this case, the straw men) :-) Obviously the swifties advertisements nor the Cleland advertisements are a part of this campaign. Nobody is claiming foul except good ol Bill.
The Clintons are then trying to connect these straw men with legitimate criticisms from both Democrats and Republicans and media by playing the victims again and using this victim status to deflect the obvious Hillary waffling and obfuscations regarding the granting of licenses to illegals in NY.
Like I said earlier, Bill's a genius. However in this case, rather than hit one out of the park, he simply was caught at the warning track. :-)
"Or in this case, the straw men) :-) Obviously the swifties advertisements nor the Cleland advertisements are a part of this campaign."
He said, paraphrasing, 'don't let this happen again in our current campaign. Don't let the media do what they did to Gore. Don't let the Republicans do what they did to Cleland.
These are all very explicit references to the past in order to warn people what they should guard against in 2008.
Look: if your opinion about the Clintons is such that you see them as conniving people --and I suspect it is-- then nothing is going to change your mind about this issue, and it's pointless to discuss it any further with you.
Dave,
I think you are simply begging off on the straw man argument.
Of course Bill is referencing old news and spinning it his way. That is obvious. Again, he is drawing on that imagery in order to cast Hillary as being victimized by unfair smears when she simply got caught trying to evade a pretty straightforward question.
It is so obvious that it struck Obama and Dodd enough to comment on it. I'm afraid Bill's and Hill's days of not being granted a free pass are over.
Bill's use of the 'I'm a victim - get out of trouble' card came out way to early in the game. I think it got trumped by Obama and Dodd.
It really doesn't strike me as persuasive that politicians are taking advantage of ambiguity. I find it remarkable that the people who are always talking about how dishonest politicians are (Dems in particular) would use the comments of Democratic politicians to prove the meaning their rival camp's statements.
In case you hadn't noticed, they're all competing for the same job.
----"... he is drawing on that imagery in order to cast Hillary as being victimized by unfair smears..."---.
Bill Clinton warned us that the "raise your hand" question from Russert is a bad omen. And I agree. It IS. " I don't see in his speech where he said anything about "smears against Hillary, or that she was a "victim". That is plainly and clearly YOUR very own "spin"--spinning things the way YOU want them to be due to your built-in obvious dislike of the both of them.
It doesn't matter what Dodd and Obama say. They are politicians and they will instinctively spin things to their advantage.
But the fact is that Bill Clinton did not mention anything about any of the current candidates in his critique. All his complaints were aimed at Republicans and at the media, and most of the incidents he cites were in the past.
It is important to learn from that past, and try to prevent similar trivialities from distracting voters again this time.
If you think issues like clapping, laughter, haircuts, somebody's middle name, wardrobes, and sighing are The Most Important Issues, then you can be merrily complacent and yuk it up all the way thru this election cycle.
Dave,
As a side note, I find your critique of the "show of hands" rather ironic. After all, isn't Clinton in the Senate where in many cases she votes by either a yea or nay?
All policy questions can be simplified down to either a yes or no. Politicians object to doing so because they are, like Hillary on this issue, trying to hide their positions in order to mislead voters one way or another.
Except that bills have all of the details hammered out, whereas a simple yes/no question does no such thing. Voting on a specific set of actions is not the same as a simple answer to a question that may not be so simple.
Exactly, and I'm not sure why it has to be pointed out that, in the Senate, the issues and all their nuances are discussed in great detail before the final "show of hands" is taken.
Granted, there is voting all over the place before a bill even gets to the floor. But I don't think it necessarily means one can't answer a straightforward question.
Hillary had the chance to say Yea or Nay regarding this issue and then provide her reasoning and/or qualifications for her position.
To argue that the issue is too complex when most people can see that it isn't, only makes people realize that Hillary was reluctant to state her true position. I'll grant you that she is not the only politician who does this. However she simply wasn't savvy enough to dance around this one.
If she has an opportunity to explain her answer, then fine. From the "Yea/Nay" vote of the Senate you were talking about, that wasn't the scenario. Issues can not always be boiled down to straightforward questions and simple answers, whether that's the case for the driver's license question or not.
Brab,
We simply disagree.
Would you like to see illegals be given driver's licenses? Yes or no?
If you ask me, I say no. See? Not hard at all.
Ask any Republican candidate and they'll tell you the same in about as many words.
Your view isn't the same as hers though. You can ask RinoHunter if he's "for abortion". You'll get a simple answer. For me, it's more complicated than that. With the framing of the question, it's not a matter of a simple yes or no.
On this specific instance, it may or may not be valid criticism. I'm not saying she wasn't dancing around the question. What I'm saying is that not every question and answer can be simple and straightforward.
"Ask any Republican candidate and they'll tell you the same in about as many words. "
Here's a test:
Ask a Republican candidate whether they approve of torture ---yes or no. And then get back to me about how many words are in their replies.
With the probable exception of Ron Paul, you'll likely get more nuance, ands, buts, ifs, and maybes then you can keep track of.
Dave,
I think without a doubt, everyone would say they are against torture. I'd like to see the question brought up in a debate with a show of hands. :-)
Obviously you disagree.
"To argue that the issue [immigration and drivers licenses] is too complex when most people can see that it isn't"
How do you presume to speak for "most people"?
The issue is not black-and-white, and deserves more than a dumbed-down, yes-or-no answer.
The audience of voters is deserving of more than a simplistic response.
I don't agree that it is a dumbed down question. Granted, it is a very simple, uncomplicated, and easy question and requires only a one word answer. If someone wants to qualify their yea or nay, I have no problem with them doing so. I only prefer that they answer the question and then bloviate. :-)
My use of the term "most people" comes from the knowledge that it was a simple question that most people understand has a yes or no answer. To say "most people" think it is too complex, when it is very simple, seems counter-intuitive to me.
The hidden elephant in the room is that Hillary doesn't want to answer it because she knows most people don't want the driver's license given to illegal aliens and yet she is obviously for it.
If she were against it, she would have said so.
AA, I'm not sure if your examples fit into the strawman model, but I guess that's subjective.
Interesting point about policy questions being boiled down to "yea" or "nay". That is how our reps. vote, but this is based on items in black and white, all of the pros and cons (hopefully)considered,and even then there are objections and votes held up for concessions and changes.
A verbal demand for a yes or no based on another politicians policy, one that the person being questioned may not be entirely familiar with, is a little different animal.
HBL,
I agree with you that a politician has to finally go on the record with their vote.
However, it should be pretty clear that a Senator from NY would be knowledgeable about a proposal put forth by the Governor regarding such a charged issue as this. I can't imagine that Hillary would not have been right on top of such a local issue.
As a Senator who has argued for amnesty on the federal level, we all know she knew about the proposal and the issues involved. From my vantage point, pleading ignorance would be worse than obfuscating.
"Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them. Thank you. "
Any idea who Clinton is referring to at the end of the quote when he says "them"? Maybe it's one of those meaningless wrap up statements that don't mean anything except to provoke an emotional response. I just don't understand who are the "them" Bill thinks is trying to take the election away from us and our children. *snicker* AA
IMO, he means our best days are ahead IF we choose to grab them. If WE want change, WE have to go out and fight for them. Not against fellow Dems but against our pathetic excuse for media, against the Republican disaster that has ruled OUR country over the last 6 years. In competitive sports, coaches and trainers will sometimes tell their players “you want the title, claim it”. It means it’s your for the taking, but you and have to go out, work hard, keep your eye on the prize and get it. Kind of like he did in 1992 as a little known Governor from Ark., who took over the field of Democratic candidates and won the Presidential election, not once but twice.
Not quite sure what the *snicker* is for but IMO we as a nation are on the edge of a cliff and IF we don’t make changes the “future does not look bright”, IMO.
Pearlene,
I think you missed the gist of my question. However you'd made a nice locker room speech and I have no problems with going out and fighting for what you believe. :-)
The "them" isn't anybody. It is a speechmakers trick in order to have somebody who supposedly wronged the Clinton's and by implication is now going to hurt you, your children, and your future if you don't go out and defeat "them".
the nice part is Bill doesn't have to define who "them" really are. It is simply a battle cry to whip up emotional responses similar to yours. He was simply trying to turn his 'poor Hillary is getting picked on' speech into a rallying cry.
The *snicker* was the gratuitous inclusion of "your children" at the end.
Don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you and to your children -
It is only my personal reaction, but I find comments like these to be laughable. It doesn't even make sense.
Yes it's very laughable, isn't it, that the media's fixation on Gore's stiffness or his wardrobe in 2000, for example, helped to give us eight years of George Bush.
Dave,
I remember Gore going 'earth tone' but I don't recall that being hailed as the reason for his defeat. I thought Bush was given a much harder time due to his inarticulate nature than Gore's stiffness. Heck, I even remember Gore doing the Macarena.. badly and for laughs.
If you think voters rejected Gore based on his wardrobe, so be it.
"I don't recall that being hailed as the reason for his defeat"
But I didn't say it was "the" reason. I said the media's fixation on Gore's wardrobe and stiffness "helped" elect Bush. It is one of many reasons we've had George Bush the past seven years.
Clinton is warning us to learn from this history and not let another media fixation on the trivial or Republican smear ads happen again.
There's nothing "laughable" (your word) about the desire this time for a serious debate about issues, rather than a preoccupation over clapping, laughs, somebody's middle name, or their haircut.
We have no disagreement with regards to what should be the basis for the election.
However I think we probably all have our own moments of schadenfreude when opposition candidates slip up.
HA Ah Bill Clinton will be the undoing of Hiliary. This isn't GW talking here,Bill could sell Horse manure to Tommy and have him believe it's a Facial mud pack.Don't let what Bill says think it will bring down Hiliary.He is just to Good.
What the..
I think we can sum up the Times article and the wingnut complaints here as "cherry picking". Clinton mentioned several other trivial media and wingnut obsessions, and yet all wingnuts dutifully, per wingnut talking points, honed in ONLY on the swiftboating comment. Gotta say one thing about wingnuts, when they are on point they are on point !
By far the most reasonable interp of this situation so far. By far.
Despite what some of our conservative leaning posters would have us believe, the real point of this thread is a message to true independents and liberals to not fall for the spin machine. We've seen more than one election where a liberal candidate didn't win because the spin machine took one of their strong points and painted it as a weakness. Say what you will about them, republicans are excellent at building their own characters, ie George Dubbya the cowboy from Connecticut, and assassinating characters, ie Al Gore created the internet.
August, my favorite thing coming from the Right at this time is their inability to decide whether they want Hillary to be the candidate or not. They say they do, but I think signs point to reason that they really dont: Hillary fares the best against any Repub in the national polls, she has the most $$, and they are clearly helping drum up supposed discord among the Dem candidates.
On another note, I like how there are more articles about the Republicans "moving right" in order to recapture the base and (this is logical?) in turn recapture the majority. Riiiight, that's EXACTLY the way to ensure you get back the independents.
Each time HC gets in trouble and needs Bill to bail her out, it simply once again shows everyone she is not ready fro prime time.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking -
As usual, the left continues to smear the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth -
I have not done this before, but I am really asking people to go to their web site and see for themselves what kind of courageous and patriotic individuals are part of the group:
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, drug addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.
The time has come to set the record straight. These guys are my personal heroes!To me, they're scum.
Justice and Truth in the USA -
Those "scum" (as you call them) are the brave men who put their lives on the line so that you can enjoy all the freedoms you take for granted.
Honestly, when it comes to truly brave veterans I hope to never see another reference like that to our courageous soldiers.
Except for the ones that smear a brave soldier like Kerry. No one in Vietnam was fighting for anyone in America's freedom. I hope we never see another concerted smear of a war hero like Kerry
"Honestly, when it comes to truly brave veterans I hope to never see another reference like that to our courageous soldiers."
Do you?
Well they're scum.
They are brave, courageous veterans. It goes without saying that I didn't think they were scum until they smeared and slimed --strictly for political gain and/or vengeance-- another brave and courageous veteran, John Kerry.
It's even worse now that these veterans "for truth" have been exposed as political tools and their charges and accounts debunked.
They clearly resented Kerry's opposition to the war and still do, and saw their "Swift Boating" as a vehicle for Kerry to get his comeuppance.
And in the interest of full disclosure: I don't know who you are or what your background is. But I am speaking as a Vietnam vet who put his life on the line there. It takes a lot for me to call fellow vets "scum". But the SBVT crew deserves it.
"The time has come to set the record straight. These guys are my pesonal heroes!"
And did we ever question that they were your personal heroes? Still, thanks for having the courage to admit that people who lie for money are your heroes. That could be the first step to your recovery.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
TruthyJusty, at this point in time you're a sad, sad person.
justicetruthus, what years were you in Vietnam?
I have not had a chance to go there yet. Do they have nice sandy beaches?
My wife really loves to bathe in the sun.
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, drug addicts, and baby killers.
FACT CHECK! NOW YOU ARE DENYING YOUR EARLIER CLAIM OF BEING A VET?
I have to call this one for all that is decent in the world, and against TruthyJusty for smearing our troops the day after Veteran's Day.
Really? I thought rubber blow up dolls faded in the Sun.
Us "libs" prefer water.
That one took me a second, Dave. Har. I guess his wife has seen The Wizard of Oz.
The record IS clear the Swift Boat Liars for Rent smeared Kerry. Many of them might be war heroes, like Kerry was, that doesnt give them a free pass for their smears and lies anymore than in the opinion of the right it gives Kerry a pass for publicly turning against the war. The RECORD is clear and it isnt on the side of the Swifties. I have to call this one on the side of Truth, Justice, and Kerry.
Rude Justus, take a field trip to your local Vetrans Hospital. Tell us how wonderful their treatment is. How worthwhile their sacrifice.
I'm another Nam vet, I got no problem with Kerry's turn against the war. I don't see that we've learned anything about useless fights in the time sense then.